Comments on Bais Avraham: Faith and Exegesis, Dogma and Dialogue

I find it interesting that subtle wordings in yidd...

2008-07-24T04:44:00.000-04:00

I find it interesting that subtle wordings in yiddishkeit often delineate the difference between what is acceptable and what is issur - even when translated in English, a full step away from Leshon haKodesh, with no English definition representing the true meaning or intent of scripture or our Sages.

In example, I have often heard the explanation that Judaism deters belief in reincarnation, a term relegated to pagan faiths. A breath later, a discussion of the Jewish concept of "transmigration of souls" is explained without issue. And yes, I do understand the difference, though a clear explanation in casual conversation can be challenging.

Much in the same way, Judaism accepts that at every instant, all of creation is recreated anew. This continual recreation affects of all reality, as we know it. We also know that HaShem remains present in His creation, as He continuously, actively recreates the world - a process translated literally as "recreation to sound health" - essentially maintaining a state of homeostasis.

According to Miriam-Webster's, "homeostasis" is a relatively stable state of equilibrium, a tendency toward such a state, or the process of working toward it. This process of "working out or developing through gradual change" may also, interestingly enough, be defined as "evolution."

Reb Ephraim

I am merely proposing a fear as to the direction i...

2008-07-23T15:49:00.000-04:00

I am merely proposing a fear as to the direction in which hashkofa (or rather our use and relation to it) is going. Yiddishkeit has halacha which is a sine qua non. However, you only need see the Rambam, the Kuzari, Derech HaShem, the Sifrei Kabbala, etc. etc. to see that Hashkofic discourse has always been much more plastic than halachic discourse.

as for sources, simply compare my citations of the Rambam in the post with the recent Slifkin affair. Slifkin's books advocate positions that are, to be sure, not widely held. However, these positions are not alien; Rather R' Slifkin is offering very old solutions from Rishonim and Midrashim to modern questions of Science and Religion. Yet, to label them heretical and attack him personally as a kofer is evidence that something is happening to our Hashkofa.

Again, to clarify, I don't necessarily agree with what is in the slifkin books - my issue is with the reaction to them.

You have raised a serious issue of Yiddische hashk...

2008-07-23T15:40:00.000-04:00

You have raised a serious issue of Yiddische hashkafa and therefore it behooves you to justify it with sources so that it can considered properly.

As a follow-up - Your implication that Rav Kook co...

2008-07-23T15:38:00.000-04:00

As a follow-up -

Your implication that Rav Kook considered evolution apikoros is not on the mark. If you check his full writings, you will see that he states is is acceptable. The writing you reference was in the style of "according to those who say it is apikorus."

For a full picture, see Igros Ra'aya 91 and vol. I, pp. 105-7, Rav Kooks letters in Oros haKodesh pp. 559&565. R' Kook does caution in these letters that we should not necessarily accept these theories as fact because "they may come to be laughed at in 100 years."

Joshua Just for clarity's sake - Please understand...

2008-07-23T15:18:00.000-04:00

Joshua

Just for clarity's sake - Please understand that the issue I describe in the post is not relative to whether or not evolution, or alternate theories of the universe are acceptable or mainstream. The issue that troubles me is that, over the past 6 to 8 years, the Chareidi community (of which I am a staunch defender) has become much quicker to toss about the terms heresy, kefira, and apikoros. I am afraid that we are undergoing a shift from hashkofa to dogma.

Now - regarding evolution- you are correct that Rav Kook appears to have written more positively about the issue than anyone else. At best, most other thinkers have avoided encouraging the integration of evolutionary theory into hashkofa, stating only that it poses no threat or contradiction to hashkofa. See R' Shimshon Rafoel Hirsch, Collected Writings VII, pp. 263-264.

Those who take the strongest views against evolution argue from Rosh ha-Shanna 11a, which states that the creation was a complete, mature creation.

However, see Torah Sheleyma Bereishis 738 who points out that a simple understanding of this Gemora is difficult because it is in contradiction with several midrashim. He also points out that not all rishonim understood this gemora in its literal sense.

Rav Henkin in Chiba Yeseyra, Bereishis 1:26 (Bnai haBanim vol.II) explains that, to resolve these contradictions, we must assume that the gemora is speaking about the end of Creation on the 6th day. During the period of creation, though, it is possible that creatures evolved and shifted.

Also to clarify, I personally hold the much more conservative stance on evolution and Torah - meaning that I am not into the explanations of Rav Kook or Rav Hirsch (although I admit that they are brilliant answers to the question). I don't see how it is possible, though, to label those who take the more liberal view as kofrim or heretics.

You mention that (allegedly) in the last six years...

2008-07-23T12:42:00.000-04:00

You mention that (allegedly) in the last six years "gedolim" have started to have a "troubling perspective" that excludes such things as evolution. Are there any gedolim that, at any point, have espoused evolution? (Yes, I am aware of Rabbi Kook's single comment about learning from evolution, often pointed to by laymen and non-halachic authorities on R. Kook, but this was in the context of R. Kook's idea of "learning from apikorsut" which implies that he thought evolution was apikorsut.)