The Rationalist's Guide To Judaism

what about saul and the witch in navi

His point is to equate the first with the rest.

WARNING: You continue this conversation and the thread gets closed.

“Abraham Surviving The Oven”

“Mount Sinai Covering The Jews”

These aren’t in the Torah but in aggadata, and there is no chiyuv to believe their literal truth (or the literal truth of any particular aggadata).

I wish I was secure enough about my Cheilek in Olam Haba to be able to do something like mock the Rambam’s views on the existence of sorcery in a public forum.

charlie, although this should be a discussion all of its own, I’ll say this here: That many Aggados are not to be taken for their literal, translated meaning is indisputable. However, we must draw from the context to discern if it was indeed meant to be taken as a physical story. Many times, the Aggada is relating an actual story, while some details are conveying something other than its basic meaning. To say a blanketing, Aggada isn’t to be taken for its literal meaning, is in many instances a dismissive statement used as an excuse.

The fact that you would apply it to more places than I would cannot be held against you, but I can say that I disagree. The Medrash about Avraham is clearly being said as a fact, a Nisayon, a danger and a Ness. On the other hand, the Medrash about Kafa Aleihem Har Kegigis (holding the mountain over their head) does have the sound of meaning more than an uprooted mountain suspended in the air.

You actualy did not make it clear if you do indeed take the above mentioned Medrashim literaly or not. I understand that you were trying to make a certain point — a point that you mention often. I am addressing that point. Again, not to argue with your premise, in general, but to say that you are supposed to read into it to see when it is meant to be taken literaly.

An example, is when you applied this to a Gemara that condemed some behavior as Chayav Misa (if I remember correctly). That is not a story, where you can say that Chazal were giving you an emotional picture of what in essence took place. They are telling you how they look at something, and how bad it is. Even if you won’t take the Misa part so literally, but you do understand that it is actually that bad. (and so on)

i believe that the Ur Casdim inyan we are told is literal. the har c’gigis may not be.

im not certain about this

After pogroms, inquisitions, holocausts, and massacres too numerous to count…

The Jewish People still surviving in 5771 and even having their own “state” (such as it is) is extremely irrational.

And yet… it HAS happened!

as we all know: “appearances can be deceiving” 😉

Add to Charliehall’s list R’ Hai Gaon and R’ Shreira Gaon in Otzar HaGeonim Chagigah pp. 59-60.

One can find the Rambam’s words on this in Perek Chelek, but he most poignantly expresses his view in Teshuvos HaRambam (Jerusalem: Mekize Nirdamim, 1989) p. 739, where he writes: “We do not pose difficulties in the Aggadah. Are they words of Tradition or expressions of reason? Rather each individual considers their explanation as it seems fit to him. In this [Aggadah]

The Ramban openly expresses this view in his vikuach which can be found in the Chavel Kisvei HaRamban, Vol. 1, p. 308. See R’ Chavel’s note on the bottom.

There are more sources, but it is quite clear that at least in the times of the geonim and the rishonim it was not considered kefirah to believe that aggados are not meant to be taken literally or even to deny things which are found within them.

The Rambam, the Chovos HaLevavos, and many, many others proved intellectually that a Higher Power created the world, and that He gave us the Torah. They were all avowed rationalists, and they proved beyond a doubt that Judaisim is quite rational.

But they were attempting to prove that judaism is rational, they weren’t attempting to determine whether judaism is rational.

“at least in the times of the geonim and the rishonim”

Or today. Rabbi Avraham ben HaRambam’s essay on how to understand aggadata is used as the introduction to the Ein Yaakov collection of aggadata.

Furthermore it should be noted that the classical commentaries often bring down interpretations that stray far from the pshat of the text. (I’ve already mentioned the example of the flood not covering the entire world.) While pshat is very important, we are not permitted to dismiss these commentaries chas v’shalom! Judaism has never been exclusively literalist in its biblical interpretation.

im sorry…what is the point of this thread?

its not very irrational once you grant god as a variable. science works based on a specific set of variables. mainstream science does not accept god as a variable. we do. once you grant god it makes perfect sense. apparently you don’t grant god…

erasmus darwin perhaps, not charles darwin…

The Rambam, the Chovos HaLevavos, and many, many others proved intellectually that a Higher Power created the world, and that He gave us the Torah.

Actually the Rambam never proved this. He says in the Guide (don’t have it offhand but if you want a source I will gladly find it for you) that we believe it and have good reason to believe it, but he also says that one who does not have the tradition that we do can sit all his life honestly trying to figure it out but he may never figure out beyond a shadow of a doubt that God created the world.

Another notable quote of the Rambam is in Teshuvos HaRambam (Jerusalem: Mekize Nirdamim, 1989) p. 488:

“Charlie, You cannot apply the Aggadaic rule to the Torah.”

I never said to do so!

“The Torah was given to be understood, and it was understood a certain way for 3000 years.”

This is misleading. Rishonim came up with novel understandings that had no precedent in Chazal. Even some Acharonim came up with novel understandings.

“How to reconcile the Torah’s description with science’s findings is up to you.”

This is correct; there is no chiyuv to believe any particular reconciliation. Reconciliation is not something that particularly troubles me.

RuffRuff

You cannot apply the Aggadaic rule to the Torah.

There are two rules in question: 1) That Aggados are not always meant to be taken literally; and 2) That one may disregard something found in an Aggadic passage if it does not accord with how he sees the world. The second rule, strange as it may sound to you, is explicit in all the sources Charlie and I mentioned.

It is only the latter rule that we do not apply to the Torah, because we believe that Torah is min hashamayim, so obviously one cannot disregard what is contained therein. However, the first rule does apply even to pesukim, at least according to the Rambam who in many cases diverts from the accepted pshat because in his mind it is not ‘rational’ (Probably most notable of this is his position that the whole parsha of the malachim and Avraham Avinu was just a dream), and many other “Pashtanim”, such as Ibn Ezra, who will openly and explicitly argue on a gemara’s explanation of a pasuk because he doesn’t believe it makes sense.

When it is an obvious exaggeration, as in towers in the sky, we don’t take it literally.

Many disagree. And a rationalist could simply respond that to anyone who knows science well, many things are obviously not meant to be taken literally, even though a simple minded person doesn’t realize the strangeness of the statements. This the Rambam says openly in his introduction to the Guide, about Bereishis, and he writes that is was written the way it was, so that simple minded people would have a nice story to read, but someone well-versed in science and philosophy will and should realize that nothing in Maaseh Bereishis is to be taken literally. The Rambam says this in many places.

Charlie, Actually what you say now is truly misleading and you seem to be playing around with semantics. The Rishonim give many new explanations, but they don’t change what the Torah is telling us. Most often, they are just adding another reading into the Pasuk. Nobody can tell us that the Torah was always misunderstood, even if we can argue about certain translations and phrasings.

the big bang is an absolute scientific fact..IF and ONLY IF you do not grant god a variable. the age attributed to the universe is such because of scientists calculations of the shifting of the cosmos. they reached the conclusion that based on that shift the earth must have originated from a “big bang” (which was not the term originally used, it was actually a term coined to discredit the theory) and they calculated the distance traveled and the time it must have taken.

now ill grant that it seems to be the most rational and sensible theory in existence, UNLESS you grant a supernatural being as a possible variable. this supernatural being could have created the cosmos as they were and set them to shift thus skewing those calculations. the speed of the shifts set forward by this supernatural being would in fact mislead one to believe that the universe was older than it actually is, thus leading to the more rational theory of the big bang.

but here is the flaw in the argument, and where you have to decide where you stand. if it’s rational to the core you’re looking for then then youre at odds with faith. faith is not and cannot be rational. no matter how much logic you use to explain religion there comes a point where you hit a brick wall. that brick wall being blind faith. so yes, to accept an alternate, logical explanation of the origins of teh world you do in fact have to be a bit irrational in its foundation. but that is the question…do you in fact believe?

PS: for the sake of disambiguation…i am not talking about deism here, only theism. more specifically judaism as practiced by the orthodox. i dont need anyone here taking what i said out of context.

“a supernatural being as a possible variable. this supernatural being could have created the cosmos as they were and set them to shift thus skewing those calculations”

A supernatural being of course could have done that. But there is nothing within our mesorah that indicates that is what happened.

Here you go again, confusing Chazal and the Pasuk. By the way, the Ibn Ezra was frowned upon by many for just that reason. However, you can see the Maharal in his Be’er Hagola, where he explains where the Ibn Ezra and others where coming from, although he himself disagreed with that approach. He says that they are merely explaining the flow and the simple reading of the Pasuk.

“A supernatural being of course could have done that. But there is nothing within our mesorah that indicates that is what happened.”

based on belief and observation…do you have any other alternatives?

Rambam was not like the crazy so-called rationalists of today who deny the mabul and kriyas yam suf.

A rationalist can’t believe the flood or the splitting the sea happened, since by definition such events are irrational. If they believe in that, they are no longer rationalist.

charliehall:

I’m not sure if I missed a crucial post but you seem to be suggesting that the age of the universe/the evolution of man (and everything else) is as the scientists suggest they are.

This is problematic in my opinion as “ein hamikra yotzei midei pshuto”. The Torah describes a 7 day creation that began right before the creation of man 5,771 years ago. While it is true that there are psukim that are understood on an allegorical level that doesn’t negate its poshut pshat.

While I have no problem with micro-evolution, the Gemarah itself even brings cases of it (ie the story with Hillel on Friday). Macro-evolution is problematic in my opinion. The speciation that scientists have recorded are not recognized from a Torah perspective as we don’t differentiate between ‘the orange toad’ and ‘the purple toad’. This also would require billions of years that science needs for us to reach our modern incarnation.

I did not know that a ‘young universe looking old” originated by goyim as I came up with it on my own. That fact that goyim came up with something doesn’t rule out its ability to be correct.