יחסנו אל סיפורי התורה

chouteng כתב:
אני שאלתי את ר' גדליה אם סיפורי התורה אמת או לאו. דהיינו האם היו עובדות היסטוריות? התשובה שלו היתה כן. האם עדיין אתה מתעקש להגיד שהוא אמר לא?
איך שהגיע לתשובה הזאת היא דרך שונה מאצל אחרים. אבל הוא סבר שסיפורי התורה אכן קרו בהיסטוריה.

וכתבתי לו:
Chouteng,
Look the point is that he entertained the notion that maybe the stories were just that, stories.
His point about the truth being the best way to educate the masses is interesting yet questionable. Hashem is Omnipotent and He will manage to make the facts tally with what He deems as a better educating tool, right?
But doesn't the Posuk say that Hashem didn't take the Jewish people thru Plishtim "for maybe the nation will see war and turn back"? How about Hashem just manipulating some factors on the ground so to avoid this problem? Obviously that is not the way Hashem works the same goes to R' Gedalya's point.
By the way, the point i'm making is stolen from the Rambam in Mamar Techiath Hamesim he explains there why the Hashem didn't tell the people about Techiat Hamesim. He says that the people wouldn't have accepted it and maybe would have started having second thoughts about the whole of Yiddishkeit. His proof that Hashem works with the facts on the ground and doesn't just change them easily is from the above Posuk about not taking the direct route to Israel.
Hashem was willing to forgo telling the Jewish people such and integral part of Judaism, Techiat Hamesim, so as not to manipulate artificially the facts on the ground.

צ'וטנג הגיב:
Ipcha Mistabra:
You obviously did not read the full thread. I was the one who entertained the notion that perhaps the stories in the Torah are only myth. R' Gedalia was the one who assured me that the stories factually occurred.

וכתבתי לו:
Dearest Chouteng,
You seem to be a very serious and honest person so it's actually an honor to have a dialogue with you thanks for joining the club (permanently? I hope.)
As to your response to me about you being the one to entertain the notion not R' Gedalia I would like to quote your own words on the story, which as you correctly pointed out is the only true version of it as it happened to you.

''His way of proving that they are factual is as follows. Since people tend to be influenced more by factual stories than by myth, and since God wants people to learn from these stories, it is therefore more likely to assume that these stories factually occurred.''

So yes he did tip the scales in favor of it having occurred, but more important [to me] is how he proved it or actually which proof he did not use coupled with the language he used when affirming the facts.

He did not say that the story had to occur because the Torah tells them as true stories, He is essentially saying that he wouldn't have a problem with interpreting the stories of the Torah as allegorical, otherwise why not respond with the almost self evident answer to your question that ''the Torah tells the story so it's true, end of story'' (no pun intended)

Hypothetically if R' Gedalia would wake up one fine morning and come to the conclusion that actual event are no better than myths for educational purposes, he would go ahead and see the Torah's stories as myths with no further ado.

He claimed the stories to be true but not because the simple reading of the Torah would have us assume so but because he finds it to have a better educating value that way.
Yes this distinction is fundamentally crucial and that is what I meant by saying he entertained the notion that the storied didn't occur. He entertained the notion that the actual text could be interpreted allegorically.

Also your having him say ''it is therefore ''more likely'' to assume that these stories factually occurred.'' tells us that the other option was also ''likely'' albeit less likely.

As usual it's actually the Rambam much before him who has already made similar claims [when he repudiates Aristotle's theory of Kadmus Haolam]

וכתב ע"ז צ'יטונג:
Ipcha Mistabra:
Thank you for your kind words. You write:
Hypothetically if R' Gedalia would wake up one fine morning and come to the conclusion that actual event are no better than myths for educational purposes, he would go ahead and see the Torah's stories as myths with no further ado.

This is not necessarily the case. He might still assume the stories to be true, as there is no reason for him to assume otherwise. If he would decide one fine morning that myths are superior than truth when transmitting values, then he might believe that the stories in the Torah are myth. I don't know that that would be the case, as I did not discuss this with him.

I agree with the rest of your post



תוקן על ידי - אפכאמסתברא - 21/06/2004 8:33:09

המשכתי וכתבתי לו:

Chouteng,
Point well taken, I just assumed that the archeological discrepancies were a given, otherwise why even have the slightest doubt as to its occurence.
Without serious historical discrepancies we should absolutely not veer from the simple meaning of the Tora. As the Rambam puts it; we shan't interpert anything allegorically without some strong reason pushing us away from the plain interpertation of the text.

ע"ז הגיב צ'יטונג:
I am not aware of any significant archeological evidence that would contradict any of the accounts in the Torah.

ע"ז כתבתי:
Chouteng,
Didn't mean archeology per se, I meant the many different ''problems'' encountered with the Stories,
Starting with the story of the Etz Hadaas, A tree of life, a tree of wisdom, and a serpent talking, sound very mythical. Now I won't use this one as an example for on this particular story there are many Rishonim that have already put it in the allegorical camp. See Abarbanel on this story how he quotes the Rambam as saying such. Also claiming that some other Rishonim had similar views.

The story of Pharaoh taking Sara, basically repeating itself 3 times, smacks mythical.
The amazingly long lifespan of many people recorded in the Torah is problematic too; again the Rambam takes up the issue and says that it was only these particular individuals who lived so long.

[The problem with such an answer has been duly noted by the Ramban; for what reason would Hashem make such miracles that these people would live so long? In all likelihood it seems that the Rambam really meant to maintain the lifespan as being the same as we encounter nowadays. He was mostly concerned that people don't believe something so bizarre that it was so completely different then vs. now. He didn't want to elaborate on the other point of how these particular people did come to live so long, at least we don't think everybody lived so long [''bocher hara bemeito''] He didn't want to be too clear on his opinion of it meaning an allegory.]
The above is just a partial answer to the Ramban's question, a not well thought through one, to boot.]

As to actual archeological issues, what comes to mind at the moment is how could 2,000,000 people live forty years in an area without leaving any type of trace behind? Garbage, pottery, something? (Remember they camped 38 years out of the 40 in one place.)

In general I do agree that archeology is not belying the Torah, on the contrary the basic outlines go very well together. Yet I still think that if you have a complete literal approach to the Sipurey Torah you will run into a lot of difficulty vis-à-vis archeology or just general common sense.

R' Gedalia's words ''true or not true, who cares'' are so exciting and inspiring, yes it actually inspires one to true Shmiras Torah Umitzvos.
Many people think that by being more fundamentalist, being more machmir not to deviate an iota from the most fundamental Pshat in the Torah is sort of erring on the side of caution. It somehow makes sure that people don't stray from the straight and narrow.

I'm not so convinced on the merits of this approach. By forcing unacceptable facts down one's throat you risk him repudiating the whole kit and caboodle. Surly the non-thinking individual will have no qualms about accepting hook line and sinker, but the Torah is for the thinking man [Anshei Kodesh Tehiyi Li, holy ''people'' I want, Behemos, Hashem has enough. A little twist on the famous Kotzker Vort, huh,]
Finding Shomaim in the Torah that's what's important.

וזה תגובת צ'יטונג:
Ipcha Mistabra:

Sarah was kidnapped twice, once by Pharoh and once by Avimelech. If she was indeed a beautiful woman, that is to be expected under the conditions of that time.

The Ramban definitely does not believe that the stories in the Torah are a myth.

I did not hear R' Gedalia say, true or not true, it doesn't make a difference. That was somebody's interpretation of what I said over, and which interpretation I deny.

There was no archeological evidence for Troy until they found some. Archeologists now claim they found Atlantis after searching for it for hundreds of years. Lack of archeological evidence 3,000 years down the line, is, to my mind, utterly insignificant.
(small correction: They camped out in one location for 19 years)

I agree however that the prevalance of miracles is something that is difficult to digest. In the time of the Torah miracles seemed to be very common place, something that runs counter to common sense and intuition. To this I respond that what seems to be a miracle could actually have been an extreme physical phenomenon. The Chinuch and the Ramban wrote that we always attempt to minimise the miracle. In that sense, many stories become more understandable. Such as the splitting of the Red Sea was a particularly low tide. There was some paper about this by a Russian scientist. The various plagues in the desert were due to natural causes etc.

המשך:

כתבתי לו:
Dear Chouteng
Was it really commonplace to kidnap every pretty woman who enters the country?

I was saying that the Ramban disagrees with the Rambam for the reason written above, and I was just trying to give somewhat of an answer to that argument. Obviuosly I am explaining the viewpoint of the Rambam not the Ramban.

If I'm not mistaken, Atlantis is now underwater hence the difficulty in finding anything [I think they didn't even know the right location] but that does not answer the problem of finding no archeological evidence for the sojourn in the Midbar. [have to look in some more into the above issue]

I'm sorry for misquoting you.

As to the issue in general let me share a thought that occurred to me while writing now,
You are the master educator for the all the Yelze Chasidim (I find it very helpful for us to visualise a true chasidus rather than a fictional one but the particulars are absolutely fictious so I beg everybody not to take offense]
You find out that the whole Yelze dynasty were liars and charaltans starting from the very first Rebbe onward. Due to that fact, a majority of their Minhagim is based on lies and immorality. Your job is to educate them to the true values and ethics. Do you imagine yourself assembling the whole chasidus and telling them; You should know that everything you learned till now your whole belief system, all the people you held holy and dear, all the miracle stories you know about those people, are a bunch of lies, the values they taught you are corrupt, etc. etc.?
I don't think any sane person would go in that direction you'll clearly want to wean them off but you being clever enough you'll use their very stories to get them onto the right value system and the right beliefs. Yes you will retain some part of their stories and their myths but you'll make sure it's filtered from any real negativity and that it teaches them the right things.
Obviously in an ideal world you would have loved to throw out these stories completely but you just have to work with the facts on the ground.

There is absolutely no way shape or form that you will just try to reeducate an entire community in one blow.

My point with this story is to show that it's not just a nice theory but it is practically impossible for you to do any different.

So we established that if you are restricted to the facts as they are, i.e. you are not able/willing to use any miraculous powers to transform the whole community then your are forced to retain many of their stories yet transform them as much as possible so that they have no negative influence and/or actually have some postive influence.

The question obviously remains if when Hashem wants to educate a nation that has its own myths (probably borrowed from their neighbors with yet with some unique addition) how should we assume He does it? Does He just miraculously alter their consciousness so that they now are set straight, or he does it the natural way i.e. something akin to what you would do?

Now this part is where we are on speculative ground, I would like to reiterate that the first part seems to be an established fact, the speculative part is only as to Hashems Modus Operandi (way of operating).

But is it really so speculative? I don't think so.
The simple fact that the Jews were amazingly rebellious along the whole time seems to show us that Hashem did not miraculously change their weltanschauung [the fact that there were some miracles may tell us that without a minimal amount of miracles it was absolutely impossible to convince them. Or we can say like the Rambam that most of these miracles were just to alleviate a problem i.e. there was nothing to eat so Manna rained from heaven, The Egyptian were after them so He split the sea, etc. Whatever the reasoning we see quite clearly that they weren't treated with some brainwashing miracle. The famous argument how Hashem didn't take them through Plishtim so they don't head back to Egypt, surely veers us to the above conclusion.

In light of the above I would ask anyone here to answer me truthfully and honestly:
What do you think would be the approach when educating a nation, Throw out their whole heritage, their stories which they learned along with their mother's milk, their myths, and all their unique ways of serving their God? Or, incorporate their heritage, retell their stories, and let them continue with the rituals they were born and bred BUT, filter it, refashion it, and redirect it so that, A there is nothing harmful in it and B it actually leads them to the good life and true values.

Am I now spoiling Hashems plan by leaking the secret?
Not at all, for the people that can handle it i.e. they understand the concept of Sheker Kodesh, for them it doesn't diminish the beauty and truthfulness of the Torah at all, on the contrary they see the care and loving kindness, they see from what level we started out and the progress we made thanks to having the Torah and being able to go step by tiny step.
As to the other people, they won't believe me anyway, they'll cry foul at this whole approach and blissfully continue to know with certainness that each and every word of the Torah is true in it's most literal sense a la the serpent physically talking to Chava while standing on it's very own two legs
Yes it's true God works in His own mysterious ways.


וזה ענה צ'יטונג:

Ipcha Mistabra:

I believe it is not too far fetched that the tyrants of the day would kidnap the women they found attractive. (Did you ever watch Braveheart?)

The Rambam clearly believed that those persons historically lived for as long as the Torah says they did. When the Rambam believed that the stories of the Torah were a parable or a dream etc. he said so very clearly. I don't see any grounds to read anything other than the simple meaning of the text into the Rambam's words.

With regards to Atlantis see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3766863.stm
My point was, that Atlantis has consistently been dismissed as a myth. Yet it sometimes turns out that the myth was a myth, and that the event or location actually existed in history. Thus I am not too bothered by the fact that the Sinai desert is not littered with disposable cups.

With regards to your theoretical question, I cannot give an answer, as one could just as well argue that by exposing the lies you would create a better community. You have no proof for either option.

I do not take it as a given, that the Torah's stories are myth. Thus the rest of your point is irrelevant.

Finally to believe that our history and culture is predicated on myth, is very discouraging. It doesn't make a difference that there are good Jews out there. There are a good atheists and good christians out there too.

וזה כתבתי לו:
Chouteng,
I agree that we should do some historical research as to the level of civilization in the periods ascribed to Avrohom and Yitzchok. Actually we can see from the tale of Yitzchok that once Avimelech simply realized that Rivkah is a married woman he immediately returned her to Yitzchok, no coercion was necessary. Even by Avrohom in the Episode 2 there is a strong feeling that Avimelech wouldn't have taken her if he had known that she's married.
So from the stories themselves we see that we are talking about a civilized people to the point where it is not so self evident that they would kill and steal the wife of an innocent wayfarer.
Now the story of Dinah seems to point towards your assumption (the leaders grab the pretty girls etc.) but at the same time it also shows that;
A- It's quite risky to take a girl/woman from another clan [and remember Avrohom had quite a retinue ''es hanefesh asher osu bechorun''. Also the second time was already after Avrohom has battled with the kings and prevailed]
B- They were civilized enough to ask permission [but maybe that was out of fear]
C- Although she was a non married girl the rage due to her being raped was all consuming
Which leads me to another extremely strange facet of the story, the ease in them allowing/asking their wives to give themselves up. [In Yitzchok's case it seems to be absolutely and completely unwarranted, as is evident by the fact of him returning Rivkah once he smelled something fishy.]
Be that as it may, I still agree that more research would go a long way in ascertaining the likelihood of this story occurring thrice.

The Rambam clearly? I strongly disagree.
First off, the Rambam writes in his Hakdamah that many things have to be written in a hidden fashion so that the uneducated masses shouldn't understand him.
But more importantly in this particular issue the Rambam is not clear at all on the story of Adam, Chava and the Serpent. The Abarbenel [Al Hatorah] claims that according to the Rambam it's allegorical but I found it very difficult to decipher the Rambam in Moreh [also see there how Abarbanel disparages the Ibn Ezra for hiding his true interpretation on the story]

The more I look into it the more it seems that the Atlantis rediscovery has no bearing on our issue. I mean come on, they are talking now of having found the place through satellites no? Are you saying that they should've accepted this grand tale without a shred of evidence? Don't you agree that we shouldn't accept such a story on hearsay?
So the fact that in the end it turned out to be true should tell us to start believing every myth ever written.
How are you connecting it to my straightforward question as to why a place inhabited for many years should not leave any telltale signs? To be sure, you may argue that archeologically speaking it's too short a period to use this as a proof against anybody being there.. Well we shall then have to do the research on that, but the Atlantis issue just does not belong in this discussion [In my oh so humble opinion]

''With regards to my theoretical question''
That's exactly what I was afraid of, you looking at it as a ''theoretical'' question what I'm asking is to see it as a practical situation. Please do my a favor and really visualizes yourself as having taken over the education system for the Yelze Chasidim, I contend that you will not even entertain the idea that you can ''expose'' the lies with one fell shot.

The Jewish nation did not appear from within a vacuum, they had to have a culture before probably with a lot of paganism so the aforementioned question inevitably came up, how to neutralize the negative aspects of their culture and how to promote positive ones. Thus the rest of my post is surely relevant regardless of its uncomfortability and its discouragement.

המשך:
צ'יטונג משיב לנ"ל:

Ipcha Mistabra:

I do not see the value of historical research in questions such as, whether or not Sarah lived in a society where kidnapping was the norm. Accurate information is impossible to come by, there are numerous unknowns. I have no reason to doubt the account in the Torah, and I do not believe there is any evidence which will throw substantive light in either direction.

With regards to the Rambam in his introduction to the guide. That particular text has been used to justify all sorts of claims regarding the Rambam's position on a variety of subjects. Starting with creation ex nihilo, continuing with whether sacrifices will be offered in the reconstituted temple, and whether the Rambam believed himself a prophet.

There is no way of disproving these claims. However neither can you prove it. As such, I adhere to what the Rambam himself writes, as you yourself noted, that as long as there is no reason to deny the literal explanation, then the literal explanation is the one to accept. So too, so long as you do not produce a reason which shows that the Rambam did not believe in the literal explanation of the text, viz. that Methushelah did indeed live 969 years, then I do not see any reason to accept your point of view.

I used Atlantis as an example of something that for thousands of years was assumed to be a myth,and yet just as quickly assumed to be true once corrobroating evidence was found.

I find it extremely difficult to visualise a purely theoretical situation of which I have no experience and decide how to act. I truly do not know what would be better for the Yelzer chassidim. I could see things going in either direction.

Of course the Jewish nation had a culture prior to Matan Torah. You have no way of knowing how much of that culture was myth, and how much of that myth was preserved or not.

והתגובה שלי:
Chouteng,
The reason for not interperting the Rambam literally is because the Ramban's argument against the Ramabam's answer is soo obvious namely, why in the world would only these people live such amazingly long lives, they weren't all tzadikim.
When you read a text (specificaly the Rambam) and you see that the answer to the question posed has actually made the situation less understandable, then you should assume that there is something in the answer that you don't understand/interpert correctly. That is exactly how the Rambam would try to hint something.
As I mentioned the first time, I'm not saying it's the best explanation but it's at least likely.
As to Atlantis, there is a fine line between beating around the bush vs. tackling the root of the issue.

Myths
Every single dingle culture on the face of the planet has a vast repository of myths with absoultly no exception.
Do you think that the immediate relapse into idol worship right after Matan Torah was a totally new concept to the Jews or maybe you'd agree that it was a part of their culture imbedded in them so strongly as to have made the relapse happen.
What about all those years in Israel that the Jews constantly adopted all different kinds of paganism. I mean how could you even think that before the Torah the people had no false beliefs/myths.
To this very day we are inundated with zillion fables of all the Zaddikim of the many great and holy dynasties.
The Ramban Al Hatorah is not sure if the tales of the "wars of the Benei Yakov" are true. So here you have a (possible) fullblooded myth.
I really shouldn't have to prove so obvious a point.
______
Talking about Rambams Shitah on Korbonos, we should take note to the extent the Rambam goes with it. He actually says that ther reson it was forbidden to bring sacrafices other than at the temple was in order to minimize the whole sacraficing ritual. That is why it's only allowed in Beis Hamikdosh and that is why only by the Kohanim.

He is saying that the Torah is trying to curtail the practice of sacrifice. But you still think that according to the Rambam we will reinstitute this practice for a people that are totally foriegn to this parctice.
Is it really puting words into the Rambam's mouth or listening carfully to what he is saying?

Even so "frum" a Rishon as the Kuzari, claims in the beginning of his sefer that there is no problem to deny creation ex nihilo. Why the fuss about it? Either way is fine .
The Rambam claims that if he would have a philosphical reason to deny creation ex nihilo, he would have no problem believing such. Which basically tells us that we are not bound to one way of thought. It's simple a none issue.

What was the exact sin of the Mekoshesh? Good acedemic question which shall be decided by various factors, textual nuances, reference from other sources, logical inferences maybe. But it's not a question of Ikeray Hadas. So why should the Chomer Kadmon issue be relegated to be part of the Creed?

וזה השיב צ'יטונג:
Ipcha Mistabra:

I cannot relate to your difficulty accepting the amazing longevity of previous generations. Even assuming that your difficulty is in place, one could still not conclude that the Rambam believed that those verses are a parable.
The only way one could claim that the Rambam believed a particular view, is if he writes clearly or hints clearly at that view. To take a difficulty and then conclude that the Rambam must mean something else, would make the entire Guide worthless. Every pseudo-philosopher could then manipulate the Guide to his personal viewpoint.
You have not the slightest proof that the Rambam held that these verses were not to be understood literally. Your only hint is the difficulty you personally find with his explanation. As such I believe any objective bystander must reject your interpretation.

Forget about Atlantis.

There is no question that there are myths in Judaism. My point was, whether those myths are a central part of Judaism or not. My claim is that the core values and beliefs of Judaism are not based on myth. One might argue what precisely those core values and beliefs consist of. But you have no way of proving or disproving that premise. Further the core values of Judaism are not foolish or ridiculous, as opposed to, let's say the core values of Christianity. As such, Judaisms core beliefs are more believable than other cultures' core beliefs. To equate Judaism with all other cultures and religions in terms of origin of their beliefs, would to my mind, make Judaism far less attractive as a way of life.

The Rambam clearly believes in sacrifices. To say otherwise, because of the personal antipathy we might feel to slaughtering an animal, would be intellectually dishonest.

As regards creation ex nihilo, some early commentaries believe that the Rambam was Aritotolean in this respect. However, they had at least clear hints that Maimonides tended to this opinion.

וכתבתי אני:
Dearest Chouteng,
With all due respect I just don't understand why you're not responding to my points.
For starters, the Rambam is the one that has the difficulty with the longevity of those times and his answer is that ONLY THOSE PEOPLE MENTIONED IN THE TORAH LIVED ALL THESE YEARS all the other people of their generation had regular lifespan. So pleeeese think for a momment how to explain this (saying you can't relate doesn't help any, please try to actually answer the question) WHY DID ONLY THESE PEOPLE LIVE SO AMAZINGLY LONG? THEY WERE'NT SPECIAL IN ANY WAY. As I have written before, this is the Ramban's Kasha on the Rambam (so it's definitly not a personal discomfort)

How can you say "I haven't got the slightest reason to interpret it the way I did"
Look here, it's impossible to explain every single nitty gritty detail in every single point one makes, "men ken nor masbir zien far yenem, farshtien darf er alyns"

My point on the Rambam is that he's saying, don't think that it was really so strange then people lived so long etc, let's keep the world the same and we'll just say "Mir velen zich an eitza geben mit dey mentchen vos de Torah rechent ois"
It's like he doesn't want to elaborate on this point. By interpreting it this way we at least have a semblence of understanding in this otherwise strange answer to HIS problem with the longevity of the people in those days.

It would really be nice if you wouldn't tell me just to forget about Atlantis but to say "you may have a point on alantis not being relevant". It's not about winning it's about seeing that you are actually responding to my points.

I make a point about the Rambam claiming that the Torah was trying to minimize as much as possible the ritual of sacrafice hence when entering Israel they could only do it at the Beis Hamikdosh, and only with Kohanim.That being the case it seems unlikely that when this parctice doesn't exist anymore, Hashme should institute it again. (if you want to get rid of this practice don't restart this practice after it has become obsolete, am i making myself clear now?) Did you in any way try to answer my point as to it's merits?
______
Myths,
Again I would say it's impossible to explain it in a way which no thinking is required but let me try to summarize,
We agree that the Jews had a culture before Matan Torah,
It follows that it wasn't exposed as complete lies in one fell shot,
It follows that there is nothing wrong for the Torah to incorporate some of their myths (and rely on the smart people of later generations to interpret it as allegory etc.)
It follows that we can't really know that everything the Torah writes is meant as an actual occurrence.
It follows that we shouldn't fight tooth and nail to argue that every one of these events actually occurred.
It follows that we should look at it as an academic question, (a la Mekoshesh or the zillion other questions of interpretation in the torah) which we entertain both side of the issue nonchalantly and dispassionately, either way being fine with us, only objective proofs will be of importance, there is no creed/belief issue involved.

What would hopefully follow, that many people who happen to find many of the Stories as myths will still be totally committed Jews. Rather than being forced to decide between accepting stories that, to them, seem very strongly to be myths, or to just say everything is a sham (God forbid(

Yes we have more knowledge on science, and history etc. than our forbearers.
When Hashem said to Adam "the day you eat from this tree you will die" he interpreted it literally and rightfully so. It came to pass and he ate it, and the day passed uneventfully he is still alive and well the next morning and the day after as well. Now he should interpret it differently not to mean in the most literal sense.
The facts, which he became aware of, have made him change his understanding of the text.

When the Torah says many times "the sun came out" we should explain it literally that the sun travels and we are stationary. But once we know that it's the other way around we shouldn't have a problem in explaining it as a form of speech etc. (our forbearers didn't explain it thus because THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE THAT WE HAVE TODAY)

Hashmaim Mesaprim Kevod Keil,
Does this posuk mean literally that the sun and the planets are living beings? Yes says the Rambam due to the scientific data of those times. No we say today due to the scientific data of our times.

Please don't take anything in this post personally, I do respect you sincerely, any disrespect should be taken allegorically.

וכאן אנו עומדים.

רבותי,
כולנו חכמים, כולנו נבונים, אך אולי אפשר להקל על עלגי הלשון שבינינו.

תרגום תמצית הדו שיח:

הסכמנו שלבני ישראל היה תרבות עוד קודם מתן תורה [וכידוע שהיו עובדי ע"ז]. זה מלמד שהתורה לא הגיעה כתרבות פתע חדשה לבית קיבול ריק. כדי לעקור את היחסים האליליים והמיתוסים שהיו באופן טבעי בתרבותם הראשונה, יש צורך בהדרגה ולחנוך הנער על פי דרכם. לעקור את השקפתם בחדא מחתא הוא מן הנמנע*. ומכאן שטבעי שהתורה תתייחס למיתוסים של בני ישראל, שהרי כאמור הייתה להם תרבות ומן הראוי להתייחס ולעצב את דרכם ממקום שהם עומדים בו. ומכאן גם שלא מתחייב שכל סיפור בתורה תקף גם מבחינה מציאותית. מה שמתחייב בעיונו בסיפורי התורה, שנשכיל מה משל ומה לצורך הבראת בני ישראל, וכשם שבכל סוגיה של סיפור כמו מקושש עצים, אנו דנים מה היה עמו בדיוק ואיזה עבירה עשה, כך עלינו לדון בכל סיפור איך להתייחס אל הסיפור, אם בא כמשל או כצורך מסויים של התרבות המקורית, או שמשמעותו נצחית. עיון זה לא משנה את המשמעות והאמיתות של התורה, מתוך ההבנה הנ"ל הרי שבהחלט לגיטימי לראות בסיפורים מסרים שאינם נובעים דוקא מתוך אמיתות הסיפור, וכל זה עלינו לראות כחלק מתכלית התורה, ואין בזה ניגוד כלל לאמיתות התורה, כי המשל הוא גם אמת בתור משל, וכל שיש בו ללמדנו ראוי להיות מכלל התורה.
המוכנות של האדם לדון את הדברים על פי ההבנה הנ"ל, אמור להוביל לחיזוק שמירת התורה. כי מי שלפניו רק ב' אפשרויות, או שהכל אמת כפשוטו בעיני הבלתי משכיל, או שהכל שקר, לא יוכל להימלט מהבעיות המתעוררות מב' הגישות, העלולות להזיק לנאמנות הראויה לתורה.
*ולהעלות על הדעת שהכל בדרך נס ששטף מוחם ועקר מהם המיתוסים בחדא מחתא, ולא היה צורך לנהוג ב"חנוך על פי דרכו", אינו מן הסברא, וגם מוכח לא כן ממה שחטאו בני ישראל בעגל סמוך לקבלת התורה.

כדי למנוע אי הבנה.

כל מה שהסכמתי עם איפכא מסתברא הוא, שלכלל ישראל לפני מתן תורה היה תרבות משלה כמו לכל עם אחר. חלק מתרבות זו סביר להניח הוא המצאות.

מה שאני בהחלט לא מסכים הוא שא"א לעקור תרבות שלם ולהניח במקומות מסורת אמיתית. יכול מאד להיות שזה אפשרי, ובפרט אחרי חוויה עמוקה כמו זו של מתן תורה.

מה שחטאו בני ישראל בעגל אינו מהווה שום הוכחה. חווית העו"ז היא חוויה מפתה. כל מי שקרא את הספר The Golden Bough אינו יכול שלא להתרשם מעוצמת העו"ז.

אני גם מאמין שאין בידינו שום כלים כמעט להוכיח בצורה מדעית שחלק מסיפורי התורה הם מיתוסים. ככה שאין טעם בכלל להכחיש אמיתות סיפורי התורה.

אני גם חושב שאם נסכים שסיפורי התורה הם מיתוסים זה מוריד ערך התורה בצורה דרסטית, ואפילו אם המשל הוא נכון. אני לא מאמין שהיהודים היו מחזיקים בתורה כמו שהחזיקו, אם 'החכמים' שבהם הגיעו להכרה שרובו מיתוס.

'אין בידינו שום כלים כמעט'. אבל אומר הרב מאוצ'טונג מאחר ונאמין חזק יותר, הבה נכחיש גם את מעט הכלים ונשקר את עצמנו טוב טוב. זה בדיוק מה שאפכא מנסה להעביר לך שהאנושות מתחכמת ועומדת על כך שתער אוקהם הוא כלי הוכחה שאין להניח שסיפורי התורה הם מעבר למיתוס. לכן לא מתיישב על דעת האדם המודרני בימינו סיפורי התורה כאמת היסטורית אלא כמסר רעיוני. נמצא כי רצון האל שהאדם בימינו יסתדר עם סיפורי התורה כמיתוסים ועם זה יפנים את המסר. האמת חשובה מהדראמה לאדם המתבגר וכמו ששקר הוא לשטוף את מוחות ילדינו לומר שהאל בוכה ומניח תפילין, כך שקר הוא לומר שבהכרח קרו היסטורית סיפורי התורה!

בוגיעלון:

אני מבקש שלא תדבר בשמי, אפילו בצורה צינית. אני לא המלצתי להכחיש את הכלים המדעיים הקיימים. מה שאמרתי הוא, שהכלים הקיימים שבעזרתם אפשר לקיים או לבטל סיפורי התורה, הם מעטים מאד. הכלים האלו, עד כמה שידוע לי, אינם מכחישים את סיפורי התורה. איפכא לא הזכיר את תער אוקהם, ואין זה עניין לכאן. כדי להביא את הטיעון של אוקהם תצטרך להוכיח שתיאוריית המיתוס יותר פשוטה מתואריית ההיסטוריה, ואת זה אי אפשר לעשות.

מה שאתה כותב שסיפורי התורה לא מתיישבים על דעת האדם מודרני כאמת היסטורית, טעון תיקון קטן. סיפורי התורה לא מתיישבים כאמת היסטורית על דעת האדם המודרני כמו בוגיעלון. אבל יש אנשים מודרניים לא פחות מבוגיעלון, ואולי אפילו קצת יותר מודרניים ממנו, שסיפורי התורה מתיישבים על דעתיהם טוב ויפה כאמת היסטורית.

ולסיכום אף אחד לא טוען שסיפורי התורה "בהכרח" הם עובדה היסטורית. כל מה שאני אומר הוא, שאין שום טעם לחשוב שסיפורי התורה לא קרו כפי שהתורה מציגה אותם. וכל זמן שאין טעם להכחיש, מחובתנו לקבל.

יבוא פילוסוף מימי הבינים, יקלף וימצא חומר וצורה.
יבוא פילוסוף מודרני יותר, יקלף וימצא ציויים קאנטיינים
יבוא פילוסוף נוסף, יקלף וימצא אילוסטרציות נאות לעטוף בהם את המצוות.
יבואו חכמים מהפורום, יקלפו וימצאו רעיונות מוסריים בני זמננו, או על זמניים.

כל אחד מהפילוסופים האלו מוציא מדעת חברו, ולעתים אף לא היה מסוגל לדעת את דברי חברו, וא"כ מה יוותר מבצל שקלפו את כל קליפותיו?

אולי לזה כיוון ריה"ל שלכון הקב"ה הציג את עצמו בתור 'אשר הוצאתיך מארץ מצרים' ולא 'שבראתי שמים וארץ'?

ההתחכמות שכביכול הכל בא רק לגלות מסרים, נסתרים במידה זו או אחרת, כי אחרת אנחנו בבעייה מדעית או היסטורית, תוביל לבעיה אחרת, בשביל מה כל הצ'יזבטים האלו, א"א לדבר עם בני אדם אינטליגנטיים?

הרב מאוצטונג

אפכא לא היה צריך להזכיר את 'תערו של אוקהם' במפורש כי הוא מונח בדבריו על הדרך להעביר מסרים. כאשר רוצים להעביר מסר על ידי סיפור ובפרט כאשר יודעים שהשומע כמו מאוצטונג שלו זה משנה אם הסיפור קרה או לא, שהוא יאמין באמונה שלימה שזה קרה באמת, אז למה למוסר לשנות את הטבע ולבצע גם את המסופר? זהו תערו של אוקהם בנידון וזה ההיגיון המונח בבסיסם של דברי אפכא. לכן בהחלט ניתן להוכיח את הצורה הנכונה שאדם נאור יתיחס לסיפורי התורה והיא 'חובתנו לא לקבל שהאל התנהג בעבר שונה מאשר היום ללא שזיהינו סיבה לזה.

בוגיעלון:

אף אחד לא דיבר על שנוי הטבע שזה נושא כשלעצמו. האם אברהם היה קיים או לא, זאת השאלה.

שוטנג
אתה עצמך טוען לאיפכא שר"ג לא היה פוסל את סיפורי המקרא כאמת, משום שלא היתה לו סיבה לכך.
ועל כך אומר לך בוגי בצדק יש לי סיבה, והיא תערו של אוקם
וכל הדיון בינך לבין איפכא לא התמקד רק על קיומו של אברהם ותרבותו ,אלא האם סיפורי המקרא הם אמת הסטורית או מיתוס,
וגם בוגי בודאי יודה שיתכן והיה איש בשם אברהם וכו'

צ'טנג
כתבת,
ולסיכום אף אחד לא טוען שסיפורי התורה "בהכרח" הם עובדה היסטורית. כל מה שאני אומר הוא, שאין שום טעם לחשוב שסיפורי התורה לא קרו כפי שהתורה מציגה אותם. וכל זמן שאין טעם להכחיש, מחובתנו לקבל.

כמדומה שאין אנו כ"כ מחולקים,
הרי אין לך שום בעיה עם אחד שלפי ראות עיניו לא מסתבר לו שהסיפורים אכן קרו ואומר שהם מיתוסים ויסביר שחינך הקב"ה את בני ישראל בדרך הטבע ולא עקר כל מיתוסים שלהם בחדא מחתא (בדיוק כמו מה שהרמב"ם מסביר שלא נאמר לדור המדבר ולכמה דורות אחריהם העיקר של תחיית המתים משום שהיה חשש שיהיה הדבר כ"כ מוזר שיתעורר להם ספקות על כל היהדות !!! וכעי"ז בחובת הלבבות למה לא נאמר להם המושג של עולם הבא. ובאמת גם על מצות מעשיות כותב הרמב"ם ככה כגון שיטתו הידוע בענין קרבנות שבני ישראל היו כ"כ רגילים בפולחן זה "שהיה מן הנמנע לבטלו מכל וכל", אלא שמיעטו עד כמה ששייך הרי לנו שיטת הרמב"ם שהקב"ה כתב התורה באופן חינוכי בהדרגה ולא עשה נסים לעקור הרגלם,)
ווא"כ הרי הנושא היא אקדמי בלבד, האיך מפרשים פסוק זה או אחרת כמו כל שאר נושאים בפירושי הפסוקים
שהרי גם אתה טוען שברגע שיהיה לך הוכחות לפרשו כמשל אז תעשה כן ואין זה פוגע ולא נוגע באמיתות התורה

תוקן על ידי - אפכאמסתברא - 21/06/2004 19:15:32