Noah’s Ark Story

Thanks for the answer.
I wonder if the statement that the Bible is all about the message and history is insignificant compared to it is a statement that has been made recently because we are witnessing the righteousness of science, or is this statement made without any (direct) connection to science? Can you explain this?

You should not have started the Bible except from the first commandment found in Exodus, chapter 12. This month you have.

Midrash, Rashi the First on the Torah.
The things are simple.

Hello Rabbi. First, Moshiach answered nicely. Already in the first Rashi, he finds it appropriate to clarify that the essence of the Torah is the commandments and not the stories (although this does not necessarily mean that the stories are not historically accurate).
Secondly, it is clear that this statement has been strengthened recently in light of scientific and historical discoveries. Additional knowledge adds to knowledge, and it is possible that what our ancestors missed will be revealed to us because of the advancement of knowledge.
Although there are such statements here and there even before the modern troubles. The Ramban writes about the creation account that it is not a factual description. The Ramban advocated the method that many of the biblical stories are dreams or parables (and the same applies to the legends of the sages. See his introduction to the first part, where he argues for three schools of thought regarding the factuality of the legends). This became even stronger among the allegorists (Yedaiah the Peninite), who were banned by the Rashb”a. Rabbi Hutner also wrote in a letter (cited at the beginning of the book Bino Shnat Dor Ve Dor), regarding the Genizat Hadaat (he speaks of disputes in reality regarding what was in the Bible).
See on this subject my article on myth and historical truth on the website: https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%A1-%D7%95%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%98%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%AA/

Thank you, I read the article and learned.
I have 2 questions now:
1. You wrote in the article that historical truth is really important because without it it is impossible to educate in truth, etc. (correct me if I'm wrong). If so, stories such as the story of the first man and the creation of the world, or even the story of Noah's Ark, if they did not really happen as they are described, how can we educate according to them as they should? Or should we really separate history from myth as the postmodernists do?
2. Is it possible to “accuse” or “prove” a person who, out of the discoveries of science and the understanding that the stories in the Torah are myths that did not happen as they are described, chooses to leave Judaism? Or do we have no argument with him?

Hello.
1. The creation of the world or Noah's Ark is not a direct educational myth (it has influences, but it is not like the Akida or the actions of Abraham). I am not claiming that there cannot be educational myths in the postmodern sense, but that the central myths on which our education is based should at least have a realistic core. Beautification or addition of details can always be done.
2. That is how I wrote against the Rashba, that it is unreasonable to demand that a person who comes to the conclusion that these are myths give up on them for educational reasons. On the other hand, the fact that these are not historical events is not a reason that justifies abandonment.
But as a rule, any person who acts as he understands to the best of his judgment does not and cannot have any claim against him.

Why does the fact that it is not about historical events not justify abandonment? If it turns out that the Bible is not historically accurate, might this not (or perhaps should it) lead me to the conclusion that it was not truly given by God?

No. Unless your assumption is that it is a historical description, then if it is wrong it was probably not given from above. But if its primary purpose is to educate, then why is historical-factual reliability important or indicative of anything? After all, that is the whole point of the myth we are talking about here.

So why was the Torah initially presented as the absolute truth (after all, the people of Israel believed that the creation of the world described in the Torah was the real thing, right?)? Why wouldn't it be presented initially as a story intended to educate?
Or maybe it was presented that way?

(‘Truth to the truth’ meaning historical truth)

I didn't understand what the meaning was presented or not presented, and what is “from the beginning”. We are given a text, and we have to understand for ourselves when it describes reality and when it is an educational myth. Does another book explain each time when it describes facts and when it uses educational parables? Maybe they once thought the meaning was factual (although the Ramban already wrote that it was not), and now it is not. What is the problem with that?

How does this fit in with the passing of generations? Today we supposedly know (or pretend to know) what the Torah was really aiming for in its stories. Doesn't that mean we understand the Torah better in a certain sense?

My relationship to the myth of the descent of generations is very reserved. I do not believe that there was a real descent. In the third chapter of Two Carts I explained that at most there is a decline in halakhic intuition due to the distance from the source (Mount Sinai), and even in this I am not sure. As we have advanced in science, there is no reason not to assume that our understanding of the Torah, which is nourished by this knowledge, will not advance.
I think that this myth was created for the intellectual rabbis who do not understand that commitment to the Talmud does not have to be based on the fact that it is infallible or that it was written by the Holy Spirit. The obligation to the Talmud is because it was accepted as binding law (as the Knesset writes at the beginning of Chapter 2 of the Book of Revelation). Just like the obligation to the laws of the Knesset. Therefore, they want to explain that the Talmud is infallible and that the ancients were heavenly rabbis, in order to convince people to remain committed. This is similar to someone telling me that angels of heaven sit in the Knesset, in order to convince me to obey the law. Children need such explanations, but I expect more from adults.

What does this say about our attitude towards the Gemara? If we find something that is not appropriate for our time (such as the treatment of women), should we grit our teeth and do nothing because we have accepted it as a binding law?
Or are there perhaps some loopholes?

First, one must be convinced that it is truly inappropriate for our generation, meaning that the disqualification of women from testifying is due to a parameter that has truly changed since then (it is not easy to prove such a thing). If we are indeed convinced and a reasonable consensus is created among the sages of our generation, then in sufficiently unambiguous situations it is possible to deviate from the rule, as with any halakhic rule (halakhic rules are supposed to be applied flexibly and not rigidly). See my article on changes in halakhic law here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95% D7%93%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7% 9C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95/

My dear’.
I would be grateful if you could explain what the owners of the Gamma meant when they said:
If the first are like angels, we are like men, and if they are men, we are like donkeys.
Or what they said: I am like a finger in the book of Revelation?

Apparently they meant a decline in the Torah level and understanding. Now there are three possibilities:
1. They mean it literally. So I don't agree with what they say about it.
2. They mean that there is a decline in the sense of reaching the halakhic truth (developed halakhic intuition). I of course agree with that.
3. There are situations in which the Sages say something for educational purposes and do not describe facts literally. When they talk to people who have a tendency to deviate from the instructions of the ancient generations, they tell them that the ancients were like angels. Interpretation: They should be treated as if they were angels compared to us. As such, “its generalities and details from Sinai” is a normative and not historical statement. The Tosheva innovations should be treated as if they were all delivered at Sinai. And so they wrote in the Tosheva The language of the LBM also says that the laws of the rabbis, if you want to strengthen them, are binding and strong like the LBM.

Now I found a discussion that deals with this (and brings two views):
http://www.yeshiva.org.il/wiki/index.php?title=%D7%A1%D7%9E%D7%9B%D7%95%D7%AA_%D7%97%D7%96%22%D7%9C_%D7%91%D7%A4%D7%A1%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%AA_%D7%94%D7%94%D7%9C%D7%9B%D7%94

thanks.

Excellent article. Isn't it a problem/obstacle that the Meiri is a single opinion? You said that a reasonable consensus should be formed among the sages of the generation, but if the Meiri is a single opinion, it seems that the likelihood of such a consensus being possible is extremely low.

This is indeed an obstacle. As far as I am concerned, there is no need for a guide, and the truth is the Torah through it. In other words, I would say the same thing even without his words (as he himself did without anyone who preceded him). Therefore, his personal relationship with the Gentiles today is different.
But whether it is necessary to establish public law is a different question, and here consensus is important. But in practice, all the poskim believe so, they just do not admit it (and use the terminology of "we cannot attack", "ways of peace", "appearance of an eye", "blasphemy", and the like). Regarding the qualification of women to testify, this is a different question, since this is about the halakhic legal system, and therefore it is not reasonable to take unilateral steps by a single person.

Israel, I was just reminded of the Gemara 2b on the issue of repeating and claiming, where we found (not על א):

This says of my ancestors and this says of my ancestors, "I have not testified that she is a slave and I have not testified that she is a slave and I have eaten two strong things," he said, "Rabba, why should he lie? Is it not from you that I have a slave and I have eaten two strong things?" "I have not lied in place of witnesses, I have not said them."
"Hadare, I have not testified that she is a slave and I have eaten two strong things." "I have not lied in place of witnesses, I have not said them."
"Hadare, I have not tested you and I have not said them to you, I have tested you, I have become strong in you." He claims and repeats and claims or does not claim and repeats and claims, "Ola," he said, "He claims and repeats and claims, "I have not said them to me, he does not claim and repeats and claims."

And according to the law, their rulings are: "Dhuzer and claim as Ola." And it is well-documented.