If there were other “Adams” besides Adam and Eve—wouldn’t the Torah have mentioned their superiority over them too (over the other “Adams”) as part of the hierarchy? After all, the Torah only mentioned superiority over animals and plants.

Rabbi, how can you say you are skeptical about archaeology? As a scientist you know that dating human and animal bones is accurate because of carbon-14 and the like.
Do you think one can make sense of fossils of humans and animals from tens of thousands of years ago and more, together with a straightforward reading of the Torah?
Can someone who believes in the plain meaning of the Torah really make peace with the fossil discoveries?

I’m not talking about the Big Bang theory, because there one can indeed assume that the world was created mature. But to assume that regarding fossils as well feels to me a bit (very) strange and frankly fishy.

Itai, I do not see why the Torah has to address every kind of creature, especially if its purpose is not to talk about creatures that do not remain with us.

Words, I tend to think that too, which is why I wrote it only as an initial possibility. But I do not see any principled barrier to it (there is no difference between the world and the creatures within it).

Understood. Thank you very much, Rabbi.

Have a good week, Rabbi!
How does evolution fit with the description of the creation of Adam and Eve: “dust from the ground,” etc.? After all, the human being is described as coming about in an individual process, whereas evolution claims that until humans appeared this happened through a social and prolonged process.
And also, “and there was no man to work the ground,” when above we said there were no additional “Adams”?
Thanks in advance.

I am not sure the Torah means to describe the facts as they actually were. It is certainly possible that this is an educational myth.

Chapter 1 deals with the creation of human beings. Already Maimonides in the Guide hints, following Ibn Ezra, that the designation “the man” with the definite article teaches that it refers to the human species and not to a particular individual. This human, for that matter, was created 2.5 million years ago, in the era of the sixth “day.” Chapter 2, by contrast, deals with the development of the human species from the stage of hunting-gathering and eating fruit in the Garden of Eden to the beginnings of agriculture—“by the sweat of your brow you shall eat bread.” (This is the meaning of the verse, “and there was no man to work the ground.” What man was lacking? One who works the ground.) The transition to agriculture involved backbreaking servitude, and domestication (Cain and Abel) brought infectious diseases from animals (see the famous “Guns, Germs, and Steel”). See all this in Yoel Bin-Nun’s article on the Garden of Eden (and there too he cites research literature) on his website. http://files8.design-editor.com/92/9266067/UploadedFiles/6F3DEF2B-1793-4D23-4A11-A6A7D04B6E4D.pdf Only in chapter 5 does history begin, with the invention of writing and genealogical lists—“This is the book of the generations of man.” And this is the historical Adam, whose name also appears in genealogical lists of the Assyrians and Babylonians. See Cassuto, and also at length in Rabbi Gedaliah Nadel’s commentary, “The Torah of Rabbi Gedaliah,” available online. http://seri-levi.com/admin/nadel.pdf As for “dust from the ground”—this comes to teach humility, in keeping with the end of the story: “and to dust you shall return.” It should not be read literally. And if you still want to: indeed, a human is nourished from the earth, or from animals that are nourished from the earth. More generally, as Rabbi Kook wrote, the passage of the Garden of Eden encapsulates millions of years in narrative style through one couple (Adam—the worker of the soil, Eve—the mother of all living, named for the accelerated reproduction of the human species with the agricultural revolution; see the sources in Harari’s “A Brief History of Humankind,” and in the second book as well).
In another sense regarding “dust from the ground,” you need to read the six days of creation from the point of view of the Creator, so to speak, where everything happens very fast on its way to the purpose—which is the main point of the story. And indeed the pinnacle of creation—man—was created only from the earth, from the early matter of planet Earth (though perhaps actually from the waters? This requires further examination. Some claim that life was created from materials brought by meteorites. Or perhaps water is also “dust from the ground” because it is part of the contents of planet Earth). But the “camera” of the verses speeds the process toward its goal: the creation of man. An excellent illustration of this is in a clip from Darren Aronofsky’s film, Noah: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7tNWZhQGFc

Enjoy watching, Rabbi Michi too!

I watched it, and it really was very enjoyable. It gives a good perspective and provides a basis for the interesting interpretation you proposed for the biblical description of creation.

Regarding carbon-14 dating—I didn’t really understand the Rabbi’s view about the dating of human bones, carved stones, “works of art,” etc., which were estimated to be tens of thousands of years old and more. (The Rabbi answered me that he has limited trust, and afterward he gave “Words of Astonishment” the opposite answer.)

Dating across such a long period is something not entirely binding. Processes can be accelerated or slowed for various reasons, and there is a significant interpretive dimension in any such inference. So my trust is rather limited, although if I had to bet, I would bet that it is a reasonable dating.

Understood, thanks again.

Hello again, Rabbi!
“And a mist rose from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground, and God formed the man from dust of the ground.”
Can one suggest that the “mist rose from the earth” refers to groundwater, “and watered the whole face of the ground” refers to springs/oceans, and that at the bottom of the springs/oceans, in their sediment, layers of primitive bacteria and so on adhered there, leading through the entire process of the formation of life (I’m not so expert in the detailed descriptions) known to science today?

You can say that, like another hundred thousand interpretations. That is precisely why I do not see much value in dealing with such interpretations: if you want to know what happened in reality—go to scientific research (and even there, cautiously). If you want to know the meaning of the Torah—you will not arrive at a clear interpretation this way. So why engage in it?

In my opinion—because if there is an astonishing correspondence between science and the Torah, that also elevates the Torah, like many other commandments that over the years turned out to have “healing properties,” the cyclic nature of the Sabbath, and besides that it creates a sense of satisfaction.
I agree with the Rabbi, since the Torah is not to be taken literally and requires commentators—but if there is a surprising match, why not be amazed by it? The question is whether there is one.

And I answered that there isn’t.

Regarding an educational myth—can this also be said about the Flood, that it did not necessarily happen in reality?
And in general, there was also a local flood—the science describes one like that 8,000 years ago, long before the story of the Flood, and in addition the world population is estimated at 5 million people, while the Flood is described as affecting an area that contained only 150,000 people—what happened to all the other people who lived then? Can it be said that the overwhelming majority of today’s world population is not actually descended from the first man?
Thanks in advance