Most rabbis in previous generations used to dismiss scientific theories as though they were sheer nonsense, so I had no choice but to infer that you are a “progressive” rabbi. But if you do not want that, then I hereby take that title back from you. Maybe “assisting” is not the right word, but rather that each complements the other. Because as I understand it, you argue that the world at first, in the early evolutionary version, was indeed primitive, and as time goes on there is less need for heavenly intervention in the world because we advance and improve on our own. You once even said, in response to a question I asked, that perhaps one day we will not need any heavenly help from outside at all and will be completely detached. Which means that human progress on the material plane goes hand in hand with progress on the heavenly one. In any case, I wasn’t focusing דווקא on morality—that’s exactly the point. Questions of faith span all subjects and types of refutation, from the age of the world and the story of Genesis, continuing through morality, and ending with double standards and contradictions (such as the laws of freeing slaves). So the question is whether there isn’t one comprehensive answer here that points in a certain direction. By the way, when the Torah commands putting transgressors to death, that is because it sees them as corrupting or damaging the good in the world, so how can one completely detach morality from the Torah? I understand that the Torah is more a collection of laws and instructions than moral teaching, but behind the rulings one can discern an approach, and it is the exclusion of weak populations, including death in some cases. Besides, the Torah itself tells about the Flood, which came because of violence.

I didn’t understand what the question is. I answered everything.
Here you assume that there is a correspondence between Jewish law and morality, and then raise difficulties. I deny that, and therefore there is no difficulty to begin with. But that is a different discussion, and I’ve already explained it in several places (Column 15 and more).

I understand that from your perspective the explanations and answers are completely acceptable, to the point that you do not see them as answers but as fully settled facts, one hundred percent. But I see your approach as a kind of interpretation and explanation (and seemingly that is also how you should treat it), not necessarily as the plain and self-evident truth. Likewise regarding the count of the world’s years and the story of creation—you have an interpretation and explanation that they are not to be taken literally, and in every issue where a question arises there is some explanation and some assumptions in order to resolve it. And it is very hard for me to accept dozens of assumptions (and again, regarding morality, let us assume there is one explanation for everything—even though there too one has to “bend” a few explanations in order to fully understand it), when the Torah itself taught us that more than three cases establish a presumption. And here too, the small number of them points to an ancient, old-fashioned outlook. That is an explanation that does a better job of understanding the creation story and the Torah’s laws as fitting the spirit of that time. True, it would not be exactly logical, but it seems to me that there is a more intuitive question here. If you don’t see it that way, then there is no point in us grinding water.

I’ve really lost you. In my eyes nothing is certain and nothing is a one-hundred-percent settled fact. But if I have an assumption that the Torah was given from Heaven, and I have a reasonable explanation that reconciles that assumption, then I will indeed adopt it even if another possible explanation exists. Why do you need 100%? If you think the law of gravity is correct, and now you see an exceptional case (dark matter), will you abandon the law or look for an “excuse”?
By the way, the Torah did not teach us anywhere that three times create a presumption. Maybe there is some source for it in the case of an ox that has gored repeatedly, but the medieval authorities (Rishonim) did not understand it that way (and the Tannaim even disagreed whether the presumption is after three times or after two). It is just ordinary scientific and legal reasoning, nothing more. And of course that number changes depending on the circumstances. Regarding saying “Give dew and rain,” there are those who put it at 90 times (3 months) and not at 3. And I am speaking about those who do connect saying “Give dew and rain” to a presumption like the case of the ox that has gored repeatedly.
And regarding Torah and morality, I indeed have one explanation that resolves everything and everything is fine.
Okay, we really are grinding water.

Sorry for butting in, but I have the impression that the basic premise of Y.’s question is incorrect.
The questioner complains that rabbis are busy giving excuses for difficulties with the Torah. That is, that this is “after-the-fact cleverness.”
I think the approach is the opposite: serious rabbis (and there are too many chatterboxes…) are busy studying Torah properly and are not occupied with resolving contradictions; they simply prevent them through proper and non-childish learning.

If you’re not a rabbi, why don’t you tell the site editor to remove the word “Rabbi” from the site’s name? So that people shouldn’t be misled, God forbid..

Shai Zilberstein, seriously? Did the Rabbi’s “proper learning” lead him to think that the story of creation is not to be taken literally, or should the findings of science be blamed for that?

By the way, I agree with you, but in questions of science and Torah I don’t think that’s true.

Gentlemen, these matters were explained in painstaking detail in God Plays Dice, in the chapter on logical and practical tautology. See there.

That was a joke. I’m not bringing proof from the Torah for its lack of truth; that’s pretty obvious. I meant to say that many cases prove a point, and not one exceptional case—because this is not one case. But I understand that salvation will not come from here. I always feel that the discussion shifts to arguments that are “next to” what I’m talking about. I’m dealing with the fact that there are too many bugs and question marks, and you latch onto the laws of saying “Give dew and rain.” But thanks anyway.

It seems we are speaking different languages. As I understand it, I answered everything.
All the best

Bizarre, bizarre, bizarre.
(I don’t know whether that establishes a presumption, but that’s what’s going on here).

In response to B’s remarks:
Indeed, it is not science that causes me to treat the creation story as myth. Would you really have believed that man was created from mud if you had not studied biology? Or that a snake spoke with Adam and Eve?
It is clear that this is myth; even before modern science there were sages who did not think this was a historical account.

Regarding the comment by “Braggart” (?):
If Amnon Yitzhak and Zamir Cohen are called “Rabbi,” then I think Michael Abraham can be called “Rabbi.”
Today, “rabbi” is not only someone formally ordained and serving in the role of a synagogue or community rabbi. “Rabbi” is a title for a person learned in Torah.

Zamir Cohen and Amnon Yitzhak did not say, “I am not a rabbi.” It puzzles me that the site of a man who is not a rabbi (by his own words) calls him rabbi.

Quarrel-Stirrer,
I think he was speaking ironically. You can take a person out of the rabbinate, but you can’t take the rabbinate out of the person.

To Quarrel-Stirrer, who seems to me to also be Braggart, and to the others responding to him:

This is a sociological discussion (and therefore it would really have been proper for me not to address it at all, but fine): I do not think the one who opened the site was the Rabbi, but rather one of his students. And I suspect that this student is still involved in running it, if not actually running it outright. I don’t think the Rabbi had the time or interest to learn how to open a website on the internet.

As for the matter itself, this title “rabbi” nowadays has become extremely devalued (I heard that among the Haredim there is a joke that the title “the great rabbi” is basically just a term for someone of the male sex). So I assume that the Rabbi does not see great honor in belonging to the group of people who receive these titles (that has also developed somewhat in me too, unfortunately, in recent years). Unrelatedly, I studied in a yeshiva high school (which in general really is good, relatively speaking), and there was one teacher there who once asked some student to explain Tosafot to the class, apparently because he himself didn’t understand it. I also heard about a Haredi kollel fellow who boasted to an acquaintance of mine that he had learned all the physics he knows from Maimonides. He was surprised when he discovered that since then they had already found out that the sun does not go around the earth… I assume this is not an isolated case. And that is only an indicator of Haredi naivete. It seems to me that this is included in the concept of a Torah scholar who lacks understanding. Should such a person be called “rabbi”? Is there also a commandment to honor Torah scholars who, in my opinion, lack understanding? I do not know. True, by such a definition this would include dozens of percent of Haredi Torah scholars (and I think also some of the Hardali ones). Therefore, all the more so, if you call them rabbis, then you ought to call Rabbi Michi (I never liked that nickname) “rabbi.” There is even a famous rosh yeshiva in Religious Zionism who, in comparison to the Rabbi (and many others), is really an ignoramus, and no one would dare not call him rabbi.

And since we’re speaking of Amnon Yitzhak: in that case I never really knew what to call him. (Not out of disrespect; I genuinely didn’t know. And I assume the same applies to the other one you mentioned—that is, to outreach figures who bring people to repentance. By the way, I’ve also seen people call Hanan Porat “Rabbi,” and I do not do so.) But I saw that in Two Carts the Rabbi himself called him “Rabbi Amnon Yitzhak” (in the story with the sheep’s funeral), whereas here on the site he already called him without that title. I assume this reflects his metamorphosis since then. Back then he was still somewhat Haredi in practice. (He learned his Torah in their yeshiva world.) Since then he matured a bit and realized what sort of people he was dealing with. I myself discovered over the last decade that among the Haredim they call someone “the rabbi” if they like him (and for external marketing purposes too; that is, in conversations and arguments with “National Religious” people they will call all the rabbis of their own stream rabbis, while from their point of view no National Religious rabbi deserves that title. I even saw someone refer to Rabbi Kook simply as “Kook,” full stop. Good thing he didn’t add “may his name be blotted out.”) I would not have needed this whole discussion at all were it not for the fact that the Haredi blight has spread into Religious Zionism through the Hardalim, especially after the recent elections for the Chief Rabbinate. And this blight should be pinned on the leaders of the Haredi public, because “what a child says in the street he heard from his father or his mother.” In any case, one may discuss whether mentioning an ordinary Torah scholar today by his name alone constitutes disrespect toward a Torah scholar.

I do indeed always fear showing disrespect to Torah scholars, and therefore I would not, in front of Amnon Yitzhak’s students—and likewise in front of any Sephardi Haredi—call their rabbi by his name without his title. They do in fact need to call him that. I would probably just not speak about him, and if they mentioned him I would refer to him as “he.”

Ailon,
There is no need to get into corners because of students. The Rabbi knows he is a rabbi even without entering into a sociological discussion. And he will not lie to himself and think that he is not a rabbi. His response to the questioner was ironic, in the form of a wordplay (I’m not progressive, and I’m not a rabbi). In other words, don’t put me into categories.
Let me sharpen that. Even if the Rabbi is a heretic, as Tamah claims, he would still be the rabbi of the heretics. And even if he became Reform, Heaven forbid, he would still be the rabbi of the Reform Jews. Therefore I repeat what I wrote before—you can take the man out of the rabbinate, but you can’t take the rabbinate out of the man. No religious court can help; the moment the Rabbi opens his mouth, everyone falls silent and listens (that happened to me once at a condolence visit for my teacher and rabbi). Fortunate are we.