[1] Source could not be located at the time of this publication.
[2] Isaac Luria, Talmud Esser Sfirot, trans. Levi Krakovsky with commentary by Yehuda Ashlag (Jerusalem: Yeshivat Koll Yehuda, n.d.).
[3] It is actually more acurate to say ayin m’yesh, nothing from something. For if the only True Reality is the Divine Essence, the undifferentiated, infinite life of Ain Sof, then this must also be the only True “Something”, for it alone is infinite and eternal. Man’s relative “reality” is but an ephemeral, finite image of that which is Absolute. It, then, is “nothing.” Thus G‑d actually created the nothing (ayin) of relative reality from the yesh, Something, of His infinite Self. (From a lecture by Rabbi Lopez Cardozo, Jerusalem).
[4] Meir Leibush Malbim, Beginning and Upheaval, trans. Zvi Faier (Jerusalem: Hillel Press, 1978), Genesis 2:4.
[5] Malbim, Genesis 1:25.
[6] Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh, unpublished lectures on the “Fifty Gates of Understanding.”
[7] Ginsburgh’s trabslation of the song composed by Rabbi Solomon Halevi Alkabetz in 16th century Safed.
[8] John Barrow and Joseph Silk, “The Structure of the Early Universe”, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, Apr.1980,p.98.
[9] The principle that it is impossible to ascribe positive attributes to this ineffable dimension of G‑d is presented by the Rambam. However, Chassidut hold a somewhat different position, declaring that the sole of man can have a positive experience of even the most transcendent levels of HaShem. This apparent disagreement can be resolved by validating the exalted experience of the soul, but recognizing the impossibility of expressing that experience verbally without limiting that which is, by definition, without limit (Ain Sof).
[10] Genesis 1:1.
[11] Samson Raphael Hirsch,on commentary Genesis 1:1.
[12]Book of the Zohar on Exodus, 20 A.
[13]Ginsburgh.
[14]Malbim propounds the idea that anything created yesh m’ayin in its completeness and actuality is immortal and unchanging; whereas that which was created in potential, yesh m’ayin, but appears in actuality yesh m’yesh exhibits growth, development, evolution, etc.
[15] Ginsburgh.
[16] Bereishith Raba 1:1.
[17] Barrow and Silk.
[18] John Graves, The Conceptual Foundations of Contemporary Relativity Theory (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1971), pp. 312-313. “Geometrodynamics is a wholly new kind of physical theory based on what might be called `physical monism’. As opposed to dualism it asserts that there is only one kind of substance in the world, rather than two (or more) with radically different kinds of essences, like mind and matter or atoms and kind of force, action or influence, rather than a multitude competing with each other in some uneasy balance. And as opposed to atomism, it asserts that there is only one individual substance with absolute or intrinsic characteristics of its own”.
[19]Graves, p.314.
[20] Gary Zukav, The Dancing Wu Li Masters: An Overview of the New Physics (Fontana Collins, 1982), p.171-172.
[21] [21]Rav Eliayhu Dessler discusses this idea in the fourth volume of Michtav M’Eliyau, where he presents a theory of hashgacha pratit (Divine Providence). In this model, the final outcome of a verdict from Heaven might hinge upon the unstipulated result of an individual’s free will. This would seem to contradict the position of the Ba’al Shem Tov, who holds that nothing happens outside that which is explicitly determined by hashgacha pratit.
[22] This is not to say that Torah must look to Theoretical Physics for a validation of its understanding of free will and determinism, nor is it to reduce the idea of free will to the level of mechanical, physical principle. Rather it is to aknowledge a very elegant metaphor that exists between the world of atoms and the world of man. (From Cardozo).
[23] This is a complicated and exciting topic that would require a paper in itself to discuss. But in brief, the notion that the unpredictibility of individual subatomic events is simply a function of our limited ability to perceive or identify the underlying determinant is called the principle of local causes or Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen determinism. Implicit in this theory are certain assumptions which are distinctly incompatible with the Quantum Theory of Uncertainty. An ingenious mathematical proof called the Bell Theorem proposed a way of experimentally testing and discriminating between the two theories based on their mutually exclusive predictions of certain probability patterns. This experiment was performed, and the results confirmed Quantum Mechanics and refuted determinism. The implication is that probability and unpredictibility are built into matter and into the universe. For further reading, see:
Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen, “Can Quantum Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete?”
PHYSICAL REVIEW vol.47, 1935,p.777 ff.
Erwin Schrodinger, “Discussions of Probability Relations Between Separated Systems”, PROCEEDINGS OF THE CAMBRIDGE PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY,vol. 35, 1935, pp. 555-562.
Stuart Freedman and John Clausner, “Experimental Test of Local Hidden Variable Theories”, PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS, vol. 28, 1972,p.938 ff.
Henry Stapp, “The Copenhagen Interpretation and the Nature of Space-Time”, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICS, vol. 40, 1972,p. 1098.
Bernard d’Espagnat, “The Quantum Theory and Relativity”, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, Nov. 1979,p.128.
[24] For a definition and explanation of thermodynamics (sufficient for the needs of this paper) see section below, “Thermodynamics.”
[25] Julie Miller, “Evolution: Return of the Embryo”, SCIENCE NEWS, vol. 120, July 4, 1981,pp.12-14.
[26] R. Yosef Schneerson, On the Teaching of Chassidus, trans. Zalman Posner (New York:Kehot Publication Society),p. 12.
[27] The Feynman Lectures on Physics, vol. 1 (California Institute of Technology: Addison Wesley Publishing Co., 1963).
[28] [28]Negative entropy measures the degree off orderliness, inequality and non-random arrangement within a thermodynamic system. It is greated the farther a system is from absolute homogeneity and equilibrium. Entropy and negative entrop[y are inversely proportional.
[29] Stanley W. Angrist and Loren G. Hepler, Order and Chaos: Laws of Energy and Entropy (New York: Basic Books,1967).
[30] Barrow and Silk, p. 100.
[31] Barrow and Silk, p. 101.
[32] This scenario describing a gradual transformation of matter into light anticipates the refutation of the Theory of the Conservation of Baryons, a fact that is similarly predicted by most contemporary cosmologies. There are several currently running experiments attempting to isolate and document an incident of proton decay. Two difficulties with these projects are th disagreements among scientists as to th predicted half-life of these nuclear particles a well as the hypothetical decay products of sue an event. See: Rick Gore. The Once and Future Universe’ NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC vol. 163, no. 6, Jun 1983, pp. 704-749. Dietrict Thompson. “The New Inflationar Universe’. SCIENCE NEWS, vol. 123, Feb. 1J 1983, pp. 108-109.
[33] Malbim, Genesis 1:26.
[34] The Divine Soul of man, the Shoresh Elokit, is a actual portion of G‑d and not an emanation (Him (as with other levels of soul). In this regard, is not altogether accurate to equate Life Force with Soul Force, for the highest level of Divine Soul exists “before” the bifurcation of immanence and transcendence. (From R. Yitzchak Ginsburgh).
[35] Shaar Hayichud, chap. 1 “quotes Rabbi Isaac Luria in EtzChaim, Shaar Man U’Mad, sec. 3.
[36] Malbim, Genesis 1:25 B.
[37] Malbim, trans. Zvi Faier, p. 125, footnote 252.
[38] Malbim, Genesis 1:26.
[39] Malbim, Genesis 1:25.
[40] Malbim, Genesis 2:7 (“And man became a living Being”).
[41] Herman Branover, “Evolution and the Specious”, JERUSALEM POST MAGAZINE, May 20, 1983.
[42] The Maharal (16th century) proposed a nearly identical description of evolutionary unfoldment: “…the earth has within it a force of creation whereby each level of life comes froth from that which preceded it.”
[43] Malbim, Genesis 1:26.
[44] Malbim, Genesis 1:25 E.
[45] Malbim, Genesis 1:25 F.
[46] Malbim, trans. Faier, p. 125.
[47] Malbim. Psalms 8:6.
[48] Hirsch. Genesis 1:1.
[49] Zohar, Exodus 20a.
[50] Genesis 1:26.
[51] This paper has not addressed the question of time — whether a day in the Genesis narrative is necessarily identical to a 24-hour day as we know it. The reader is referred to Challenge: Torah Views on Science and its Problems, eds. Aryeh Carmell and Cyril Domb (Jerusalem-New York: Feldheim Publishers, 1976), where this issue is discussed from every conceivable angle and resolved many times over.
[52] Branover.
[53] ויכולו השמים והארץ וכל צבאם. The key word her is ויכולו (vay’chulu) meaning, “they were brought to completion.”
[54] Hirsh, Genesis 21:1.
[55] This is a currently respected and accepted theory among cultural evolutionists and biologists such as Stephen Gould of Harvard University and Allen Wilson of the University of California in Berkeley. Says Wilson, “The brain drives evolution… In human evolution, behavior may underlie 99% of the anatomical change… The crucial difference between rapidly evolving mammals and birds and the more conservative reptiles and amphibians is the power of their brains… Nongenetic propagation of new skills in large populations will significantly accelerate anatomical evolution in all vertebrates, even non-humans”. From SCIENCE NEWS, vol. 124, no. 7, Aug. 13, 1983, p. 101.
[56] This diagram (Figure C)
shows the relative predominance of form and consciousness at key stages in the evolution of life on this planet, starting with the mineral kingdom which appeared earliest on the evolutionary scene and so is lowest on the time scale. Its horizontal time line intersects the consciousness and form axes at points A1 and A2 respectively. The great distance between these two points, and the position of A1 at the extreme left of the graph, shows that in the mineral kingdom, form prevails over consciousness to a very great degree.
The plant line intersects the consciousness and form axes at points B1and B2 respectively. Since the consciousness of plants is more developed than minerals, the predominance of form over consciousness has decreased somewhat, as indicated by the shortened distance between its two intersecting points.
The animal kingdom’s timeline continues this pattern. Its intersecting points, C1 and C2, are closer to each other still, which shows that the predominance of form over consciousness has decreased even more.
And for homo sapiens (A1 and A2), consciousness has developed to a point where form now only predominates to a minimal extent.
The appearance of Adam (E1,2) marks a profoundly significant moment, where the impact of consciousness upon the external character of reality is as great as the influence of form. Adam has true free choice. He has the strength of consciousness to choose a path that differs from his instinctive reaction to the moment. (This is not always good. Sometime dismissing instincts is the right choice, sometimes it is the wrong one.)
Finally the uppermost horizontal line marks the transition between this world to the world to come. At that point in our evolutionary process form will be overwhelmed by the radiant strength of enlightened consciousness. Relative to the previous stages of evolutionary development, their relationship will invert. The form coordinate (F2) now appears further left on the graph than the consciousness coordinate, which means it will become the less predominate of the pair. The whole nature of physicality will change. Its opacity will dissolve and reality will enclothe itself in transparent bodies of light, returning to the way it was for Adam and Chava in Gan Eden before their fall.
[57] Genesis 2:2. “And the earth was tohu v’vohu, and darkness was upon the turmoil/and the Divine Presence hovered above the waters”. Tohu v’vohu is variously translated as “formless and void”, “waste and void”, “confused and tangled”, “astonishingly empty.”
[58] A metaphor: if Beethoven had been limited to an African drum and wooden flute, the materialization of his symphonic pastoral vision would have been very primitive and qualitatively different from the sophisticated and complex symphony we know as “La Pastoral”. The rich and subtle details of his auditory reverie demand, for complete expression, about a 100-piece orchestra. Thus, as civilization becomes more technically sophisticated and musically versatile, there arises the possibility of an increasingly precise and complete communication of Beethoven’s musical vision.
[59] Rambam attributes this classification of souls to Onkelos.
[60] An interesting observation: the root of the Hebrew word for evolution (התפתחות) is פתח, the root of the word for an opening or entrance way.
[61] Deuteronomy 30:3. “Life and death I put before you. Choose life.”
This article was published in B’or Hatorah: Science, the Arts, and Problems of Modern Life in the Light of the Torah. #4, Summer 1984 (Shamir: Jerusalem, Israel). p. 15-38.
This article can be viewed in pdf format.
