Archives

Subscribe

Subscribe

Subscribe to receive new posts:


 

Available Now!
When Judaism Meets Science

 

“a rare masterpiece”
– Rabbi Lawrence Hoffman, HUC

“careful research, passionate analysis, and good sense”
– Rabbi David Teutsch, RRC

“clear, engaging”
– Rabbi Geoffrey Mitelman, Sinai and Synapses

“a tremendous tome”
– Rabbi Wayne Dosick, SpiritTalk Live!

“an absolutely fascinating book”
– Rabbi Richard Address, Jewish Sacred Aging

“scholarly, judicious, and fair–minded . . . and very ‘readable’”
– Ronald W. Pies, MD

“a fresh way to explore Jewish topics . . . useful in teaching adults”
– Rabbi Gail Shuster–Bouskila

“A must read! . . . careful thought and such literary excellence”
– Rabbi Jack Riemer

Upcoming events

There are no events to display

Posts Tagged ‘Torah’

Science and Judaism: Biblical Numbers, Mathematics and Attributed Patriarchal Ages

Sunday, January 22, 2012 @ 01:01 PM
posted by Roger Price

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Credit: Roger Price

The Hebrew Bible is filled with numbers. There are different kinds of numbers — cardinals and ordinals, integers and fractions, even primes. And they are everywhere in the Torah text.

There are numbers for days. (See, e.g., Gen. 1:5, 8, 13.)

There are numbers for life spans. (See, e.g., Gen. 5:5, 8, 11.)

There are numbers for populations, i.e., census numbers.  (See, e.g., Ex. 1:5, 12:37; Num. 1:46, 2:32.)

There are numbers for the measurement of quantities. (See, e.g., Ex. 16:22, 36, 29:40.)

And for sizes. (See, e.g., Gen. 6:15.)

There are numbers for the duration of events. (See, e.g., Ex. 12:40, 24:18.)

There are numbers for a host of seemingly mundane things, such as the number of visitors and the number of palm trees. (See, e.g., Gen. 18:2; Ex. 15:27.) read more

Share

Science and Judaism: The Strange Claim of Dr. Schroeder (Part I)

Tuesday, October 18, 2011 @ 10:10 AM
posted by Roger Price

          The literal accuracy of the biblical description of the origin of the cosmos and of life itself has been the subject of controversy and reinterpretation for millennia. Even before recent scientific discoveries made the story of a six-day creation simply untenable as fact, many Jewish scholars, among others, readily acknowledged that the opening chapters of the Bible do not reflect a true portrayal of historic creation. (See, Post 10/11/11.)

           Today that view has achieved a sort of consensus. With respect to B’reishit (Genesis), the Reform movement’s latest commentary asserts that the Bible “has a great deal to tell about God’s relationship to the world and about human beings and their destiny,” but concedes that the opening chapters are “unscientific, antiquated myths” that may be approached “in the same manner as one approaches poetry.” (Plaut, The Torah, rev. ed. (2005), at 6.) Etz Hayim, the Torah commentary published by the Conservative movement (2001) holds similarly: “The opening chapters of Genesis are not a scientific account of the origins of the universe. The Torah is a book of morality, not cosmology.” (At 3, emphasis supplied.) The Chumash (The Stone Edition)(1993), published as part of the more traditional Art Scroll series, accepts Rashi’s understanding that Torah starts with Creation in order to establish God’s supremacy, but acknowledges that “the Torah is not a history book . . . .” [All year citations are CE, unless otherwise noted.] read more

Share

Science and Judaism: Would That You Were Right, Rabbi Mitelman

Tuesday, October 11, 2011 @ 10:10 AM
posted by Roger Price

   Shortly before this blog was launched several months ago, Rabbi Geoffrey Mitelman of Beth El Synagogue in Northern Westchester, New York wrote an article for Huffington Post titled Why Judaism Embraces Science. See,  www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-geoffrey-a-mitelman/why/can-judaism-embrace-s_b_880003.html.  There Mitelman presented three “especially significant” reasons for his thesis.

   At the outset, I recognize that Mitelman was writing a brief essay and not an academic paper, let alone an expansive book. And I also recognize that his audience was whoever was reading or may read the HuffPost blog and not a dedicated group of adult learners. Nevertheless, the three bases for Mitelman’s post, even if assumed to be correct, do not compel the conclusion for which they are mustered and they raise more questions than Mitelman answered in his piece.  read more

Share