OzTorah

Q. How does Judaism reconcile creation with evolution?

A. Rivers of ink have been expended on works that consider whether religion and evolution are compatible.

Among Jewish writers, some adamantly reject all evolutionary theories. They insist that each part of creation was brought into being in a finished state.

Did the original trees have rings, which are normally an indication of a tree’s age? Yes, we are told, because that is the definition of a tree. Why do fossils exist? They are relics of what was wiped out in the flood.

Another approach comes from the Tiferet Yisrael (Israel Lipschitz) at the end of Mishnah Nezikin. He accepts that prehistoric relics really are eons old, but they date from the many generations which existed before the world as we know it: God, said the rabbis, “created worlds and destroyed them” before settling on this one.

Two well known theories are more directly sympathetic to evolution; JH Hertz agreed that creation came in a process of gradual ascent, but not as the result of chance but by the Divine will. Rav Kook believed the whole world is in constant movement and evolution towards final perfection.

MM Kasher however, raises two objections. It is not necessary, he argues, to make concessions to evolutionary theory, since evolution has not been decisively proved. Nor is any concession possible, because the plain meaning of Scripture excludes it.

In reply to Rav Kook, he says the evolution of the human spirit has no necessary connection with the development of physical species.

Q. I saw in the Siddur a reference to a rabbi called Ben Bag Bag and another called Ben Hey Hey. Can you explain how anyone would have such a crazy name?

A. The passage you are quoting is from the end of chapter 5 of the Mishnaic tractate Pirkei Avot (The Ethics of the Fathers).

Both rabbis, 1st century sages from the Land of Israel, are summing up the rewards that come from studying Torah. One gets the impression that they came to it from outside and found that their effort paid off.

Many scholars think they are converts (one view has it that they are one and the same person). Bag is composed of two Hebrew letters, bet and gimel, denoting 2 and 3 – added up they make 5, the numerical value of the letter hey, which was added to the names of Abraham and Sarah.

Hey is one of the letters from the Name of God, and so Ben (son of) Bag Bag may have been given his name when he adopted Judaism. Likewise with Ben Hey Hey.

Ben Bag Bag plays a part in the halachic tradition, e.g. in the Sifra on Lev. 19:11-14, where he says, “Do not steal back from a thief that which he has stolen from you, lest you appear to be a thief.”

Quod erat demonstratum… that’s the Latin tag which says that what you were meant to demonstrate has been duly demonstrated.

These days it has another meaning. Whatever people can demonstrate about, they demonstrate about it.

There are marches, vigils and pickets, and they make maximum use of media attention to ensure that however abstruse their cause, the public hears about it.

That is what happened in the days of Korach, except that at that point in history the media had not been invented.

Korach and his henchmen were taking a stand for democracy, or so they said. “All the congregation are holy,” they said to Moses and Aaron, “So why do you lord it over the congregation of the Lord?” (Num. 16:1-3).

Korach was the demagogue who coined the slogan; Datan and Aviram were the two chief followers, of the type that Rabbi Louis Rabinowitz called “the professional troublemaker… who, whenever there is a chance of making mischief or causing trouble, is to be found in the forefront.

“They can derive no possible benefit or advantage to themselves from their machinations except for the sadistic satisfaction of knowing that they have thrown a wrench in the works, that they have caused strife and disharmony and disturbed the peace of the community.”

Korach, Datan and Aviram were not entirely wrong in drawing attention to what they thought was bad government of the congregation. Every community has its faults and failings, and the communal leadership everywhere ought to understand that their people are entitled to criticise.

Yet, in the Korach incident, the fact is that it was God who appointed Moses and Aaron, and the critics should have questioned Him if they thought there was a problem.

But even worse than this was the fact that from none of the demonstrators did one hear a word of appreciation, encouragement or praise.

You would have thought that nothing good was happening at all. There was no recognition of the good that had been done, however imperfect; of the dedication and effort of the congregational leadership, however much might have been done better; and no offer of help to put things right.

There are times when to demonstrate and criticise is cheap and churlish. This is one of them.

Modern-day communal critics, please take note.

Everyone tries to work out the opening words of the sidra, Vayikkach Korach, which literally mean “And Korach took” (Num.16:1).

The problem is that the text does not tell us what he took.

If you go to the Targum Onkelos, the Aramaic translation/paraphrase, you get v’it’p’lag, “And he separated himself”.

Now we have two new questions: what is meant by “he separated himself”, and how can Onkelos justify this as a translation of vayikkach?

To take the second question first, it seems that Onkelos takes the verb as reflexive – who/what did he take? Himself! He moved from one side of the people to the other.

He claimed to be a democrat, seeking the welfare of the whole community. In fact, he became a despot. It’s as if he said, “I’m the one in charge: I decide what’s happening!”

When one of my children was very small she refused to do what her parents wanted, and she said, “I’m the boss of me!”

It was a sign of independence, but to be the boss of oneself is far less than what Korach did. With him it wasn’t simply “I’m the boss of me!” but “I’m the boss of everything!”

The context is Biblical, but the problem is as modern as today.

It’s what we see these days – someone claims to be a democrat when in fact the person is a demagogue and despot.

Q. There have been outbreaks of measles worldwide, including in some charedi communities in the USA and elsewhere where childhood vaccination has sometimes not been practiced.* Is there a Jewish view about vaccination?

A. There seems to be a fear in some circles that vaccination can have problematical side effects. Medical opinion assures the public that such fears are unfounded with all the constant refinement of medical procedures.

There is a string of rabbinic statements advising parents not to withhold vaccination: the 19th century authority Rav Yisrael Lifschitz, for example, said that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks, and vaccination is permitted in halachah.

Leading recent authorities strongly advise parents to have their children vaccinated. An example is Rav Moshe Feinstein (Ig’rot Moshe, Orach Chayyim vol. 2, chapter 100).

Relevant halachic principles are: one must avoid danger (Ket. 41b, Yoreh Deah 167, Choshen Mishpat 427); the accredited doctor has God’s licence to heal (Ex. 21:19 and commentaries); one must not simply say, “The Lord protects the simple” (Psalm 116:6).

One of the detailed studies of the issue is Asher Bush, “Vaccination in Theory and Practice”, in “Hakirah: The Flatbush Journal of Jewish Law and Thought”, vol. 13 (2012).

* This article first appeared in 2019.