A Question of Time1

©Copyright Rabbi Moshe Meiselman

Introduction

One of the outstanding areas of contention between the Torah’s teachings

and current mainstream scientific thinking is the subject of dating. The
perceived conflicts associated with this multifaceted topic seem to be, prima
facie, irresolvable.

1. Creation versus a world with no beginning

The issue is not a new one. It was first discussed in our sources in medieval
times. Ever since Aristotle science had claimed that the world had no
beginning. His attitude was that the world has always existed just as we see
it today. In more recent times Newton’s laws together with Laplace’s work
seemed to have proven this conclusively.
Neither the philosophic/scientific proofs of Aristotle, however, nor the
scientific proofs of Newton and Laplace moved our Mesorah. None of the
chachmei haMesorah who confronted the issue ever suggested that the
received position be reevaluated. Creation ex nihilo has always remained a
fundamental belief. The scientific approach has always been simply rejected,
even in the face of so called proofs.

2. The scientific view changes

1
This is a shortened version of a chapter in my forthcoming book. The technical bases for much of what is
written here are expanded on there in great detail.
However, there are two issues that the context of a journal article does not allow to be expounded on in
detail.
The first is that I show in great detail that the Rambam, Ramban, Rashba and Rabbeinu Bachye,
among other rishonim, adopt a dual concept of time. Time as we know it came into existence with
Creation; however, there is an extra-cosmic concept of time which is operative independently of scientific
time. This operates at times when scientific time is not applicable. When the world operates according to
regular scientific norms, the two concepts overlap. However, at times when Divine Providence suspends
natural law, we measure time by the extra-cosmic clock. A detailed analysis of the above mentioned
rishonim is a necessary part of the ideas in this chapter.
The second is the fact that we show in great detail that just as there is such a thing as an halachic
ruling (psak halacha) in practical areas of daily life, so too there is psak halacha in issues of Torah
ideology (Hashkafah). Adopting singular opinions is as wrong in hashkafa as it is in halacha. The technical
detail that supports this position is expounded on in my book as well.
The scientific view changed radically in the middle of the twentieth century
so that today the overwhelming scientific opinion is that the universe did
indeed have a beginning. It is believed, however, that this occurred some
fifteen billion years ago, which is still completely incompatible with Biblical
chronology.

3. The age of the universe is not a scientific question

It is the opinion of this author, however, that there are serious
methodological problems both with the scientific approach to this subject
and with the critique of the Torah based upon it, as I hope to demonstrate in
the present chapter. Therefore just as there was no reason to change our
outlook on account of the “proofs” to the earlier view of the world’s eternity,
so is there no reason to modify our understanding of the Torah in light of the
“proofs” to the current view.
The age of the universe is an issue to be determined by the internal dynamics
of the Torah itself. From our perspective it is not a scientific question at all.

4. The problems of chronology

Another source of conflict is the discrepancy between the implied
chronology of the Biblical narratives and the dates established through
archeology and the dating of artifacts. This lack of compatibility has
prompted some to opt for non-literal interpretations of various Biblical
episodes.
However, the same methodological problems alluded to above with regard to
the age of the universe apply in this area as well, very often rendering the
supposed conflicts spurious. There are, in addition, many other
methodological problems connected with the discipline of archeology that
are beyond the purview of this work. Therefore once again there is no reason
to change our reading of the Torah in response to mistaken science.

(a)
The Meaning of Time
1. Sequence and duration2
Before we begin, an important observation must be made. Time can be
viewed in a number of ways. It can be thought of, for instance, in terms of
sequence – i.e. event A happened before event B – for example, the Torah
was created before the world. But it can also be viewed in terms of duration
and passage – i.e. event C lasted for twenty minutes or alternatively, event D
occurred two hours ago. For example, the Jewish People wandered in the
desert for forty years; the Torah was created two thousand years before the
world.
It is this second way of looking at time that we have in mind when we treat it
as an object of measurement, but we will have cause to refer to the first
aspect as well in the course of the following discussion. Therefore it is
important to take note of which aspect we are speaking of at each juncture.

2. Measurement requires stability

One of the main points of this chapter will be that all current tools for
measuring the passage of time presume stability in the relationships between
natural processes, similar to what we observe today. In fact, our entire
outlook on time reflects this presumption.
Later on in this chapter we will cite the views of a number of Rishonim, as
well as those of certain non-Torah personalities, regarding the measuring of
time during periods when these stable relationships did not exist. Clearly in
such periods the means by which time is measured must be very different
from those in use today. Nevertheless, we see that Torah sources continue
applying the same terms as they move seamlessly from one period to
another, making no mention of any disjuncture.

3. Dual conceptions of measurement

It is evident from this situation that these sources are employing two distinct
conceptions of time measurement – one paralleling our own for use when
current relationships are operative and another completely different
conception to be used when they are not – both expressed in the same terms.
In order for them to work complementarily, however, the existence of a
unifying conception applicable in all epochs must be posited. It is this that
serves as the true measure of time.
2
I would like to thank Rabbi Dr. Dovid Gottleib for pointing this out to me.
Whenever the world is operating in accordance with ordinary natural law the
true measure coincides with human convention, making it possible for us to
employ the latter and ignore the former. But during those epochs when
natural law is not in effect, the true measure ceases to bear any resemblance
to our own and it alone has meaning.

4. Time is coeval with the physical universe

The Rambam writes that time presupposes motion, which in turn
presupposes a physical world. Without motion, there is no time. Time, he
concludes, came into existence at Creation.3 Time could not precede the
physical cosmos because it is in fact a necessary feature of it.
The contemporary scientific view is similar. Time came into existence with
the emergence of our current physical universe, i.e. with the big bang. For
this reason the question, “What was the prior circumstance that precipitated
the big bang?” has no scientific meaning. Similarly, to speak of a quantity of
time before the big bang has no meaning. Time, both as a sequence of events
and as an object of measurement, simply did not exist before the emergence
of the physical universe.4

3
‫ ושהזמן עצמו ג"כ מכלל‬,‫ ברצונו וחפצו לא מדבר‬,‫ ואחר כן המציא כל אלה הנמצאות כפי מה שהם‬:‫מורה נבוכים חלק ב פרק יג‬
'‫ והמתנועע ההוא בעצמו אשר הזמן נמשך אחר תנועתו מחודש והי‬,‫ והתנועה מקרה במתנועע‬,‫ כי הזמן נמשך אחר התנועה‬,‫הנבראים‬
‫ וכן כל מה שיעלה בשכל מהמשך‬,‫ אשר תורה מלת הי' על זמן‬,‫ ושזה אשר יאמר הי' הבורא קודם שיברא העולם‬,'‫אחר שלא הי‬
.‫ כי הזמן מקרה בלא ספק‬,‫ כל זה שער זמן או דמות זמן לא אמתת זמן‬,‫מציאותו קודם בריאת העולם המשך אין תכלית לו‬
4
In an address on this topic theoretical physicist Paul Davies said the following: “If the big bang was the
beginning of time itself, then any discussion about what happened before the big bang, or what caused it –
in the usual sense of physical causation – is simply meaningless. Unfortunately, many children, and adults,
too, regard this answer as disingenuous. There must be more to it than that, they object. Indeed there is.
After all, why should time suddenly ‘switch on’? What explanation can be given for such a singular event?
Until recently, it seemed that any explanation of the initial ‘singularity’ that marked the origin of time
would have to lie beyond the scope of science. However, it all depends on what is meant by
‘explanation’….
“The essence of the Hartle-Hawking idea is that the big bang was not the abrupt switching on of time at
some singular first moment, but the emergence of time from space in an ultra-rapid but nevertheless
continuous manner. On a human time scale, the big bang was very much a sudden, explosive origin of
space, time, and matter. But look very, very closely at that first tiny fraction of a second and you find that
there was no precise and sudden beginning at all. So here we have a theory of the origin of the universe that
seems to say two contradictory things: First, time did not always exist; and second, there was no first
moment of time. Such are the oddities of quantum physics.
“Even with these further details thrown in, many people feel cheated. They want to ask why these weird
things happened, why there is a universe, and why this universe. Perhaps science cannot answer such
questions. Science is good at telling us how, but not so good on the why. Maybe there isn’t a why. To
wonder why is very human, but perhaps there is no answer in human terms to such deep questions of
existence. Or perhaps there is, but we are looking at the problem in the wrong way. Well, I didn’t promise
to provide the answers to life, the universe, and everything, but I have at least given a plausible answer to
the question I started out with: What happened before the big bang? The answer is: Nothing.
(See http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/big-bang.html.)
Questions such as, “What caused the big bang?” valid as they may seem to
the layman, are relegated by modern science to philosophy – or worse, to
theology – because scientifically speaking, they are meaningless. Not every
question that can be formulated is meaningful, note the scientists, and a
meaningless question cannot be given a meaningful answer.
In a different context Stephen Hawking illustrated this by asking, “What is
five miles north of the North Pole?” Since the question is nonsensical, it has
no answer.

5. The atomic clock

Time is a way of relating the changes associated with distinct physical
processes to one another. Historically, it was measured by astronomical
phenomena. The verse in Bereishis tells us that the day, the month and the
year are all based upon astronomical movements.5
Currently, as a matter of convention, for all scientific and legal purposes
time is measured by the behavior of the cesium atom. Since 1967 the
International System of Units (SI) has defined the second as the period equal
to 9,192,631,770 cycles of the radiation corresponding to the transition
between two energy levels of the ground state of the Cesium-133 atom.
This definition makes the cesium oscillator (sometimes referred to
generically as the atomic clock) the primary standard instrument for all time
and frequency measurements. The measurements thus derived are referred to
as “atomic time.” There are formulae to relate this to our astronomical time.
To keep the two types of time synchronized, leap seconds must be added
from time to time.

6. Extrapolation presumes a stable framework

This entire system presumes the absolute coordinated regularity of nature. A
change in any one phenomenon vis-à-vis any other would totally upset the
way we measure time. Hence, the day that Yehoshua caused the sun to stand
still may have been a single astronomical day, but it was surely a longer
period as measured by the cesium atom. The presumption of stability in the
oscillations of the cesium atom underlies all notions of time measurement
today, as well as their projection into other epochs.

.‫ יהי מארת ברקיע השמים להבדיל בין היום ובין הלילה והיו לאתת ולמועדים ולימים ושנים‬,'‫ ויאמר א‬:‫ בראשית פרק א פסוק יד‬5
When we extrapolate backwards in time we are tacitly assuming that
throughout the period of the extrapolation all natural processes maintained
the same relationships. If, for example, they were all to speed up by a factor
of ten we would have no way of measuring or perhaps even detecting the
phenomenon. On the other hand, if one process remained constant we would
then have to decide whether the others sped up or that one slowed down.

7. Coordinating astronomical and atomic time

To give a practical example, suppose that the rotation of the earth on its axis
were to double in speed while all other natural processes remained constant.
We would then be forced to decide whether there were now more days in the
year or whether the period of a day had become two revolutions instead of
one.
If the latter option were chosen, the day would receive a new astronomical
definition, but it would correspond to the same number of cycles of the
cesium atom. Contemporary convention would choose the second
alternative, but this preference is based upon a totally arbitrary formality.
It should not be inferred from this discussion that the world could in fact
remain stable if all natural processes were to speed up – or that such a thing
has ever happened. The universe is a delicate mechanism and any change in
one variable would demand coordinated changes in countless others. This
example was only meant to illustrate the kinds of factors that must be taken
into consideration when evaluating issues of time.

8. Nature’s constancy is not a given

The assumption of the constancy of natural processes throughout the ages
has been disputed by some of the greatest names in science. In 1939 the
English physicist and Nobel Prize laureate Paul Dirac wrote, “At the
beginning of time the laws of Nature were probably very different from
what they are now. Thus, we should consider the laws of nature as
continually changing within the epoch, instead of holding uniformly
throughout space-time.”6

9. Science dismisses what it cannot evaluate

6
Dirac, Paul “The relationship between mathematics and physics,” Proceedings of the Royal Society
(Edinburgh), v. 59, pp. 122-129.
According to our Mesorah there were at least two epochs in which the
processes of nature were indeed very different from what they are today. The
first was during the course of Creation while the second was throughout the
period of the Mabul. Although it is certain that the differences were very
great, their exact extent and nature are completely unknown to us.
Whenever an event is said to have taken place outside of ordinary natural
law there is no way for science to evaluate its factuality. For this reason the
report is simply assumed to be false or at the very least, distorted beyond all
recognition. This is how science deals not only with Creation and the Mabul,
but with all irregular events.
This is a classic example of the application of Occam’s razor.7 Rather than
positing unverifiable alternatives, science takes the familiar current situation
and extrapolates it backwards and forwards in time. It has no other way of
relating to the past and future.
In general this methodology has proven to be a very effective. It is also a
highly reasonable one to adopt in the absence of a Mesorah.8 The Torah tells
us, however, that there were at least two periods of history – during the week
of Creation and again in the time of the Mabul – when the current natural
order was not functional. During these periods, therefore, extrapolation is
inappropriate and leads to mistaken conclusions.

10. During Creation and the Mabul different laws applied

During the six days of Creation the world was governed by a system of laws
that was totally different from the one operative today.9 Hence it is a mistake
to project our current way of measuring time backwards into that period.
Similarly, the period of the Mabul was one of cosmic chaos, involving the
disruption of many natural processes.10 For this reason we can discuss the
timing of events that have transpired since the Mabul and of those preceding
7
Occam’s razor will be explained in detail later. Briefly, it is the principle that when faced with different
ways of explaining a set of data or a phenomenon one should adopt the simplest until forced to change.
‫ יש לשבחם על‬,‫ אדרבה‬.‫ על כל פנים אין להאשימם על כך‬.‫ ראה ספר הכוזרי מאמר ה אות יד ואין הסכמה בין פילוסוף לחברו‬8
‫ להם‬.‫ ומאסו בתענוגי העולם הזה‬,‫ ויסדו את החקות השכליות‬,‫ ועל שכוונו אל הטוב‬,‫ההשגים שהשיגו בכח ההפשטה שבהקשיהם‬
‫ אולם אנחנו מחויבים להאמין בכל אשר ראו עינינו ובמסרת‬.‫ כי הרי לא נתחייבו לקבל את דעותינו אנו‬,‫אפוא היתרון על כל פנים‬
.'‫הדומה לעדות הראי‬
‫ ושלא ישתנה דבר כלל לאחר ששת‬,‫ וכל החכמים ז"ל מסכימים שכל פרשה זו היתה ביום הששי‬.‫ מורה נבוכים חלק שני פרק ל‬9
.‫ ולפיכך לא יהא רחוק שום דבר מאותם הדברים כפי שאמרנו שעד עתה לא גובש טבע יציב‬,‫ימי בראשית‬
‫ ואמר כי בכל יום מן הששה היו מתחדשים חדושים יוצאים מזה הטבע המונח הנמצא עתה במציאות‬.‫מורה הנבוכים חלק א פרק סז‬
.‫ וביום השביעי נמשך הענין והונח כפי מה שהוא עתה‬,‫בכללו‬
‫ לא‬.‫ אלא שלא הי' רישומן ניכר‬,‫ אמר לו ר' יונתן שמשו‬.‫ בראשית רבה כה ב אמר ר' יוחנן לא שמשו המזלות כל אותן י"ב חדש‬10
.‫ מכאן ששבתו‬,‫ ורבי יהושע אומר לא ישבותו‬.‫ מכאן שלא שבתו‬,‫ רבי אליעזר אמר לא ישבותו‬.‫ רבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע‬,‫ישבותו‬
it (subsequent to Creation), but we cannot make any projections backward
from what we currently observe into or beyond the year of the Mabul.11
Take, for instance, the assertion that a certain tree has been shown
scientifically to be 5000 years old. There are two reasons why this statement
is nonsensical from the Torah perspective:
• First, we do not understand how the chaos of the Mabul altered the
natural processes operative at the time, hence we cannot know how
these, in turn, affected the tree.
• Second, since the world was governed by different laws during the
Mabul, the means by which time is measured today cannot be applied
to this period. In other words, our standard approach to time does not
provide us with the continuum of measurement necessary for
evaluating the age of the tree.12

11. More difficulties in evaluating ancient events

The difficulties in evaluating antediluvian events are actually much greater
than may appear from the foregoing discussion. When we examine remains
from the postdiluvian world we can make certain presumptions about what
took place with relative confidence. We can then assign approximate dates
to these events using the tools of measurement with which the continuity of
natural law provides us.
This approach fails, however, when we attempt to apply it to the period of
the Mabul and before. There are three reasons for this:
• First, as already noted, there is no continuum of natural law that
includes the contemporary world, the period of the Mabul and the
antediluvian world. Hence there are no common tools of measurement
with which to construct a comprehensive table.
• Second, although it is possible that prior to the Mabul the world was
subject to the same system of natural laws as afterwards, the details of
the world may have been very different. We view a world
reconstructed from chaos. The laws of physics and chemistry may be

11
This may be the intention of the Midrash stating that the period of the Mabul does not figure in the
reckoning of Noach’s years.
12
It also follows that the days and months spoken of within the year of the Mabul are reckoned in
accordance with an entirely different sort of clock. Similarly, when we say that the world is 5770 years old
we are again employing a different sort of clock than the one we use ordinarily, even though the units we
refer to are identical.
 the same, but features such as weather patterns and the natural
characteristics of the flora and fauna may be radically different from
what they once were.13
• Third, we are incapable of evaluating the impact that the Mabul itself
had upon the world.
In short, there is no sound basis for interpreting remains from epochs whose
rules we do not understand. Interpreting the results of the process of
Creation or the chaos of the Mabul is beyond our ability.

12. An apparent conflict due to circular reasoning

During the period of Creation God was still engaged in putting our current
system together. At the time of the Mabul He tore the world apart and put it
back together again in an orderly but changed fashion. Consequently, we
have no way of knowing what rules were operative during either episode.
For this reason contemporary methods of interpretation and measurement
break down when confronted by these two periods.
Once one accepts the Torah's version of history – that during certain epochs
current natural law was not operative – there is no contradiction at all
between the Torah’s chronology and science. It is only when one denies the
Torah's version of events that the contradictions arise. The issue is
completely circular.

13. Different assumptions, different conclusions

To sum up, there are two reasons why no definitive conclusions can ever be
drawn from remains found in early geological contexts: First, during the
periods of Creation and the Mabul the world was subject to different laws
than those operative today. Second, during those epochs time itself had a
different meaning than it has today.
By contrast, when contemporary science sets about analyzing ancient
remnants it implicitly assumes the reverse of these two points – namely, a)
that natural law has never changed, and b) that time has always had the same
meaning.

13
Note for example the diminution in human life spans after Noach, at least of the great leaders. Note also
the change in animal behavior indicated by Bereishis 9:5; cf. the Ramban’s discussion thereon.
The real dispute, then, is about the kinds of assumptions it is legitimate to
make, while the differences in conclusions are merely derivative of that. The
assumptions made by contemporary science in this area were never provable
in the first place and they remain matters of conjecture. Our Mesorah has
always rejected them and there is no justification for changing that stance
now.

(b)
Rav Yitzchak of Acco14

1. The concept of Sabbatical cycles

In a final note, the popular literature often cites the view propounded by Rav
Yitzchak of Acco (1250-1340),15 a medieval Kabbalist and talmid of the
Ramban, which indeed seems to place the age of the universe at around
fifteen billion years.16 Rav Yitzchak is elaborating upon a position found in
the early Kabbalistic work Sefer HaTemunah,17 according to which the years
of this world comprise one out of seven Shemita or “Sabbatical” cycles of
7000 years each.
The general understanding is that according to Sefer HaTemunah we are
currently in the second cycle.18 Assuming, however, as some commentaries
do,19 that we are currently in the seventh Sabbatical cycle,20 our calendar
would then begin when the entire system was 42,000 years old.

14
This section has been greatly expanded since its submission to the journal DIALOGUE and is subject to
further revision as more research is completed.
15
In Otzar HaChaim, as of yet unpublished. The best manuscript is said to be Guenzburg (Moscow), no.
775. I thank Rabbi Mordechai Frankel for this and other information pertaining to this subject.
16
The first person to popularize this opinion was Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan in an address to the AOJS on
February 18, 1979. This address is still available online at a number of Websites. He also discusses the
subject in Immortality, Resurrection and the Age of the Universe: A Kabbalistic View, Ktav, 1992.
17
Although this work has been attributed to the Tanna Rabbi Nechunya ben HaKanah, the Ramak rejects
this out of hand. He writes:
‫ זולתי שנמסר לנו שהם דברי ר' יצחק בעל ס' א"ז ובעל ס' מראות הצובאות ובעל‬,'‫ ולא ידענו מי מחבר הס‬:‫שיעור קומה פ ע"א‬
.‫ והוא היה אחרון‬.‫ וצא ובדוק בהם ותמצא אס יש כדאי לסמוך על חידושיו‬,‫ הרי ביארתי לך ספריו‬.'‫ספר הגבול ובעל ס' סודי רזי‬
The Ari also refers to the author of the sefer merely as one of the mekubalim (Sha’ar Ma’amarei Rashbi, p.
212).
18
For example, the Ramak in Shiur Komah, p. 80a. In fact, the Ari, who disagrees with Sefer HaTemunah,
writes that what misled him was the statement found in earlier works that we are in the Shmitah
HaSheniyah, which according to the Ari means something else entirely. In any event, the Ari obviously
understood that according to Sefer HaTemunah we are in the second cycle.
19
Kaplan cites the 14th century work Livnas HaSapir, by R. David b. R. Yehuda HaChassid (Jerusalem,
1913), which he calls, “the most authoritative interpretation of the Sefer HaTemunah. In fact, Livnas
Rav Yitzchak’s innovation was that the “days” of these years are “Divine
days,” of a thousand years each, so that a “year” is equivalent to 365,250 of
our years.21 365,250 times 42,000 equals 15.3405 billion years. It is claimed
that this figure corresponds roughly to the age of the universe mentioned in
the context of contemporary cosmological theory.

2. What clock was Rav Yitzchak using?

There are many flaws in this approach to the issues of chronology. Let us
begin by examining whether it actually resolves the problems it is meant to
address. In the schema of Rav Yitzchak, based upon that of Sefer
HaTemunah, the totality of time is comprised of a number of separate
segments or Sabbatical cycles, each one constituting a world unto itself. The
contemporary authors who cite this view presume that all these segments can
be figured into the reckoning of years elapsed since the Big Bang.
In order for this assumption to be valid, however, there must be some sort of
clock running continuously from one world to the next. But if each
succeeding universe is created yesh mi’ayin, as seems to be the case,22 it is
difficult to see how any single clock, based on physical phenomena, can run
continuously from one to the next, or how their durations could be combined
in any meaningful way.
This suggests that Rav Yitzchak himself was using a conception of time that
was very different from our own. Perhaps he is following in the footsteps of
his mentor the Ramban, who posited the existence of an extra-cosmic clock.
Thus the various segments of time are tied together only in the metaphysical
realm. If this is the case, his opinion is of very little use in reconciling the
Torah with theories that measure time according to physical criteria in the
billion of years.

3. Rav Yitzchak’s schema encompasses many worlds

HaSapir does not mention Sefer HaTemunah by name at all. Nevertheless, he does discuss the idea of
Sabbatical cycles (p. 1a), apparently from an independent source. According to him we are currently in the
seventh cycle.
20
Kaplan says sixth in his lecture, but this is clearly a mistake. For our calendar to begin at 42,000 years six
cycles must have already been completed, which is in fact what Livnas HaSapir says.
21
Tikkunei Zohar (Tikkun 36) uses the principle of “Divine days” to arrive at the figure of seven thousand
years per “week” in the first place, thus Rav Yitzchak’s position apparently involves invoking it twice.
22
The Ramak writes:
‫ שהוא )ספר התמונה( דעתו‬,‫ ועתה ראה שאין אתה יכול לקלע אל הקדמותיו באומרך שהרי העולם קדמון‬:‫שיעור קומה עט ע"ב‬
.‫ ואין השמטה החולפת מחייבת קדמות‬,‫אינו אלא שיתחדש יש מאין בכל שמטה ושמטה‬
Even if the issue of the “clock” could somehow be circumvented, the
difficulties would still not be resolved. The continued existence of physical
phenomena from the distant past would remain problematic. For example, if
the bones of the dinosaurs are from a previous Sabbatical cycle, why do we
find them in our world?
Similarly, if each succeeding world was created yesh mi’ayin, why is the
light given off by distant stars millions or billions of years ago still in
transit? And why is the background microwave radiation, used as evidence
for the Big Bang, still detectable? Why did it not vanish when the first
Sabbatical world came to an end?

4. Is this what the sources had in mind?

One must also ask, is this a faithful reading of the sources in question? Let
us suppose that we are in deed in the seventh Sabbatical cycle. Here are
some of the things that Sefer HaTemunah writes about the second cycle,
which supposedly ended more than ten billion years ago:23
“And from this comes the power to the second Sabbatical cycle, for there to
be redemptions on high and down below, after exiles, and for there to be
complete healing for the penitent and for there to be from there the power of
forgiveness and atonement, etc.”24
“And from the power of the form of the second Sabbatical cycle – at seasons
and times known for exiles, and times prepared and the secret of their
service in their exiles – together a nation and its God in their exile, etc.”25
“And from this power comes unity and wholeness to the second Sabbatical
cycle and endurance to its Torah and a remainder to its people. And even
with this, when they are in the land of their enemies I have not reviled them
nor have I rejected them, etc.”26
“And from the power of this form and the second Sabbatical cycle for there
to be vengeance against idols and their owners and violators of the covenant
23
Assuming that we are now in the seventh cycle, four complete cycles of 7000 Divine years would have
passed since the end of the second cycle. Multiplied by 365,250 human years per Divine year that comes to
10.227 billion.
‫ ולהיות רפואה‬,‫ אחר הגליות‬,‫ ומזה הכח לשמטה שנית להיות גאולות עליונות ותחתונות‬:‫ ספר התמונה )לעמברג תרנב( נג ע"ב‬24
.‫ שהוא יום כפרה וטהרה כלולה ברחמים‬,‫ ולהיות משם כח סליחה וכפרה לנצח‬,‫שלימה לבעלי תשובה‬
‫ הרוח תשוב אל‬,‫ העפר למקומו‬,‫ כי הולך האדם אל בית עולמו‬.‫ ואז הכל נסתלק והאדם שב למקומו אשר לוקח משם‬:‫ שם נט ע"א‬25
‫ וסוד עבודתם‬.‫ ומכח הצורה לשמטה שנית בעתים וזמנים ידועים לגליות ולזמנים מתוקנים‬.‫ כי הכל נתעלה‬,‫מקומה אשר ניתנה‬
.‫ סגורים בגלותם עד עת זמן אשר יפדה גוי ואלקיו‬,‫ מיוחדים בצורת האות‬,‫ מדובקים‬,‫בגליותם יחד גוי ואלקיו בגלותם‬
‫ ואף גם זאת בהיותם בארץ אויביהם לא‬,‫ ומזה הכח יחוד ושלימות לשמטה שנית וקיום בתורתה ושארית בעמה‬:‫ שם סב ע"ב‬26
.'‫מאסתים ולא געלתים וכו‬
and desecrators of Shabbos and undoers of this covenant of unification,
etc.”27
I am not a Kabbalist and do not pretend to understand the depths of these
matters, yet I cannot help but ask – do these quotes sound even remotely like
a description of the evolution of the galaxies in the distant past? But even if
we set aside the question of which Sabbatical cycle we are in, is that what
the discussions in this book are about? 28 Surely the discussions here are
about spiritual matters and worlds not even remotely related to those
described by the cosmologists!29

5. Relying upon minority opinions

The theory we have been discussing grafts together the position of the sefer
Livnas HaSapir – that we are in the seventh Sabbatical cycle – with that of
Rav Yitzchak of Acco that the years of these cycles are “Divine years.”
Since there is no reason to suppose either that Livnas HaSapir agrees with
Rav Yitzchak regarding the length of the years, or that Rav Yitzchak agrees
with Livnas HaSapir regarding which cycle we are in, the theory essentially
involves synthesizing a new position not mentioned in any source.
What is more, it involves building a major hashkafic position upon an
opinion that was rejected by the Ramak (1522-1570),30 the Ari (1534-

.‫ ובעוברי ברית ומחללי שבת והמיפר ברית היחוד זה‬,‫ ומכח זו הצורה ושמטה שנית להיות נקמה בע"ז ובבעליהם‬:‫ שם סה ע"א‬27
28
The discussion in Livnas Sapir is no more compatible with modern cosmological theory. The author of
that work spreads the “thousand generations” of humanity mentioned in Tehillim 105:8 over all seven
Sabbatical cycles:
‫ ולפי סדר השמטות‬.‫ והם חמשים אלף שנה‬.‫ דבר צוה לאלף דור‬,'‫ עוד ראי' דהאי שמטה בתריתא פועלת מדכתי‬:‫לבנת הספיר א ע"א‬
.‫ נשארו לשמטה שביעית ק'ך דורות‬,‫הוו להו תת'ף דורות לששה שמטות‬
29
In his lecture Rabbi Kaplan also harnesses to his cause a number of Midrashim, including one stating
that, “there was an order of time before this.” When the Steipler Gaon (1899-1985) was told of his theory,
or one like it, he responded in a letter:
,‫ באמת ח"ו חלילה וחלילה‬,‫ וע"ד שנמצאו מאחז"ל שמשמעותן לכאורה כמו שעולה ע"ד הריקים‬:‫קריינא דאגרתא ח"א מכתב מו‬
.'‫אין משם שום זכר לזה כלל וכלל וכו‬
‫ א"ר אבוה מלמד שהיה‬.‫ מכאן שהיה סדר זמנים קודם לכן‬,‫וכן מה שאחז"ל במדרש רבה )בראשית ג ז( יהי לא נאמר אלא ויהי‬
‫ ולא נתבאר כלל שהעולם הזה הלז היתה מלפני ששת ימי‬.‫ ע"כ לשון המדרש‬.‫הקב"ה בונה עולמות ומחריבן עד שברא את אלו‬
.‫ או באופן גשמי‬,‫ אם באופן רוחני כענין שדים וכיו"ב‬,‫ אלא שהיה סדר זמנים ובריאת עולמות אחרים‬.‫ חלילה וחלילה‬,‫בראשית ח"ו‬
?‫ היעלה על הדעת שח"ו חז"ל יכחישו חלילה פרשת מעשה בראשית‬.‫ובכל אופן אינו קאי על עולם הזה‬
,‫ ראשון לכלם הוא בעל ס' התמונה‬,‫ ואולם מצאתי בדרוש הזה להקת מקובלים שהרחיבוהו‬:‫פ ע"א‬-‫ שיעור קומה עט ע"א‬30
.'‫ שית וחד חרוב וכו‬,‫ ראשונה אמ' שהם ז' שמטות הקפת העולם ז' אלפי שנין‬,‫ ז"ל‬,‫בתמונה השלישית‬
After giving several pages of proofs against the view of Sefer HaTemunah the Ramak concludes:
‫ עד סוף אימות הדבר בלי ספק כלל‬,‫ רצוני להעמידך על תוכן הדברים כלם‬,‫ואחר שטיהרתי רעיוניך מכל הסברות הזרות האלו‬
‫ וראשונה תקבע בלבך כי תחלת מציאות הנאצלים ע"ס הנקודה‬.‫ בע"ה‬,‫ ובכלל דברי אעביר דעות זרות גם מהדרוש הזה‬.‫ועיקר‬
.‫האחרונה היא היא המציאות הזה ואין זולתו‬
1572)31 and Rav Chaim Vital (1543-1620), the three giants of Kabbalah of
the sixteenth century.32
It is true that important later Kabbalists, including the Vilna Gaon and the
Leshem, revived the doctrine of Sabbatical cycles, on the basis of a passage
in Tikkunei Zohar, and resolved it with the teachings of the Ari.33
Nevertheless, when this doctrine was first invoked to solve modern
cosmological difficulties these sources were not mentioned. Instead it was
claimed that in matters of hashkafah there is never a pesak and one is
therefore free to accept whatever position one chooses, even if the view was
rejected by the major authorities.34
The position of Livnas HaSapir, that we are in the seventh Sabbatical cycle,
remains a minority opinion among those affirming the doctrine of Sabbatical
cycles, while the innovation of Rav Yitzchak that each day of each year is a
thousand years long seems to be an entirely unique view. In Chapter Eight
we will discuss at length the validity of basing one’s hashkafah upon
minority views and rejected positions from the past. We will also have
something to say about the claim that there is never a pesak in matters of
31
Rav Chaim Vital quotes the Ari to this effect in a number of places. Here are two:
‫ הרי כי בכל פסוק תמצא‬,‫ ושמרו בני ישראל את השבת לעשות את השבת‬,‫ ואמר‬:‫ תשמ"ח( מד‬,‫שער מאמרי רשב"י )ירושלים‬
‫ נפל בפי קצת המקובלים כמו ספר קנה וספר בעל‬,‫ ובכלל הדבר הוא להודיעך ענין טעות אחד‬.‫מוזכרים שתי שבתות ביחד‬
‫ ואנחנו עתה‬,‫ וכבר עברה שמיטה ראשונה‬.‫ וכל שבעה אלף שנה הם שמיטה אחת‬,‫ האומרים כי שבע שמיטות יהיו בעולם‬,‫התמונה‬
,‫ כי אין להאמין בדברים האלו‬,‫ ועתה אודיעך‬.‫ וכיוצא בזה האריכו בדברים אשר לא כן‬,‫ הרומזת אל ספירת הגבורה‬,‫בשמיטה הב׳‬
.‫ יתבאר בדברינו אלה‬,‫וסיבת מי שהביאם לידי טעות הזה‬
‫ גם בזה תבין היטב‬.‫ הנה תמיד תמצא ענין שני שבתות‬:‫קצב‬-‫ תשמ"ח( קצא‬,‫ ירושלים‬,‫ספר הליקוטים )מודפס עם שער הפסוקים‬
.'‫ וכו‬,‫ והענין‬.‫מהיכן טעו אותם שאמרו זו שמטה שניה‬
‫ ואלו הם סוד שני שבתות הנז' בכל‬.‫ וביום שבת שני שנאצלה המלכות‬,‫ א' ביום שבת שנאצל הדר העליון‬,‫הרי איך שני שבתות הם‬
‫ אמנם מזה טעו‬.‫ כי הם שניים בערך המלכים דארץ אדום‬,‫ ובזה תבין סוד מה שאנו קוראים לז' אלפי שנין שמטה שניה‬.‫מקום‬
.‫ א"כ ודאי צריך שיושלמו עד הז' שמטות‬,‫ואמרו דא"כ שזו היא שמטה שניה‬
32
As Rabbi Kaplan himself acknowledged. In the lecture referred to earlier he says:
“Before going any further, I must mention that most recent Kabbalah texts do not mention the shitah of
Sefer HaTemunah. The reason is that two of the greatest mekubalim disputed it. The first was the Ramak,
Rabbi Moshe Cordevero, at the end of his sefer Shiur Komah, who says that we do not follow the shitah of
Sefer HaTemunah. Also the Ari in his Likutey Torah on BeHar says that the Sefer HaTemunah is incorrect.
In fact, in the hakdamah of Sefer VaYak’hel Moshe, the author says, ‘Look at the greatness of the Ari.
There was a shitah that was upheld by all the early generations of mekubalim, but the Ari said that he was
wrong.’”
‫ שהוא עד‬,‫ כי כל מה שאמרנו כאן מענין סוף כל התיקונים‬,‫ ודע‬:‫ חלק ב דרוש ג ענף ז‬,‫ דרושי עולם התוהו‬,‫ לשם שבו לאחלמה‬33
‫ ספר‬,‫ הנה אין זה סתירה כלל לענין השמיטות הנמצא בדברי הראשונים‬,'‫ כי משם ולמעלה הוא בעולמות דא"ס כנז‬,‫אלף העשירי‬
‫ וכן הרמ"ק ז"ל בפרדס בשער הנתיבות פ"ב ובשער‬.‫התמונה והקנה והרמב"ן והמערכת והרקאנטי והציוני ורבינו בחיי והרדב"ז‬
‫ אך הגר"א‬.‫ וכן בדברי הרח"ו ז"ל בלק"ת פ' קדושים‬,‫ אמנם בספר שיעור קומה מיאן בזה הרבה‬.‫פרטי השמות פ"ג האמין ג"כ בזה‬
‫ מכאן משמע כדברי הראשונים‬,‫ זה לשונו‬,‫ ועשה סמוכות לדבריהם ואמר בתיקונים תיקון ל"ו‬,‫ז"ל לא דחה דברי הראשונים כלל‬
.‫ ואנן בשניה עכ"ל‬,‫דשבע שמיטות‬
This does not have any bearing, however, on any of the other criticisms above. Note also that the Gaon
states explicitly that we are in the second Sabbatical cycle, not the seventh.
34
After noting that the Ramak and the Ari rejected the theory Kaplan asserts:
“But still, as I have said, this involves a question of hashkafah, and no pesak is possible. Therefore, one has
every right to make use of this shitah.”
hashkafah. For the time being let it suffice to say that this approach
exemplifies the kind of shoddy thinking that characterizes much of the
literature of the day.
6. Whatever they have, we had it first!
Theories of this sort hold great appeal to those who believe that whatever the
non-Torah world embraces, we must show that we had it first! Especially in
recent times this kind of thinking has come to replace serious analysis far too
often.35

35
I will add as an epilogue to this discussion that in the same lecture Kaplan makes specific reference to the
words of Mori veRebbi, ztz”l, in his address of October 20th, 1971, to the Rabbinic Alumni of Yeshiva
University. Mori veRebbi observed on that occasion that those who are convinced of the Torah’s veracity
are at loggerheads with modern science and that there can be no resolution of the conflict:

“We are still at loggerheads with modern science. There is no way to somehow, to try to eliminate
that conflict or to try to reconcile it. There is no reconciliation and I will tell you quite frankly that
I’m not worried and not concerned that there is no reconciliation. We were confronted many times
with those who try to deny briyah yesh me’ayin...Science has no right to say anything because it is
not a scientific problem; it is a metaphysical problem…But again we are still at loggerheads…We
have something which the goyishe world has not understood.”

In his own talk Kaplan barbed, “This approach is very different than that of many frum Jews who see Torah
and science at loggerheads with each other.”

©Copyright Rabbi Moshe Meiselman