RAPHAEL SHUCHAT

R. Isaac Halevi Herzog’s

Attitude to Evolution and
His Correspondence with
Immanuel Velikovsky

I
n a previous article, I examined rabbinic attitudes towards scientific
theories of cosmogony and evolution in the nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries.1 The thinkers I discussed were Rabbis Israel
Lipshutz (author of the Tiferet Yisrael commentary on the Mishnah),
Samson Raphael Hirsch, Eliyahu Benamozegh, Abraham Isaac Kook and
Shem Tov Gefen. The common denominator between them was their
attempt to synthesize the modern theories of cosmogony and evolution
with rabbinic and biblical texts and their use of the theory of Sabbatical
worlds—the midrashic and kabbalistic doctrine that God created earlier
worlds before ours—to achieve this synthesis. I explained that the posi-
tive attitude adopted by these rabbinic authorities resulted from the pro-
found belief of rabbinic scholars throughout history that since science is
a product of human reason, it is a legitimate source of knowledge. There
was therefore a tendency to create a synthesis with science before doubt-
ing the validity of a particular theory or claim.2 Only if synthesis was
impossible was there an attempt to assess whether the particular theory
had strayed from the path of objective reason and research.
RAPHAEL SHUCHAT is a lecturer in Jewish Philosophy at the Center for Jewish
Studies at Bar-Ilan University as well as at the Rothberg School of the Hebrew
University. His most recent book, A World Concealed in the Dimension of Time:
The Redemption According to the Vilna Gaon, was published by Bar-Ilan
University in May 2008.
143 The Torah u-Madda Journal (15/2008-09)
144 The Torah u-Madda Journal

However, rabbinic scholars are not detached from the world around
them. During periods of social turmoil, when the thinkers of the age
begin to doubt the validity of the scientific order of the day, Jewish
thinkers do so as well. The events of the Second World War proved both
the supreme power of scientific technology as well as the threatening
implications of the misuse of that power. The subconscious social
impact of the atom bomb attacks on Japan and a war that used modern
technology to claim millions of lives, cannot be underestimated.
Although faith in science remained unscathed for the first decade and a
half after the war and the scientific community emerged from the war
with enhanced prestige,3 these events planted the seed for the disillu-
sionment with science that put it on the defensive in the 1960’s and
1970’s.4 The technological boom of the nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries led to a belief in the omnipotence of science, and religious
fundamentalist voices against the theory of evolution were stifled out of
respect for science;5 by the seventies, however, attacks on science gained
legitimacy, and the popular reaction to science was now a mixture of
enthusiastic support and profound mistrust.6
In the Jewish world, a second element contributed to increased dis-
dain for science. After the destruction of European Jewry, including all
major institutions of Jewish learning and culture, Orthodox rabbinic
leadership did everything possible to hold on to what remained and
held suspect any new way of thinking that might pose some type of
threat to religious survival. These feelings of suspicion towards all new
ways of thinking became more manifest in the seventies, as society as a
whole became critical of science.7 In my previous article, I portrayed the
enthusiasm among the rabbis of the nineteenth century towards the
new scientific discoveries in cosmogony, but the post-war era brought
about a different tone and attitude.
The rabbinic authority of this period that I would like to discuss is
R. Isaac Halevi Herzog (1888-1959), Chief Rabbi of the newly founded
State of Israel. R. Herzog did not live into the 1960’s era in which rab-
binic thinkers openly voiced criticism of the new scientific theories; he
remained convinced of the authoritative position of modern science as
the expression of objective human reason. Yet he lacked the enthusiasm
of his predecessors for seeking a synthesis between Judaism and modern
scientific cosmogony through midrashic and kabbalistic statements con-
cerning earlier worlds. Perhaps it was his own scientific training that led
him to feel that such an endeavor was apologetic in nature. Despite this
reservation, he seems to have felt that the scientific community was too
eager to utilize the theory of evolution as a tool for bashing religion, and
 Raphael Shuchat 145

he therefore turned specifically to a non-conformist scientist for assis-

tance in solving the predicament.
R. Herzog was born in Lomza, Poland. When he was a child, his
family moved to Leeds, England, where his father accepted a rabbinical
post.8 He received private rabbinical ordination from Ridbaz, a well
known authority in Palestine, as well as a Ph.D in Marine Biology from
London University, where he wrote his dissertation on the subject “The
Dyeing of Purple [Tekhelet] in Ancient Israel.” He held rabbinic posts in
Ireland before becoming Chief Rabbi of Palestine in 1937. He wrote
extensively on Talmud and Halakhah and was a scholar with a broad
scope of interests. He also published works on the influence of Greek
philosophy on Jewish thinkers, philosophy in the Talmud and Midrash,
and many historical issues.9
R. Herzog struggled with the issues of Judaism and the modern
world, especially when the newborn State of Israel was involved.10 He
attempted to present the newly founded Israeli Parliament with a perspec-
tive on Halakhah that would prove more palatable to the modern secular
law makers of the Knesset,11 especially concerning the laws of inheritance.12
R. Herzog strove to find syntheses between Jewish faith and practice
and new medical knowledge.13 With his scientific background, he sided
with the Maimonidean view that where the scientific views of the sages
of old concerning the natural world conflict with modern science, we
are obliged to accept the scientific views proven in our day; this is
because the science of our sages was based not upon a tradition but
upon the scientific knowledge of their own era.14 Despite the fact that he
elaborated upon the vast knowledge of the talmudic Sages in the sci-
ences, their love for the exact sciences, and their being ahead of their
time,15 he remained of the opinion that issues of scientific matter are
not under the authority of the Sages.
To strengthen his position, R. Herzog quoted R. Abraham Maimoni,
Maimonides’ son, who wrote: “It does not at all follow that because we
bow to the authority of the sages of the Talmud in all that appertains to the
interpretation of the Torah and its principles and details, we must accept
unquestionably all their dicta on scientific matters, such as medicine,
physics, and astronomy.”16 R. Herzog sided with this view unequivocally.
The Talmud states that a woman can sue for divorce if her husband
refuses to have children with her.17 R. Herzog lambasted a judge on the
Israeli Rabbinical court who deprived a forty-year old woman of a divorce
based on the talmudic assumption that a woman cannot bear children for
the first time after age forty.18 Relying on the opinion of a Jerusalem gyne-
cologist who checked the woman and found her capable of child-bearing,
146 The Torah u-Madda Journal

he declared her eligible for the divorce and her ketubbah rights. In anoth-
er case, where the rabbinic judge refused to accept a blood test to identify
the father of a child based on the talmudic saying that the blood of a new-
born is contributed by the mother, R. Herzog wrote:
Why must you doubt the credibility of the physicians in an issue that is
obvious to all the great health scientists in the world? Our Sages of
blessed memory do not mention anywhere that they received this in a
tradition from Moses at Sinai; neither could this have happened, since in
our day it has been proven beyond a doubt that this is not so. They [our
Sages] accepted this as true and built laws upon it since Aristotle said it,
and it became accepted among scholars worldwide; so then what differ-
ence is there between [the validity of] science in their day or in ours?19

There were, of course, Rabbinical Court judges who took issue with
him,20 but R. Herzog’s stand on these matters shows a strong leaning
toward the Maimonidean school of thought.
The above issues concern the conflict between modern science and
the scientific views of H
. azal, but the issue at hand is more significant, as
it refers to the possible contradiction between modern scientific theory
and the basic biblical belief concerning the creation of the world. The
problem of the new cosmogony bothered R. Herzog tremendously, and
as a scientist he was not comfortable adopting the questionable doc-
trine21 of the Sabbatical worlds as a possible solution. His reservations
regarding this explanation, however, were not due to its non-literal inter-
pretation of the creation story; R. Herzog clearly held that the proper
approach in reconciling contradictions between modern science and the
basic Jewish belief in creation is that of reinterpretation. He reminds us
of the Rabbinic claim that the creation story of Genesis is among the
secrets of the Torah, making the text into one of an esoteric nature and
not a text that should be interpreted literally. Bringing Maimonides as an
example of the Jewish teachers of the Middle Ages, he writes:
They did not, in the first place, accept as true everything taught by Greek
science and metaphysics. Take, for instance, the doctrine of the eternity
of matter taught by Aristotle. Maimonides rejects this, not because it
conflicts with the letter of the Torah, but because he is not convinced of
its truth. Were he absolutely convinced that Aristotle’s position was
immovable, he would reinterpret the words of the Torah accordingly, but
as Aristotle could not really prove his case, Maimonides sees no reason
for reinterpreting the Torah.22

In my opinion, R. Herzog wished to know if the theory of evolution

was an exact science or a theory open to interpretation. As he writes:
 Raphael Shuchat 147

Orthodoxy will not allow itself to be shaken by every scientific hypothesis

launched into the world with much din and noise. It realizes that not
everything taught in the name of science is really an established fact . . .
Even the widely accepted theory about the evolutionary descent of ani-
mals, including man, has recently been challenged on purely scientific
grounds by famous specialists, and notably Albert Fleischmann, an emi-
nent zoologist.23
R. Herzog saw value in the evolutionary theory in that it vindicates the
Torah’s teaching of the “organic unity and symmetry of the cosmos,”24
but he suspected that the theory of evolution may have varied interpre-
tations. He therefore turned for assistance to a non-conformist Jewish
scientist in Princeton, New Jersey, Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky, after hear-
ing that this scientist’s theory of cosmogony claimed that the Solar sys-
tem has undergone significant changes in just a few thousand years. The
letters between them have never been published before. The correspon-
dence includes six letters exchanged between the two men from July to
December of 1953, and then an additional three letters from 1956.
Immanuel Velikovsky (1895-1979) was a controversial writer of cos-
mogony and history.25 Educated in Edinburgh and Moscow (M.D. 1921),
he practiced medicine in Palestine and then studied psychology in Zurich
and Vienna. He moved to the United States in 1939 and studied ancient
traditions of the Jews and peoples from around the world. In his book
Worlds in Collision (1950), he proposed that the ancient legends were
describing true events of physical catastrophes that pushed forward the
process of evolution. When Velikovsky experienced animosity from the
scientific community in response to his work, he published another book,
Earth in Upheaval (1955), to prove his claims through geology. Velikovsky
made many attempts to justify his theories in the eyes of the scientific
community, but to little avail. Only a few researchers gave him the credit
due when some of his predictions turned out to be correct.26 In 1955, he
wrote a work titled Before the Day Breaks, describing the discussions he
had with Albert Einstein about his theories. The book, left in manuscript
form, was finally published by his elder daughter in Hebrew in 1995.
From Einstein’s courteous but non-accepting replies, one can almost feel
the desperation in Velikovsky’s desire to be recognized and accepted.27
Despite their lack of acceptance by the scientific community, and
although he remained controversial, Velikovsky’s theories gained signifi-
cant popularity among the general public, which would explain why R.
Herzog wrote to him.28 It is also possible that Velikovsky’s background
as a Zionist and former citizen of Palestine made him seem more
approachable to R. Herzog.
148 The Torah u-Madda Journal

In his letters, R. Herzog related that he heard that, according to

Velikovsky’s theory, major changes in the solar system took place over
the course of just a few thousand years, and he asked whether this is in
harmony with the biblical understanding of creation.
I have recently received your two volumes, [Worlds in Collision and Ages
in Chaos] which I have begun to read. . . . Setting out from the staunch
belief that the Torah is of super-human, divine origin, I have become
deeply interested in archaeology and anthropology. How can the Torah
chronology be scientifically defended, in view of the eons which science
postulates for the existence of man upon this earth?29
It is interesting that R. Herzog seems unaware of R. Kook’s perspective
on scientific evolution,30 despite the fact that he took over the latter’s
position as Chief Rabbi of Palestine.31 He does, however, mention the
doctrine of previous worlds as explained by R. Lipschutz:
There is, of course, the well known midrash that [God was] “boneh olamot
u-mah.arivan,” but this can only help if we assume that “mah.arivan” does
not mean annihilation, so that we can assume that fossils of man asserted
by science to be many hundreds of thousands of years old are relics of a
previous earth. Yet anthropology seems to assert upon internal evidence
that the present man is already hundreds of thousands of years old!32
R. Herzog’s understanding of mah.arivan as meaning “lays waste” (as
opposed to “annihilates”) seems to imply that he was familiar with R.
Israel Lipschutz’s essay on this matter, although his question about that
theory suggests that he was not familiar with R. Kook’s letter to Moshe
Seidel.33 R. Herzog also asked Velikovsky whether it is logical to speak of a
universe that is less than six thousand years old. “Would the numbers of
the human race and the technical perfection—writing, etc.—not militate
in your opinion against the acceptance of a of less than six thousand years
date for man here?”34 Velikovsky answered him promptly with an intro-
ductory letter, declaring that any discussion on the issue of science and
religion requires the abandonment of all dogmatic beliefs, except the first
postulate.
Actually, the Jewish religion has only one basic postulate of faith—the
existence of a Divine creator. This is also a postulate in science—the First
Cause. This is the only dogma that we should accept, and the acceptance
of any other dogma next to this would be a detriment.35
Velikovsky claimed that since science and religion both search for truth,
there should not be any conflict between them.
With this preliminary, I can assure you, Rabbi, that it gave me a very great
 Raphael Shuchat 149

pleasure to give a detailed verification to Biblical texts in my two books: a

proof from many independent sources that the miracles of the Bible,
always in the presence of many witnesses, were not inventions, but natural
phenomena under unusual circumstances (“Worlds in Collision”); and a
proof from archaeological documents that the Biblical details, as well as
the general historical scheme, are of a superb historical veracity (“Ages in
Chaos”). . . .”
However, he added: “If I found an erroneous statement or a deliberate
change of an original text, I have not spared the Bible.”36 He argued that
the traditional Hebrew date of creation should not be seen as a dogma
either, and he used the midrashic tradition of earlier worlds as a proof.
Our sages of former ages, long before the theory of evolution, had a very
liberal interpretation of worlds created and destroyed. Even from the
point of ascribing certain parts of the Scriptures to a Divine revelation,
we should not enlarge the area by attributing also those parts that are not
of the nature of revelation (like the genealogy of Noah) to such an origin;
otherwise we may easily be led into beliefs that will not stand the test of
reason—and what has the Divine Creator created more sublime than
thinking matter and reason?37
Velikovsky wrote that in his forthcoming book, Earth in Upheaval, he
would discuss a short period of evolution, although one longer than just
a few thousand years. Puzzled by R. Herzog’s worries over evolution, he
added an interesting point.
It was the Catholic Church that opposed Darwinism, and the Jewish syn-
agogue did not spend too much emotion in opposing evolution. For the
Church, believing in the Son of God being born of a woman, would
abhor to worship the descendant of an ape.38
Velikovsky makes an important point here about the psychological ele-
ment of Christian opposition to the theory of evolution. Did Jewish
critics adopt this attitude from their Christian colleagues? Velikovsky’s
point concerning the weakness of Jewish resistance to evolutionary the-
ory is also valid. After all, R. Hirsch suggested that Judaism believes that
God created the world, but this does not mean that we know how He
did it. Why, then, would it matter if it were done through evolution or
through spontaneous creation?39
R. Herzog made no comment on Velikovsky’s points; he was more
interested in receiving an answer to his two queries. He therefore reiterat-
ed them in his next letter,40 where he once again asked whether the bibli-
cal chronology of man is possible. More specifically, he wanted to know
whether all living humans could have descended from Noah in less than
150 The Torah u-Madda Journal

five thousand years. He also asked again how one could explain early
human fossils; R. Herzog entertains the possibility of explaining them as
part of earlier worlds that God created and destroyed. However, he does
not dismiss the possibility that they are part of this world, in which case
we would be forced to reinterpret the literal biblical story of creation:
A man-fossil declared to be several hundred thousand years old, even if
the age be correct, may be a fossilized relic of a former Adam belonging
to a previously settled earth. (Of course, we assume that mah.arivan here
does not mean annihilation, but only laying waste.) We will not bring in
dogmatism. Our belief in the Divine inspiration of the Torah will be
made more difficult, but will not be necessarily destroyed, if the chronol-
ogy for man even of the present earth is untenable.
Just as ayin tah.at ayin [“an eye for an eye”] is differently interpreted
[i.e., non-literally interpreted as monetary compensation; see Bava Kamma
83b-84a], so can Genesis in connection with the origins of man.41

R. Herzog displayed a very liberal approach to biblical exegesis in

issues where science and biblical texts seem to be at odds. However, as
we mentioned above, he was willing to go this road only if absolutely
necessary.42 Velikovsky, who was involved in open warfare with the sci-
entific community, readily acknowledged that “science is also guilty of
dogmatic thinking,”43 and went on to say that many American scientists
of his day would have dismissed R. Herzog’s questions by saying that
“there was no deluge; [that] the origin of man goes back one million
years; [and that] the book of Genesis is completely wrong on all prob-
lems of geology, prehistory, and natural science.”44 He added that in his
forthcoming book he would prove that many millennia ago the earth
was covered by a flood.
If you are inclined to regard the few survivors as the beginners of the human
race—you have found the synthesis of science and religion that you seek.
And then you may regard the human bones of earlier ages as of the devastat-
ed world—never completely destroyed. This would of course substitute the
idea of the sages for the literal meaning of the story of creation.45

Velikovsky only partially answered R. Herzog’s question about the

growth of humankind since the deluge. After an additional letter asking
for clarification,46 Velikovsky offered a more detailed answer. He began
by explaining why he thought scientists would have to rethink the age of
humanity, and he went on to claim that in his book, Earth in Upheaval,
he would prove that a flood must have taken place between five and ten
thousand years ago.
 Raphael Shuchat 151

You have asked: If the deluge took place only five thousand years ago, how
may one explain the present number of human beings (over two billion)?
. . . I would regard the story of Noah and his ark as a piece of folklore that
in a primitive and fanciful way tells a tale that could have some substratum
in fact. . . . Assuming that the number of survivors were counted in thou-
sands or in hundreds only . . . there would be no intrinsic difficulty in the
re-peopling of the earth in the space of five or ten thousand years.47
Velikovsky quoted an article that described a tenfold population growth
in Latin America in one century. Based on this, he argued:
Now let us assume a moderate growth; not ten times but only double at
the end of a century or after four generations. If for the sake of argument
there were only two survivors (male and female) following a near-
destruction of the human kind, there would be four human beings after
one century, 16 after three centuries and ca. 200 after six centuries; . . .
until after 52 centuries there should be 20 million billion; or ten million
times more people than there actually are. . . . So why do we not have so
many? Epidemics and wars took their tolls in great numbers; nature a few
times decimated the human population as well. As you see, the popula-
tion numbers constitute no argument against a near annihilation of the
human race . . . five to ten thousand years ago.48
Velikovsky answered the question about population growth and even
suggested that the age of mankind should be reconsidered. He goes on
to explain that there are no alphabets older than 3300 years and even
hieroglyphic scripts are no more than 4500-5000 years old, therefore
continuing the argument that humankind may be only 5000 years old:
You ask me also to explain whether the invention of writing could have
been accomplished in a few thousand years. Actually, the oldest alphabet-
ic writings found go back far less that 3300 years (consider the chronolo-
gy as offered in “Ages in Chaos”; in the second volume of that work I will
deal in detail with the earliest alphabetic writings); and syllabic writings
and also hieroglyphic scripts are not older than ca. 4500-5000 years.49
This final letter of December 1953 addresses all of R. Herzog’s ques-
tions from July 1952. Velikovsky explained that according to his research
the deluge was an historical fact that happened five to ten thousand years
ago and that the earth was repopulated in that time. He also explained
that alphabets developed during that period. However, he did not seem
to address the question of the age of the universe or of the evolution of
human beings. In my opinion he did this consciously. In fact, in the final
paragraph of the letter he hints at a possible solution to the age of
humankind and of the universe without explaining it clearly:
152 The Torah u-Madda Journal

If I have, Rabbi, answered here a few of the questions that you have per-
sistently put before me, I do not claim to know the plan of the Creator;
only I regard as very significant that races did not survive from the begin-
ning, neither their evolution was always slow. New species developed
evolved by mutations. And mutations require a different time scale for
the creation of a new species than evolution by natural selection.50
Here Velikovsky is explaining in a nutshell some of the ideas that R.
Herzog wanted to hear, but in an extremely concentrated form. Veli-
kovsky argues in his writings that the evolutionary process could not
have been a gradual process. The mutations which created new life
forms had to be caused by catastrophic incidents which sped up the
process. This is true concerning both the universe and humankind. In a
first draft of this letter to R. Herzog, which can be found among his
writings, one can see his deliberation as to what he should write. In the
draft, he described this last issue more clearly, explaining that a much
shorter stretch of time is needed if we assume catastrophic events inter-
vened in the line of geological formation as well as in the evolution of
the animal kingdom. He also goes as far as quoting a talmudic source
which states that two stars parted from Khima, causing the deluge, and
explains that Khima refers to the planet Saturn, which connects well
with his theory of the cause of the deluge.51 I think that Velikovsky left
this out and conveyed his main theory only in a vague way, since he was
already under attack by the scientific community, which claimed he was
more popular than scientific; therefore, he did not want to be seen as
one who writes in order to solve the problems of religion and science
but rather as one whose objective research might also by chance be of
interest to those who believe in the biblical texts. This is clear from the
letter Velikovsky sent to R. Herzog two years later, after Earth in
Upheaval was published. Now that his theories were published in a work
that he felt substantiated them scientifically, he was more open to dis-
cuss the issues of science and religion with R. Herzog.
Two years ago we have exchanged letters; You have asked me to explain
some conflicting ideas in the scriptures and in the modern teaching of
the origin of man and the earth, and I, probably without much success,
tried to say that the views in science are going to change and to decrease
the chasm between science and the Mosaic tradition. By the time this let-
ter reaches you, my new book, “Earth in Upheaval,” may already be in
your possession: I have instructed Doubleday and Co., my publisher, to
mail you a copy. I trust that you will find there some of the answers you
were looking for.52
 Raphael Shuchat 153

Now that Velikovsky had substantiated his claims scientifically, he felt

more open to the discussions on science and the Bible. He realized that
he had been quite brief with R. Herzog in his correspondence two years
prior and hoped the book will fill the gap. R. Herzog wrote in his reply:
“I have not found the passages where you deal with the problem of nat-
ural science and Genesis. Kindly therefore send me a list enumerating
the respective passages dealing with that great and grave problem.”53
From R. Herzog’s answer it is obvious he did not see the previous corre-
spondence as solving the problem. However, in his final letter, Veli-
kovsky states his position in greater clarity.
Let me say that the book in its entirety deals with this problem, mostly by
inference. The conflict between science and tradition became actual and
acute in the dispute that arose following the publication of Darwin’s “The
Origin of Species”. In the 98 years since then, the scientific material was
accumulating that renders the theory of evolution based on the theory of
uniformity untenable. The Darwinian evolution required often millions
of years where only hours or days of cataclysmic events were in action.
Even with hundreds of millions of years at the disposal of evolution, no
new species could evolve; and none evolved among animals since scientif-
ic observations were made; by mere competition (the Malthusian princi-
ple) no origin of species can be procreated; but violent reactions (thermal
or radiant) can create new species.54

Velikovsky openly takes issue with gradual evolution as proposed by

Darwin a century before him. His theory, as explained in Earth in
Upheaval, presents a planet earth as well as humankind as being created
through cataclysmic events which happened within a few thousand
years. What about the universe at large?
How, then, the history of the world looks in this new concept? The uni-
verse is very old, may be without beginning.55 The earth in its present
shape is very recent. The earth went through many violent disturbances,
the geological record of which is presented in my book, and which you
may regard as boneh olamot u-mah.arivan. One of these destructions was
the deluge, less than eight or seven thousand years ago.56

Velikovsky claims that the earth and humankind can be explained in a

way which is not too different from the traditional Jewish chronology.
Concerning the universe, one has to say that it is much older. Therefore,
the use of the midrashic idea of previous worlds that predated our
world can be used if one wants to create harmony between science and
Judaism concerning the age of the universe at large.57
154 The Torah u-Madda Journal

The exchange of letters stops at this point. We do not know what R,

Herzog thought of Velikovky’s answers to his queries from 1952. Was R.
Herzog comfortable adopting the doctrine of the destroyed worlds (or
worlds laid waste)—a theory abandoned in the latter half of the twentieth
century for the second time in Jewish history—to explain the age of the
universe?58 We quoted him above as saying that one can reinterpret a bib-
lical text if science necessitates such a move for the sake of harmony, but
only if it is based on an unshaken proof. I wonder if R. Herzog’s discus-
sion with Velikovsky was based on his feeling that the theory of evolution
lacked the stability of a scientific truth, and he therefore turned toward an
unconventional scientist to ascertain if he was right in this regard.
In conclusion, as I mentioned in my earlier essay, the rabbinic
authorities living in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries viewed
the geological discoveries of their day as a challenge to be dealt with, but
never as a threat. Some of them, such as Rabbis Lipschutz and Ben-
amozegh,59 actually greeted these discoveries with great enthusiasm,
viewing them as a confirmation of the ancient midrashim that spoke of
the worlds that predated our own. Others, such as Rabbis Gefen, Hirsch,
and Kook, saw these scientific discoveries as a challenge, but felt that
they had created a perfect synthesis between the new theories and
authentic Jewish traditions. The concept of evolution was seen as a
greater challenge than the geological discoveries, but it was nevertheless
dealt with as a problem that lent itself to a satisfying solution. At times,
as in the writings of R. Kook, evolutionary theory was greeted with great
enthusiasm as a way to illuminate ancient kabbalistic doctrines.
R. Herzog, writing in the mid-twentieth century, displayed the dis-
comfort that many later rabbinic figures were to have with the theory of
evolution. This discomfort was caused not just by the challenge that
evolutionary theory posed to biblical exegesis, but by the fact that it was
considered the flagship of secular scientific thought, which was trying to
fight all organized religion. Eventually, the rabbis of the second half of
the twentieth century began, like their Christian counterparts, to see the
theory of evolution as a threat; as Orthodox Jews entered the arena of
secular studies, these rabbis too entered the battle against evolution.
Now, however, they argued not from a biblical or talmudic point of
view, but rather from a scientific perspective, viewing those who
opposed evolution as their comrades in arms. Was this a superfluous
battle on someone else’s territory? Why were the syntheses drawn up by
Rabbis Lipschutz, Benamozegh, Hirsch, and Kook so quickly forgotten?
Obviously, as R. Kook already pointed out, the answer to this question
has more to do with politics and society than it does with exegesis.60
 Raphael Shuchat 155

The Correspondence

The few Hebrew words in the original text have been transliterated. Bracketed words
are editorial insertions. Spelling errors have been corrected in brackets. — R.S.

16th July, 1953

Dear Dr. Velikovsky,

I have recently received your two volumes, which I have begun to

read. So far, however, I have only barely touched the fringes. Please
accept my warmest thanks!
Setting out from the staunch belief that the Torah is of super
human divine origin, I have become deeply interested in archaeology
and anthropology.
How can the Torah chronology be scientifically defended, in view of
the aeons which science postulates for the existence of man upon this
earth? There is, of course, the well known Midrash, “boneh olamot
u-mah.arivan” [Gen. Rabbah 3:7, Eccl. Rabbah 3:11], but this can only
help if we assume that “mah.arivan” does not mean annihilation, so that
we can assume that fossils of man asserted by science to be so many
hundreds of thousands of years old are relics of a previous earth. Yet
anthropology seems to assert upon internal evidence that the present
man is already hundreds of thousands of years old!
Nevertheless, Aldus Huxley speaks of 12,000 years as the age of civi-
lized man upon this earth. Even this is far too much for Torah chronolo-
gy (less than six thousand years). It has been tried to fix 6,000 as the age
since the discovery by man of agriculture. Of course, strictly literal inter-
pretation of the Pentateuchal text is out of the question. But super liter-
ary interpretation should be resorted to only when reason absolutely
rules the literary sense being utterly impossible. I have been correspond-
ing on this subject with an anthropologist Dr. Carter of Baltimore, MD,
who still owes me an answer.
By the way, I see in your Epilogue to Volume I that you are satisfied
that the planets and their satellites are only a few thousand years old. Do
you then accept the Torah chronology literally? Are you then, at least
not convinced from the internal evidence of the history of man upon
the earth, that man has been here for already millions of years?
Would the numbers of the human race and its technical perfec-
tion—writing, etc.— not militate, in your opinion against the accep-
tance of a less than six thousand years date for man here?
156 The Torah u-Madda Journal

Please write me at length your views and impressions! I shall be

happy to correspond with you. In the meantime I shall carry forward
the reading of your most interesting books. I have many kushyot already,
but it is still too early for that.
Thanking you in anticipation.

Sincerely yours,
Isaac Halevi Herzog
Chief Rabbi of Israel

(Princeton, New Jersey)

July 30, 1953

His Eminence
Dr. Isaac Herzog
Chief Rabbi of Israel
Jerusalem

Dear Rabbi Herzog:

When I was told that you have asked your son to bring you from
America my two books, I was very honored and have provided the
books. Now I am pleased to have a letter from you with your views on
the conflict between the Mosaic tradition and the findings of geology,
and your invitation to correspond with you.
In order to create a language for a fruitful discussion, I would sug-
gest that dogmatic beliefs in science or religion should not serve us in
arguments. Actually, the Jewish religion has only one basic postulate of
faith: the existence of a Divine Creator. This is also a postulate in sci-
ence: the First Cause. This is the only dogma that we should accept; and
the acceptance of any other dogma, next to this, would be a detriment.
Science and religion have the same goal: search for truth. Therefore,
there should be no conflict between science and religion. If there is, then
one of the two erred from the truth. With this preliminary, I can assure
you, Rabbi, that it gave me a very great pleasure to give a detailed verifi-
cation to Biblical texts in my two books: a proof from many indepen-
dent sources that the miracles of the Bible, always in the presence of
many witnesses, were not inventions, but natural phenomena under
 Raphael Shuchat 157

unusual circumstances (“Worlds in Collision”); and a proof from

archaeological documents that the Biblical details, as well as the general
historical scheme, are of a superb historical veracity, even to the extent
of the truthfulness of spoken dialogues or monologues (“Ages in
Chaos,” esp. the chapter on El Amarna). But at the same time, if I found
an erroneous statement or a deliberate change of the original text, I have
not spared the Bible.
When in Jerusalem the Third Wall was unearthed, and by this made
the traditional place of the Holy Sepulcher look spurious, high ecclesias-
tics of a Christian faith made the successful efforts that the wall should
be covered again by earth. We, Jews, should not act like this; and in con-
flict of faith and truth, should take the side of truth.
Therefore, in a conflict between the Scriptures and geology, we
should not be obstinate and insist that whatever should be discovered,
we cannot part with our faith—our dogma—that the world is less than
six thousand years old. Our sages of former ages, long before the battle
around the theory of evolution, had very liberal interpretation of worlds
created and destroyed. Even from the point of ascribing certain parts of
the Scriptures to a Divine revelation, we should not enlarge the area by
attributing also those parts which are not of the nature of revelation (like
the genealogy of Noah) to such an origin; otherwise we may easily be led
into beliefs that will not stand the test of reason—and what has the
Divine Creator created more sublime than thinking matter and reason?
In my forthcoming book, “Earth in Upheaval,” on which I work
now, I shall present a very radical change in our understanding of geo-
logical and paleontological processes. The chronology that attributed
millions of years to certain finds will be shown to be of a few thousand
years only. For the world dominated by the principle of uniformity, mil-
lions of years were required, where in catastrophic circumstances only a
few years would suffice: think of the coal formation in the burning log
and in the process of slow metamorphosis. This future book, I know,
will give you satisfaction, and will also answer some of the questions
you have raised in your letter. However, I would be very far from
defending the notion that the creation is only a few thousand years old.
I also do not see how the idea of a God is helped by such limitations in
time and space. It was the Catholic Church that opposed Darwinism,
and the Jewish Synagogue did not spend too much emotion in opposing
evolution. For the Church, believing in the Son of God being born of a
woman, would abhor to worship a descendant of an ape. The planets
and the Universe are great and old; in the Epilogue to “Worlds in
158 The Torah u-Madda Journal

Collision,” that you mention in your letter, I referred only to the recent-
ness of the celestial order, and to the arrival of one planet (Venus), thus
showing the manner in which the planetary bodies originated.
In “Earth in Upheaval” I shall offer a picture of the geological past
that will rehabilitate the story of the great catastrophes of the Book of
Genesis; however, I worked in this field not with the intent to prove the
Bible right. From the beginning I made it clear to myself that I cannot
serve religion and science in two different ways: there is only one truth
of which you and I and many others are humble seekers.
With all respect and with good wishes, Rabbi, for your well-being,

Immanuel Velikovsky

31 August, 1953

Dr. Emmanuel Velikovsky

4 Hartley Avenue
Princeton, New Jersey
U.S.A.

Dear Dr. Velikovsky:

Many thanks for your kind reply. I hope to write to you several
times yet. For the present, kindly reply to the following question. From
your amazing knowledge of ancient history, do you think that the
Biblical chronology is totally contrary to human reason? Remember that
when you take into account the Deluge there is only practically about
five thousand years left since the creation of Adam, for at the Deluge
only Noah and a few persons remained. Can this be thought compatible
with the present numbers of the human race—even with more or less
frequent plagues and destructions by wars and mass-accidents? Can
thus the progress of mankind be accounted for, the various inventions,
writing or recording in its various forms, etc., the spreading of humani-
ty all over the globe from one centre? Or shall we assume that a special
providence watched over humanity and thus accelerated what otherwise
would have taken hundreds of thousands of years? Is the Biblical
chronology utterly impossible, inherently absurd? Remember that the
saying of our sages “boneh olamot u-mah.arivan” does not affect the case.
 Raphael Shuchat 159

A man-fossil declared to be several hundred thousand years old, even if

the age be correct, may be a fossilized relic of a former Adam belonging
to a previously settled earth. (Of course, we assume that mah.arivan does
not mean annihilation but only laying waste.) We will not bring in dog-
matism. Our belief in the Divine inspiration of the Torah will be made
more difficult, but will not be necessarily destroyed, if the chronology
for man even of the present earth is untenable.
Just as ayin tah.at ayin [“an eye for an eye”] is differently interpreted
[i.e., non-literally interpreted as monetary compensation; see Bava
Kamma 83b-84a], so can Genesis in connection with the origins of man.
Awaiting your kind reply, with anticipatory thanks.

Sincerely yours,
Isaac Halevi Herzog
Chief Rabbi of Israel

P.S. The Pentateuch itself records an alteration by Divine Prov-

idence in the span of life from centuries to barely 120 years which shows
that in the Biblical view not only catastrophic changes could be wrought
by Providence, but also permanent alterations.
I.H.

(Princeton, New Jersey)

September 14, 1953

His Eminence
Dr. Isaac Herzog
Chief Rabbi of Israel
Jerusalem

Dear Rabbi Herzog:

In my first letter I have stressed the freedom from dogmas as a pre-

requisite of a fruitful discussion. You have accepted this approach. Now
I may say that the conflict between ancient traditions that became a part
of a religious credo and the notions of the present day science is not a
result of a dogmatic thinking only in religion; science is also guilty of
160 The Torah u-Madda Journal

dogmatic thinking, and sometimes, even to a greater degree.

Would you have addressed the questions of your first and second
letters to any one else among the scientists of the United States, I believe
that, with the exception of George McCready Price, everyone would
have answered you: There was no deluge; the origin of man goes back
one million years; the book of Genesis is completely wrong on all prob-
lems of geology, prehistory, and natural sciences in general. Such an
answer would be in harmony with the dogma of uniformity, or the
assumption that by the minute daily processes of our times we can
explain all geological and biological changes in the past of the globe.
I believe to be able to establish—in the forthcoming volumes—that
not many millennia ago the earth was covered by flood. If you are
inclined to regard the few survivors as the beginners of human race—
you have found the synthesis of science and religion that you seek. And
then you may regard human bones of earlier ages as of the devastated
world—never completely destroyed. This would of course substitute the
idea of the sages for the literal meaning of the story of creation.
I would also draw your attention to the material assembled in
“Worlds in Collision”—I trust that you have found time to start reading
this book: the days of the Exodus saw one of those great upheavals that
would approach the idea of “mah.ariv olamoth.”
If in the past there were events of catastrophic nature encompassing
the world, the geological formations, like those of Pliocene (late
Tertiary) that are ascribed to millions of years ago, most probably were
deposited only thousands, not even tens of thousands, years ago.
The fields of paleontology, geology, anthropology, and archaeology
in American and in Europe, and in other parts of the world, came
repeatedly into unsolvable conflicts among themselves when finds were
made of paleontological and archaeological materials side by side.
I am certainly looking forward to your further inquiries and ideas,
and I wish you a happy and healthy New Year.
Respectfully yours,

Immanuel Velikovsky
 Raphael Shuchat 161

25th Oct., 1953

Dr. Emanuel Velikowsky

c/o The University,
Princeton,
U.S.America

Dear Dr. Velikovsky,

I thank you very much for your kind second letter. However, either
you are too brief, or my mind is not sufficiently bright.
Suppose now that your two volumes in which you confirm the
Deluge as a fact had already appeared, in how far would they affect the
problem? If you accept the Pentateuchal chronology, it would still be a
matter of only some 5,000 years since the deluge in which only a few
humans were saved. Would that be scientifically sufficient to account for
the numbers of the human race, for its distribution all over the globe,
for the progress of civilization, the art of writing, etc.? Would you be
prepared to accept that Adam, the first Man of the present world, was
already an accomplished artisan etc. at the moment when he was creat-
ed some 5714 years ago. Or would you take it that God interposed all
the while, seeing to it that the race move from place to place and quickly
spread all over the globe, and inspiring human beings with a knowledge
of the arts etc., and multiplying its numbers inordinately. Or must we
accept it that the human race had been here as a continuous chain
already hundreds of thousands of years? If so, we would have to reinter-
pret the Book of Genesis!
Please remember that were it nor for our Pentateuchal extremely
short chronology which issues from the Biblical data directly, science
would hardly be a disturbing fact. All the human fossils supposed to be
millions of years old, we would attach to the world which had preceded
the present world by millions of years and which were not annihilated,
but only destroyed by the Creator, as I have already explained in my pre-
vious letters.
Pray write plainly even if it takes you much more time. I should be
very deeply obliged.

With kindest regards.

Sincerely yours,
Isaac Halevi Herzog
Chief Rabbi of Israel
162 The Torah u-Madda Journal

(Princeton, New Jersey)

December 23, 1953

His Eminence
Dr. Isaac Herzog
Chief Rabbi of Israel
Jerusalem

Dear Rabbi Herzog:

In your letters to me you have shown the willingness to find a suit-

able interpretation for those parts of the Scriptures in which the letter
contradicts the findings of science. In reply I stressed that science, too, is
dominated by beliefs established on authorities. I wish that the priests in
the temple of science were as willing to part with the dogmas as you, in
the true Jewish spirit, proved yourself when it appeared that written tra-
dition and scientific finds occasionally contradict one another.
You have asked me in your letters: Are not the Creation of man six
thousand years ago and the Deluge, less than five thousand years ago, in
conflict with the findings of physical and cultural anthropology? I
would assume that the history of man goes back for ages I would not
attempt to compute. The presently current view that man evolved in a
species one million years ago, with the beginning of Pleistocene (Ice
Age), will certainly undergo revision, already because the division into
ages and periods as we know them now, is a heritage of the uniformitar-
ian teaching of the Nineteenth century. This teaching assumed that the
natural processes were only of a slow evolution; that Tertiary was the
age of mammals and mountain building; that Pleistocene was the age of
climatic changes and tectonic calmness; and that the Recent was the
time of tectonic calmness and climatic stability. But we know by now
that mountain building went on during the Pleistocene and the Recent
period; and climatic catastrophes took place only a few thousand years
ago (about -1500 and -800). The geological divisions will require a
reshaping, and in such reshaping the million years of man’s history will
certainly take a very different length. Nature, actually, went through
great paroxysms, and these cataclysms changed the face of the earth and
the composition of the animal kingdom. If you have already read my
Worlds in Collision, you may see that our earth was on the brink of
destruction in the days of the Exodus from Egypt. And the Deluge was
one of the earlier manifestations of what our sages may have regarded
and [as] h.urban olam.
 Raphael Shuchat 163

On the basis of my research in various fields of science, I came to

the conclusion that Deluge was an historical event of global character; it
was caused by extraterrestrial agents which can be identified; it occurred
between five and ten thousand years ago—from the geological point of
view—recently to an extreme degree.
You have asked: If a Deluge took place only five thousand years ago,
how to explain the present number of human beings (over two billion)?
The Deluge having been of global dimensions, the great majority of ani-
mal life was destroyed. However, I would regard the story of Noah and
his ark as a piece of folklore that in a primitive and fanciful way tells a
tale that could have some substratum in fact, as usually the folklore has,
but that should not be, because of this, counted as a historical event.
The survivors in men and animals were exceedingly few; the memory of
earlier events was almost completely erased wherever human race sur-
vived; and mutations in organic life, following the deluge, were numer-
ous and manifold.
Assuming that the number of human survivors was counted in
thousands or hundreds only, though we cannot accept such small fig-
ures as necessarily true, there would be no intrinsic difficulty in the
repeopling of the earth in the space of five or ten thousand years. To
illustrate this let me quote from the Science News Letter of October 24 of
this year. “The population of Latin America, including the West Indies,
will triple in 47 years, if the present growth rate continues,” and this sig-
nifies that it may become ten fold after one century.
Now let us assume a much [more] moderate rate of growth; not ten
times but only double at the end of a century, or after four generations.
If for the sake of argument, there were only two survivors (male and
female) following a near-destruction of the human kind, there would be
four human beings after one century, 16 after three centuries, and ca.
200 after six centuries; after six hundred more years there would be one
hundred times more—or 20,000; after 18 centuries—two million; after
24 centuries, 200 million’ after 32 centuries, 20 billion; and so on, until
after 52 centuries there should be 20 million billion, or ten million times
more people than there actually are (I use the term billion in American
sense: 1,000 millions).
So why we do not have so many? Epidemics and wars took their
tolls in great numbers; nature a few times decimated the human popula-
tion, too. As you see, the population numbers constitute no argument
against a near annihilation of the human race (accomplished by an
actual annihilation of many races of animal kingdom) five or ten thou-
sand years ago.
164 The Torah u-Madda Journal

You ask me also to explain whether the invention of writing could

have been accomplished in a few thousand years. Actually, the oldest
alphabetic writings found go back for less than 3,300 years (consider the
chronology as offered in “Ages in Chaos”; in the second volume of that
work I will deal in detail with the earliest alphabetic writings); and syl-
labic writings and also hieroglyphic scripts are not older than ca. 4500-
5000 years. It should be noted that the haggadic legend has – in
Josephus’ wording (Antiquities I,2,3)—a prediluvian use of written
characters.
If I have, Rabbi, answered here a few of the questions that you have
persistently put before me, I do not claim to know the plan of the
Creator; only I regard as very significant that races did not survive from
the beginning, neither their evolution was always slow. New species
evolved by mutations. And mutations require a different time scale for
the creation of new species than evolution of natural selection.
I like to believe that this answer, though touching but a few of the
questions involved in the great nexus of problems, will clarify the
thoughts on those problems where many sciences, but also religion, are
intermeshed.
I would like to hear again from you and shall gladly reply. I have not
hurried to answer you this time, because you have asked me to give time
and thought to my reply, and I wished to do this when no pressing mat-
ter was with me. If there should occur for me some scientific opportuni-
ty, like a lecture tour for visiting Israel in the summer or spring, I shall
be very happy to know you personally and elaborate in more detail on
the questions discussed here.

Very sincerely yours,

Immanuel Velikovsky

P.S. I live in Princeton, but I am not on the teaching staff of the

University here.
 Raphael Shuchat 165

(Princeton, New Jersey)

December 6, 1955

His Eminence
Dr. Isaac Herzog
Chief Rabbi of Israel
Jerusalem

Dear Rabbi Herzog:

Two years ago we have exchanged letters: You have asked me to

explain some conflicting ideas in the Scriptures and in the modern
teaching of the origin of man on earth, and I, probably without much
success, tried to say that the views in science are going to change and to
decrease the chasm between science and Mosaic tradition. By the time
this letter reaches you, my new book, “Earth in Upheaval,” may already
be in your possession: I have instructed Doubleday and Co., my pub-
lisher, to mail you a copy. I trust that you will find there some of the
answers you were looking for. It makes me pleased to know, dear Rabbi,
that with this delay of two years, I am able to answer your inquiry at
some detail. The present volume deals only with natural sciences.
Another volume, “The Deluge,” will follow, if my plans will materialize,
in about two years; it will deal with folklore as well as natural sciences.

Very cordially,
Immanuel Velikovsky

December 19, 1955

Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky

78 Hartley Avenue
Princeton, NJ
U. S. A.

Dear Dr. Velikovsky,

Thanks for your kind letter of the 6th instant [6th of this month].
Your book has not yet reached me, but my son Chayim has present-
ed me with it on the occasion of my birthday last Wednesday.
166 The Torah u-Madda Journal

I have not found the passages where you deal with the problem of
natural science and Genesis.
Kindly therefore send me a list enumerating the respective passages
dealing with that great and grave problem.
With many thanks,

Very sincerely yours,

Isaac Halevy Herzog

Chief Rabbi of Israel.

January 5, 1956

Dr. Isaac Halevi Herzog

Chief Rabbi of Israel
Jerusalem, Israel.

Dear Rabbi Herzog:

You ask me to indicate in my new book (“Earth in Upheaval”) those

passages which reflect on the “great and grave problem” of a discord
between the biblical and the scientific beliefs.
Let me say that the book in its entirety deals with this problem,
mostly by inference. The conflict between science and tradition became
actual and acute in the dispute that arouse [arose] following the publi-
cation of Darwin's “The Origin of Species.” In the 96 years since then,
scientific material was accumulating that renders the theory of evolu-
tion based on the theory of uniformity untenable. The Darwinian evo-
lution required often millions of years where only hours or days of cata-
clysmic events were in action.
Even with hundreds of millions of years at the disposal of evolution,
no new species could evolve; and none evolved among animals since sci-
entific observations were made; by mere competition (the Malthusian
principle) no origin of species can be procreated; but violent reactions
(thermal or radiant) can create new species.
How, then, the history of the world looks [does the history of the
world look] in this new concept? The universe is very old, may be with-
out beginning. The earth in its present shape is very recent: the earth
 Raphael Shuchat 167

went through many violent disturbances, the geological record of which

is presented in my book, and which you may regard as olamot she-
neh.revu [destroyed worlds]. One of these destructions was the Deluge,
less than eight or seven thousand years ago. Closer to our time was the
decimation of the human kind and annihilation of many species in the
days of the Exodus, in the middle of the second millennium before the
common era. When you read carefully “Earth in Upheaval” you may
realize that the Tertiary which is supposed to be pre-human, actually
endured into early historical times, coinciding with the vicissitudes of
the Pleistocene, and with the cataclysmic events of the Recent. Therefore
the geological age of man needs a radical revision.
I wish to believe that these few hints will induce you, dear Rabbi, to
read my book in its proper order. Then, if there should remain any
questions you will like to ask I will be only very glad to do my utmost in
order to satisfy you.

Very cordially,
[Immanuel Velikovsky]

Notes
I received a copy of the letters in 1981 from R. Moshe Bleicher, who received
them from Velikovsky’s granddaughter. The letters can be viewed at the Israel
National Library in Jerusalem, Manuscripts archive, Arc 4˚ 1612, roll 5. I would
like to thank Mrs. Ruth Velikovsky Sharon and Mrs. Shulamit Velikovsky
Kogan as well as the Herzog family for permission to publish the letters.

1. “Attitudes Towards Modern Cosmogony and Evolution Among Rabbinic

Thinkers in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Century: The Resurgence of the
Doctrine of the Sabbatical Years,” The Torah u-Madda Journal 13 (2005): 15-49.
2. See, for example, Maimonides, Treatise on Resurrection: “We will always
attempt to create synthesis between Torah and reason, and explain things in
a natural way as much as possible, unless something was explicitly explained
to be a miracle and cannot be interpreted differently.” See Yitzhak Shilat
(ed.), Iggerot ha-Rambam 1 (Jerusalem, 1995), 361 (my translation).
3. See Joseph Ben-David, Scientific Growth: Essays on the Social Organization
and Ethos of Science, ed. Gad Freudenthal (Berkeley, 1991), 545-551.
4. Ibid., 521-31 and 551-58. Ben-David dates the move from criticism of sci-
ence to anti-scientism at about 1968, and sees the social impact of the anti-
Vietnam war movement among students as a major catalyst towards these
feelings. See also Robert. K. Merton, “The Sociology of Science: An Episodic
Memoir,” in The Sociology of Science in Europe, ed. Robert K. Merton and J.
Gaston (Carbondale, IL, 1977), 111-13.
168 The Torah u-Madda Journal

5. This belief in the omnipotence of science contributed to the distrust of sci-

entism in general. See Ben-David, Scientific Growth, 555.
6. See Oscar Handlin, “Ambivalence in the Popular Responses to Science,” in
The Sociology of Science, ed. Barry Barnes (Harmondsworth, 1972), 268. See
also K. M. Parsons, Drawing Out Leviathan: Dinosaurs and the Science Wars,
(Bloomington, IND, 2001), xii-xxii. See also my article, “Reflections on the
Popularity of Mysticism in the West Today: A General and Jewish Perspec-
tive,” Studia Hebraica 4 (2004): 332-40.
7. The Holocaust had a particularly profound impact on the ultra-Orthodox rab-
binic leadership in Israel, who called for rebuilding the yeshivot at the expense
of any secular studies or training. See Menahem Friedman, Ha-H.evrah ha-
H. aredit: Mekorot, Megammot ve-Tahalikhim (Jerusalem, 1991), 26-36.
8. Yigal Shafran, “Ha-Rav Doctor Yiz. h. ak Isaac Halevi Herzog,” in H. okhmat
Yisra’el be-Eiropah, ed. Simon Federbush (Jerusalem, 1965), vol. 3, p. 127.
9. Ibid., 137-48. For more on Rabbi Herzog’s biography, see S. Avidor-
Hakohen, Yah.id be-Doro (Jerusalem, 1980).
10. See, for example, Elimelech Westreich, “Levirate Marriage in the State of
Israel: Ethnic Encounter and the Challenge of a Jewish State,” Israel Law
Review 37, 2-3 (2003-2004): 426-99.
11. R. Isaac Herzog, Teh.ukah le-Yisrael Al Pi ha-Torah (Jerusalem, 1989). See
also Eliav Schochetman, “Torah u-Medinah be-Mishnato shel ha-Rayah
Herzog,” Shanah be-Shanah (1991): 178-90.
12. Schochetman, “Torah u-Medinah,” 180-82.
13. Ibid., 178.
14. “Do not ask me to show that everything they [the Rabbis of the Talmud]
said concerning astronomical matters conforms to the way things really are.
For at that time, mathematics was imperfect. They did not speak about this
as transmitters of dicta of the prophets, but rather because in those times
they were the men of knowledge who lived in those times” (Guide of the
Perplexed, trans. Shlomo Pines [Chicago, 1963], 3:14, p. 459). There were, of
course, rabbinic authorities who disagreed with Maimonides. For a list of
such rabbinic thinkers, see: Dov Frimer, “Kevi‘at Abbahut al Yedei Bedikat
Sugei Dam be-Mishpat ha-Yisraeli u-be-Mishpat ha-Ivri,” Sefer Assia 5, ed.
Mordechai Halperin (Jerusalem, 1986), 193, n. 46. Rashba also seems to hold
an opposing view to Maimonides in his Responsa 1:98. See Elimelech
Westreich, “Medicine and Jewish Law in the Rabbinical Courts of Israel:
Matters of Infertility,” The Jewish Law Annual 12 (1997): 61.
15. See “The Talmud as a Source for the History of Ancient Science,” in
Judaism: Laws and Ethics, Essays by the Late Chief Rabbi Dr. Isaac Herzog, ed.
Chaim Herzog (London, 1974), 162-65 and 191.
16. Maimoni’s introduction to the Aggadah, quoted by R. Herzog, ibid., 152.
17. Yevamot 65b.
18. Bava Batra 119b.
19. My translation of Rabbi Herzog’s letter published by Frimer, “Kev‘iat
Abbahut,” 49.
20. See Westreich, “Medicine and Jewish Law,” 57-58, particularly what he calls
the “middle road” approach taken by R. Waldenberg, concering the issue of
a woman giving birth after age forty. He claimed that the Talmud meant that
this was true generally but not as a strict rule.
21. It is questionable because R. Isaac Luria had interpreted it in the sixteenth
 Raphael Shuchat 169

century as referring to spiritual worlds and not physical ones. See Sha‘ar
Ma’amarei Rashbi (Jerusalem, 1959), 46b.
22. R. Herzog, “The Talmud as the Source for the History of Ancient Science,” 170.
23. Ibid., 171.
24. Ibid.
25. In a letter to Dr. L. Bernard Cohen, a researcher in the field of the history of
science at Harvard University, Velikovsky writes: “If I understand right, you
have not made up your mind conclusively as to my position in science as it
will find its evaluation by a future generation. . . . So why not learn about a dis-
sident from close? When in Princeton, you are welcome to visit me.” The letter
is dated July 18th, 1955 (www.varchive.org/cor/various/ 550718vcoh.htm).
26. See, for example, the letter from Harry H. Hess (Chairman of the Geology
Department at Princeton University) to Velikovsky, dated March 15th 1963:
“I am not about to be converted to your form of reasoning, although it has
had successes. You have, after all, predicted that Jupiter would be a source of
radio noise, that Venus would have a high surface temperature, that the sun
and bodies of the solar system would have large electrical charges, and several
other predictions. Some of these predictions were said to be impossible
when you made them. All of them were made long before proof that they
were correct came to hand. Conversely, I do not know of any specific predic-
tion you made that has since been proven false” (www.varchive.org/ cor/hess/
630315hv.htm).
27. Einstein gave Velikovsky an empathetic but realistic explanation of why he
thinks the scientific community has difficulty excepting his ideas. See Lifnei
Alot ha-Shah.ar, ed. Shulamit Velikovsky Kogan (Tel Aviv, 1995), 22. The
empathy Velikovsky felt from Einstein and the latter’s willingness to discuss
his theories brought Velikovsky to ask for his intervention on his behalf in
the scientific community (ibid., 42-43). Over time, Einstein became almost
enchanted with Velikovsky’s determination and creativity. He began to
address his theories critically, explaining what he agreed and did not agree
with, but he felt no responsibility to vindicate these theories in the eyes of
the scientific community (ibid., 44). Velikovsky never gave up trying to
receive confirmation from Einstein. The feeling of loss over the latter’s death
was even greater as that expectation grew. Velikovsky concludes the first part
of the book by relating how someone had described to him that his book,
Worlds in Collision, was on the table in Einstein’s study at the time of his
death (ibid., 93). For a list of Velikovsky’s books in Hebrew see: www.agesin-
chaos.org.il.
28. Velikovsky’s ideas were also debated among the scientific community; on
October 1953 he gave a lecture at the Graduate College Forum of Princeton
University which he eventually published as a supplement to Earth in
Upheaval. For more on Velikovsky’s theories and the reactions of the scien-
tific community, see Henry Bauer, Beyond Velikovsky (Chicago, 1984).
Velikovsky’s ideas still stimulate discussion. See“Chronology and Catastro-
phism Review” (The Journal of the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies) XVII
(1995). See also a short article in Hebrew on Velikovsky’s theories in Haaretz
(May 13, 2005), Ha-Shavua, B6. See as well Velikovsky’s own feelings in
Stargazers and Gravediggers: Memoirs to Worlds in Collision (New York,
1984). Summarizing Velikovsky’s main arguments, his daughter, Mrs.
Shulamit Kogan wrote:
170 The Torah u-Madda Journal

When Immanuel Velikovsky arrived at the conclusion that the Exodus

took place under world-wide natural upheavals, his research went in
two directions:
Space, Worlds in Collision: Human testimony to world wide natural
catastrophes from countries all around the world – from China to
Norway, and from Greece to South America; and Earth in Upheaval:
geological and paleontological evidence to world wide natural catastro-
phes, in historical, as well as in pre-historical times.
Time, Ages in Chaos: Taking the natural upheavals as a synchroniz-
ing starting point, Velikovsky found synchronism between Biblical his-
tory and Egyptian history generation after generation, which convinc-
ingly shows that there is an error of more than 500 years in Egyptian
chronology. When Egyptian chronology is thus shortened, new light is
shed on the problematic “Dark Age” of Greece.
29. First Letter, July 16, 1953.
30. For R. Kook’s perspective on scientific cosmogony see “Attitudes” (above
note 1): 34-41.
31. R. Kook’s letters were first published in 1953, but Orot ha-Kodesh was pub-
lished in the 1930’s.
32. Letter of July 16, 1953.
33. See R. A.Y. Kook, Selected Letters, ed. and trans. Tzvi Feldman, (Jerusalem,
1986), 5-10. R. Herzog was definitely not aware of the essay in Shemonah
Kevaz. im in which R. Kook addresses this very question. See Shemonah
Kevaz. im (Jerusalem, 1999), vol. 1, pp. 42-44.
34. Letter of R. Herzog to Dr. Velikovsky July 16, 1953.
35. Second Letter, Velikovsky to R. Herzog, July 30, 1953.
36. Ibid.
37. Ibid. To R. Herzog’s credit, in an air of tolerance he says nothing of
Velikovsky’s liberal interpretation of the Divine nature of the Torah.
38. Ibid.
39. See my article, “Attitudes,” 31.
40. Third letter, R. Herzog to Velikovsky August 31, 1953.
41. Ibid.
42. See above text at note 21.
43. Fourth letter,Velikovsky to R. Herzog, September 14, 1953.
44. Ibid.
45. Ibid.
46. Fifth letter, R. Herzog to Velikovsky, Oct. 25th, 1953.
47. Letter of Velikovsky to R. Herzog, Dec. 23, 1953
48. Ibid., p. 2.
49. Ibid.
50. Ibid.
51. See Velikovsky archive above note 25. I did not get permission from the
family to publish the draft.
52. Velikovsky to R.Herzog, Dec. 6, 1955.
53. R. Herzog to Velikovsky, Dec. 19, 1955.
54. Velikovsky to R. Herzog January 5, 1956.
55. In 1956, the Big Bang theory had not yet been accepted by the scientific
community, so it is possible that Velikovsky was just echoing the accepted
view in his day.
 Raphael Shuchat 171

56. Ibid.
57. Ibid.
58. See my article, “Attitudes”: 23. I mentioned there that the theory of the sab-
batical worlds, which was the kabbalistic development of the midrashic idea
of earlier worlds, was popular between the twelfth and sixteenth centuries.
After being criticized by R. Isaac Luria of the sixteenth century, it was aban-
doned until its resurgence in the mid-nineteenth century by those trying to
understand modern scientific cosmogony from a rabbinic perspective. The
abandoning of this idea after the Second World War relates to the idea I men-
tioned above regarding the lack of desire by rabbinic authorities in the 1960’s
and 1970’s to seek a synthesis between science and religion on this issue.
59. Even the Syrian Rabbis who criticized R. Benamozegh’s Em la-Mikra for
adducing non-Jewish points of view did not seem to have any problem with
his liberal interpretation of how long ago creation took place. See Z. ari Gil‘ad,
R. Benamozegh’s response to the Syrian Rabbis, in Ha-Levanon (1871-72),
vols. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 32, 36, 42 and 43.
60. See my article, “Attitudes”: 39.