

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer

How would a rationalist interpret the long lives of the ancient people enumerated in the Bible, from Methuselah on down? Virtually no person lives more than 120 years today, even with the assistance of modern medicine. Does the rationalist concede that at least in this one case, we must say "Nishtaneh haTeva," nature has changed?

share|improve this question
Clarification: Many scientific facts stated in our ancient texts are known to be incorrect. Rishonim have discussed some (e.g. a cow under 3yrs never gives birth) and have offered the resolution "Nishtaneh haTeva" (nature has changed). The rationalist position is that the authors of the ancient texts were relying on the scientific knowledge of their time. As for the Torah itself ("God got it wrong" obviously untenable for an Orthodox Jew), the verses are interpreted to mean something different, as in the six days of creation really meaning six eras. – Barry Dec 30 '10 at 20:07
Do you mean rationalist or literalist? Rationally speaking there is very little in the Tanakh that we have found historical physical evidence of. So does that mean that it did or did not happen? Literally speaking does 3 days mean 3 24 hour periods and does 120 years mean 120 365 day periods? We do not have any proof either way of what really happened. We have the words given to us and we spend our time interpreting those words. At what point, was the story given to make a point and at what point was it written to document history? – mTp Dec 30 '10 at 21:15
I think the rationalist approach Barry's referring to is what you find at rationalistjudaism.com . – Isaac Moses Dec 31 '10 at 2:56
@mTp, in this context, "rationalist" and "literalist" are almost opposite viewpoints. I didn't quite follow the remainder of your comment. – Barry Dec 31 '10 at 16:48
up vote 7 down vote accepted

That it is not intended literally, but rather the numbers have allegorical significance. (For example, Chanoch lived precisely 365 years, the number of days in a solar year.)

That it referred to dynasties started by the individual person, rather than just to the lifespan of that person.

Or that "shana" does not mean what we think it means. I tried to explain the latter in these two posts:

See how I interpret the Sumerian king list, where they have similarly extremely long lifespans.

kol tuv, josh

share|improve this answer
Your interpretation of Shana I think has more questions than it raises. A much more satisfiying (to me) answer, is the concept of gematria and the general importance that numbers have as symbols for greater concepts in Torah and Jewish texts in general. – avi Sep 4 '11 at 9:32
But you must concede that the word shana means actual year sometimes in biblical literature, right? You just say shana isn't literal when things become unreasonable to you? That's hard to accept. – Baby Seal May 18 '14 at 1:26
re: the first answer, that is why I offered a text-internal reason to think it is allegorical, namely "For example, Chanoch lived precisely 365 years, the number of days in a solar year." – josh waxman May 18 '14 at 11:26
re: the third, we often move one meaning to the other to give the more plausible reading. אכל means to eat, but we don't imagine a fire doing the eating when in that context. if (and it is a big if) there is evidence from other sources that שנה can mean a time-unit other than its current definition of 12 months, that its definition was fluid, then it is not as hard to accept. Certainly shana means actual year in Biblical lit, once the meaning became crystallized. – josh waxman May 18 '14 at 11:31
Why do you assume אכל means to eat, as opposed to eating being one application of a more rigorous definition, i.e. consume? – Y ez May 18 '14 at 19:49

The Malbim has a novel perush on Bereishit (8:22) that help may to understand longevity:

עֹד, כָּל-יְמֵי הָאָרֶץ: זֶרַע וְקָצִיר וְקֹר וָחֹם וְקַיִץ וָחֹרֶף, וְיוֹם וָלַיְלָה--לֹא יִשְׁבֹּתוּ.

In explaining the (now) presence of the seasons he says that before the flood the Earth was not tilted. It was only after the flood that the Earth became tilted on its axis (he even says 23.5 degrees). The tilt of the Earth caused seasons which had previously not existed. He says that people (and animals) that used to live in a constant geo-climate now experienced changes that they were not used to and, as a result, got sick more easily and became generally weaker.*

The Ramban comments on longevity in Bereishit (5:4). He explains that the reason for longevity was that Adam was created by the 'hand of Hashem', meaning that he was made complete an built with an 'inner' strength (of some sort). He says that even after Adam had sinned and punished with 'death' (or more accurately spiritual death or banishment from Eden) the age of man decreased. After the mabul the air became polluted/contaminated leading to the shortening of years thereafter.

The psalm of Moshe mentions that the lifespan of people is 70-80 years old. Tehillim (90:10):

יְמֵי-שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה, וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה-- וְרָהְבָּם, עָמָל וָאָוֶן:

Rashi comments that the decrease in years is due to the 'iniquity and sins of our youth'. Our actions nowadays are a direct consequence of the shortening of our days. However, it could be argued that the great tzadikkim merited to live longer than this in any case. In pharaoh's encounter with Yaakov he is intrigued by Yaakov's longevity:

ח וַיֹּאמֶר פַּרְעֹה, אֶל-יַעֲקֹב: כַּמָּה, יְמֵי שְׁנֵי חַיֶּיךָ. ט וַיֹּאמֶר יַעֲקֹב, אֶל-פַּרְעֹה, יְמֵי שְׁנֵי מְגוּרַי, שְׁלֹשִׁים וּמְאַת שָׁנָה: מְעַט וְרָעִים, הָיוּ יְמֵי שְׁנֵי חַיַּי, וְלֹא הִשִּׂיגוּ אֶת-יְמֵי שְׁנֵי חַיֵּי אֲבֹתַי, בִּימֵי מְגוּרֵיהֶם.

It seems that Yaakov lives longer than average, and furthermore that his righteous ancestors also lived long. The Torah LaDaat in parashat Noach has an essay dealing with 'changes in nature' over time. He mentions that the Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim (source?) says that the long ages mentioned from Adam until Noach are only for those specific individuals mentioned in the Torah, but not the general populous. It could therefore be that examples of longevity in the Torah are only miraculous exceptions to the rule, but not the general trends of the time.

(* as an aside it is interesting to note that the Malbim used this reasoning to explain how it is that wooly mammoths, which he probably presumed were from temperate climates, became 'buried in ice'. However, there are obvious problems with this interpretation…)

share|improve this answer
Kudos for a very thorough answer. Is the "could be" in last paragraph yours, Rambam's, or Torah LaDaas'? It seems to follow directly from the Rambam as quoted. – Y ez May 18 '14 at 20:08
@Yez given the variety of opinions it is my "could be" – bondonk May 19 '14 at 16:15
What's the alternative within the Rambam? (not trying to nitpick, just don't know what you mean) – Y ez May 19 '14 at 17:33
@YEZ the Ramban and Malbim say that its related to state of health/environment changes, unlike the Rambam. I would imagine there are other opinions as well. Some 'could' work together, this is my speculation – bondonk May 19 '14 at 17:51
Sorry I wasn't clear - I see the other opinions, as you clearly explained in your answer. I just don't see any other way to take the Rambam. Unless you mean the application of the case by pre-Noach is not obvious to extend to all other cases? I guess that was what you meant. – Y ez May 19 '14 at 17:54

Quoting Marc B. Shapiro:

The fourteenth-century R. Eleazar Ashkenazi ben Nathan ha-Bavli...assumes that the extremely long lifespans found at the beginning of Genesis are not to be taken literally (p. 29).












[18] He writes (p. 30):





share|improve this answer

This will only become a strong question once scientists get a better understanding of how aging works. Until then, one can reasonably claim that "nishtaneh haTeva" scientifically possible.

share|improve this answer
There is a good understanding of how ageing works today. For someone to have such a long lifespan they would have to have a genetic mutation which does not activate the aging process properly. – avi Feb 7 '12 at 18:09

One explanation given is that the atmosphere was very pure then, without the pollution which came about later, so things were healthier and people lived longer.

share|improve this answer
I believe this is Ramban's answer. – avi Feb 7 '12 at 18:12

Disclaimer: I do not claim to "know" in any way what Hashem means concerning certain parts of the Torah, and there are strong sources for different approaches to both the Torah and Chazal. Importantly, there should be a mesora and respect for variant approaches that are anchored in truth.

There is a very well chazal-sourced book claimed to be co-researched with R' Aryeh Kaplan called Immortality, Resurection and the Age of the Universe. Although sub-titled "A Kabbalistic View", I'll share an idea that I remember from the book (excluded by Google), though it's been a while since I read it.

The author suggests that Adam was not the first human, but the first of his type. Adam was endowed with potential for immortality. Because of his sin, Adam lost this gift and was sentenced with mortality. Still, Adam remained with a biological clock which allowed for longevity. His descendents were able to keep this genetic longevity so long as they didn't dilute the gene pool. However, at some point, Adams descendents began intermarrying with the "others". (I don't know if this can be explained scientifically)

share|improve this answer
OK, so I think you are saying that this view accepts "Nishtaneh haTevah" at least for this historical fact, with some additional scientific explanation that attempts to render it more palatable to the rationalist. – Barry Dec 31 '10 at 16:51
I'm not sure whether to call it nishtana hateva where actual nature as we know it changes. This seems more like an evolutionary concept. – YDK Dec 31 '10 at 20:11

Your Answer


