"...and it was evening," Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Siman, says: This teaches that there was "the order of time" (seder zmanim) before this (creation).
In the beginning there was... . The simple understanding of the first verses of Genesis
suggests that time preceded Creation, for Creation took place within a pre-existent time. In order for there to have been a beginning, time must have preceded Creation. This phrasing suggests that time existed before matter came into being. However, if time came into being before matter, it is not simply a property of matter, a function measured by decay or passing on of various forms of matter, but something independent of it.
Aristotle, and after him Rambam in Moreh Nevukhim 2:13 held that: "time is also of the created things, for time follows motion and motion is a property of that which move". In other words, time is measured as that unit of time that it takes an object to move from point A to point B.
This view goes well with the understanding that time is dependent on motion, for objects would move independently and their motion demarcated Time. It also is compatible with the Eternal Universe, for matter is eternal and Time is eternally the property of matter.
This view reigned in science until Galileo for it also implies that an object is normally at rest and requires force to put it into motion, so it is not surprising that time follows and is a property of motion. From this axiom followed a host of conclusions, such as the necessity of the First Mover of the Heavenly Spheres (see Hilchos Yesodei Hatorah CH.3) and the existence of the First Cause of all motion. After Galileo and until Einstein the prevailing conception was that objects were by their nature in motion and that it takes force to slow them down of stop them. From here developed the concept of inertia, a body's natural tendency to remain in motion, unless it is counteracted by an opposing force, such as friction.
Plato, on the other hand, believed that matter and form eternally coexisted and that
at one point, God imposed form on matter and fashioned the World. Time, then also eternallly co-existed.
"The question of whether there could be time without change has traditionally been thought to be closely tied to the question of whether time exists independently of the events that occur in time. For, the thinking goes, if there could be a period of time without change, then it follows that time could exist without any events to fill it; but if, on the other hand, there could not be a period of time without change, then it must be that time exists only if there are some events to fill it.
Aristotle and others (including, especially, Leibniz) have argued that time does not exist independently of the events that occur in time. This view is typically called either “Reductionism with Respect to Time” or “Relationism with Respect to Time,” since according to this view, all talk that appears to be about time can somehow be reduced to talk about temporal relations among things and events. The opposing view, normally referred to either as “Platonism with Respect to Time” or as “Substantivalism with Respect to Time” or as “Absolutism with Respect to Time,” has been defended by Plato, Newton, and others. On this view, time is like an empty container into which things and events may be placed; but it is a container that exists independently of what (if anything) is placed in it.
Why would someone endorse the reductionist view about time? Historically, two main arguments have played the biggest roles in convincing people. One is conceptual: time, according to this argument, is by definition nothing more than a system of temporal relations among things and events, so that the idea of a period of time without change turns out to be incoherent. The other main argument for Reductionism is epistemological: we could never have any reason, according to this argument, to posit a period of empty time; and, moreover, even if there were such a period, we would not have any way of knowing about either its existence or its length.
What about Platonism with Respect to Time — why would someone endorse that view? One reason is that the empty container metaphor has a lot of intuitive appeal. (This is no doubt true of both the temporal and spatial versions of Platonism.) And another reason is that some people do not find the main arguments against Platonism with Respect to Time compelling. For example, it has been suggested by Sydney Shoemaker that there are possible circumstances in which it would make perfect sense to posit periods of empty time, and even to claim to know just how long those periods are."
In a new book, R. Y.D. Soloveitchik is quoting as supporting the view of Rambam. If so, how could time have existed during the first three days of creation, before the Sun and the Moon were placed in Heaven and measuring time began. He suggests that each of the first three days of creation brought new matter into being and that this act of creating new matter also created new time.
The midrash that has Time precede Creation and the nature of Time are discussed by the Lubavitcher Rebber in a fascinating letter. I quote:
"In answer to your question: You heard that the saintly rabbi of Zidichov disputed the view of Chabad concerning the concept of Time, and asked where you could find this dispute and its content.
The matter is found in the rabbi's book, V'asseh Tov near the beginning. He writes, "I have found that someone writes an answer to the question, 'Why wasn't the world created earlier?' in the name of our master and teacher, Rabbi Dov Ber of Mezritch. He says that Time, as well, is a creation, and at first there was no Time. In truth, I do not believe that this statement came from his holiness. What would the rabbi do with the statement in Midrash Rabbah, '…this teaches us that there was an order of time earlier'? And in the Talmud, they say that the Torah preceded the world by 2000 years."
He goes on the discuss various sources and concludes: "Chabad Chassidism explains this Midrash by distinguishing between Time and the order of time that Breishit Rabba is discussing. The order of time is a greater abstraction than the concept of Time itself (this is the converse of what the author of the Ikrim writes) and it is the origin of Time".
In other words, there are tsvei halochos in the concept of Time.
Time is both a continuum independent of matter and a way of measuring matter's motion, which is a property of matter. He then argues with Einstein: "Parenthetically: Many people confuse these two concepts of Time and through this become ensnarled in error. For example, those who deal in Einstein's Theory of Relativity. But this all concerns only the first concept of Time. They err, as above, and consequently derive extremely peculiar conclusions. This, however, is not the place to elaborate. "
In conclusion, we can see how an entire complex philosophical discussion has been compacted by Chazal in a simple appearing term "seder zmanim".
A quote from Shiurei Da'as, vol. 1, pg. 140:
Certainly, it appears, that it [the soul after death] is under the concepts of time and space, which exists even above our world, even if in a completly different way then we perceive..the disembodied soul's view of space is in a different way with different dimensions...and even there life is not according to its true existence."
However, Shiurei Daas, vol. 1, pg. 126:
"According to the chachmei ha'emes and the latter wise men of the nations, the existence of space and time are only a dimension (havchana?), through which we grasp the existence of things according to our conception. In truth, they have no existence to themselves, and the sefarim ha'kedoshim explain that time is a creation according to the boundaries of creation. With this R. Shnuel Zalman in Shulchan Aruch ha'Rav explains how Shabbas and Moadim begin in different places in the word at different times. The kedushas Shabbos and Yom Tov, in their root, are higher than time and thus influence our world according according to each place's time and place."
Posted by: Yona | May 07, 2009 at 12:49 AM