Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 126

Wednesday, July 14 1999

• Re: Jewish Reaction to Copernicus
• Re: Flood
• Re: Avodah V3 #122 reuven shimon and the rest of benei yakov
• Re: Torah im Liberal Arts
• Re: literalism
• Re: literalism
• Re: Avodah V3 #122 reuven shimon and the rest of benei yakov
• Re: On Normative Mesorah and the Dangers of Allegory
• Re: Torah im Liberal Arts
• Re: On Normative Mesorah and the Dangers of Allegory
• Re: Torah im Liberal Arts
• Re: Torah im Liberal Arts
• Neo or Proto?
• Rav Kook on allegorical explanations
• Re: Rav Kook on allegorical explanations
• Re: Science and the Mabul
• Re: Allegorical interpretations
• Re: basement beis medrash
• Re: Science and the Mabul
• 9 days siyum, ain me'arvin simcha b'simcha
• Re: Science and the Mabul

On Tue, 13 Jul 1999, Moshe Feldman wrote:

> I would be interested in the tenor of the expression of those
> rejections.  Did those achronim express themselves similar to
> RYGB--"these new ideas are against Mesorah?"  And, what about those who
> followed who eventually accepted the Copernican theory--how did they
> deal with arguments that such ideas are against Mesorah? 
> 

There is no Mesorah on the shape of the Solar System. Ein ha'nidon domeh
la'ra'ayah.

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

From an off-list reader of Avodah. I am posting it anonymously, and
therefore take full responsibility for its contents EXCEPT:

I do not agree that this is a Modern Orthodox thing. The overwhelming
majority of MO would firmly agree with the literalness of the Mabul - they
too are yereim u'sheleimim!

> Dear Rabbi:  I scanned some of the Aishdas archive comments by you and
> others about the Flood.  Why do some of the writers in Tradition or
> their supporters among Aishdas correspondents have the need to judge or
> assess a miraculous event using naturalistic criteria?  Are they trying
> to dictate what characteristics an open miracle needs to have to please
> them esthetically/ideologically?  And is this need to explain away
> miracles any different from the attitude of the builders of the Tower of
> Babel, who tried to assign a periodicity to Great Floods?  If the Flood
> itself was a miracle, its aftermath (including amnesia of some that it
> happened, or lack of satisfying geological evidence) could easily be
> part of the same miracle. It could be G-D's intention that we learn of
> the Flood and similar events specifically through the Torah itself.  How
> does our current crop of Modern Orthodox thinkers look at Maamad Har
> Sinai?  If they have the will to explain away that miracle, too, they
> will surely find a way!  Isn't it now the job of such "rabbis" to do
> away with the idea of Mesorah altogether, so they can hang out
> comfortably with their non- orthodox or academic friends?  The ego is a
> terrible thing to waste.
> 

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

Wholeheartedly agreed!

On Tue, 13 Jul 1999, Shlomo Yaffe wrote:

> 1. Sooner or later science does and will recognize the truth of all our
> Torah as understood by the Chazal in the framework of our traditional
> Mesorah.
> 
> 2. Any and all "questions" from Scientific theory against these accepted
> norms of Torah , however seemingly strong, are products of the still
> infantile state of the sciences and will be resolved by science moving
> close to Torah as it learns more.
> 
> 3.If G-d is "kol Yachol" there is no reason to take any event in the
> Torah dealing with creation, floods etc. out of it's Plain Meaning. The
> need to do so is indicative of a -Lo Aleinu- a fundamental lack of belief
> in the Torah as being a Divinely narrated document in it's entirety.
> 
> "Vesharei Lei Maran....."
> 

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

In a message dated 7/13/99 1:32:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Yzkd@aol.com 
writes:

<< Reading Divrei Minus is Ossur, I had also directed in a earlier post, to 
the 
 Rambam Hil. AZ 2:2-3. >>

Ah yes, but what exactly qualifies as "Divrei Minus?"

Jordan

>>>3.If G-d is "kol Yachol" there is no reason to take any event in the
Torah dealing with creation, floods etc. out of it's Plain Meaning.<<<

Which is exactly the opinion of fundementalist Christians. Similarly
In the Ancient  world it was assumed that women have one less rib
 than man because they followed the plain meaning that a rib was
 taken from Adam to build Chava.   

See derashos HaRan derush 1 who says ma'aseh beraishis involves
esoteric secrets - not simple reading of the text.  Also see Rambam
in intro to Cheilek regarding the first group who insist on literal
readings of every dictum of Chazal to the point of absurdity.
Ramban on Braishis uses the Greek concept of hiyuli in
his peirush - his efforts to do so were clearly motivated the desire
to merge the account of Creation with Greek scientific thought, not
by a conformity to the strict literalism you espouse.  

-CB
 

In a message dated 7/13/99 4:03:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
C1A1Brown@aol.com writes:

<< Ramban on Braishis uses the Greek concept of hiyuli in
 his peirush - his efforts to do so were clearly motivated the desire
 to merge the account of Creation with Greek scientific thought, not
 by a conformity to the strict literalism you espouse.  
  >>

Just as an aside, I find it interesting that that Ramban refers to a 
pre-Socratic Greek, whose ideas were more or less superseded by the later 
Greeks whose ideas are more common in the writings of Rishonim.

Jordan

>  :The question to be considered is what does the Torah
>  : mean when it says the entire world.

And what does it mean "Kol" Hayekum, "Kol" Asher Boi Ruach Chayim.

And why did HKB"H have to Keep Noach Ulhavdil all animals uncomfartable, for 
a year, he could have sent them (or even without the animals that are also in 
america) to america on a vacation,  and then tell them to go back.

And what is the meaning of "lo Shimshu Hamazolos" did they only go in a half 
arc.

And what is the meaning that G-d vowed not to destroy the whole world, but a 
nation like Mitzrayim, is not a violation. 

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

> What did this mean to people  in the days of the Torah? 

And if the meaning changed, who is the first to record such change in meaning.

>  :Obviously there was some kind of
>  : deluge or we wouldn't have this story in all Mesopotamian
>  : cultures.

IOW Torah can be reinterperted, but not Lhavdil the history Tfeiloh of other 
cultures.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

Let me respond to REC, and, en passant, to a question RYZ asked me
off-list.

On Tue, 13 Jul 1999, Clark, Eli wrote:

> But, in fact, this argument depends on two assumptions: 1) there is a
> part of the mesorah of Hazal with which we are not permitted to disagree
> (following R. Meir Shinnar, let us call it the "normative mesorah"), and

I am not sure that "not permitted" is the accurate term here. For example,
if a person believes that the Torah was given at Har Sinai and through the
forty years to Moshe word for word, but is kol kulo allegory and metaphor,
you probably could still drink his wine. But his (or her)  version of
Judaism would only remotely resemble ours, and would be a preposterous
religion. Thus, to allegorize the Flood etc. is but a short hop skip or
jump (in practice - in theory it is the same principle completely and
totally) from allegorizing Avrohom, Yitzchok, Yaakov et al (r"l), and
things simply start falling apart. 

> 2) Hazal's literal understanding of a parashah in the Torah is ipso
> facto a portion of the normative mesorah.  If I understand them
> correctly, RYGB assumes both of these points, while a number of
> respondents have questioned the latter point. 
> 

Not their *understanding*. Their *transmission*.

> If the issue is the one I have formulated, then the issue of aggadah and
> Rambam's parshanut are relevant, notwithstanding RYGB's fine
> distinctions between visions and allegory.  Of course, many gedolim view
> aggadah as a part of the normative mesorah.  And, by this measure,
> Rambam's reinterpretation of various passages in Tanakh is similarly
> suspect, as it too has no basis in Hazal and runs contrary to the
> rabbinic exegesis of these texts.
> 

No, because these are matters of *understanding*. - that which is now
called "parshanut". Chazal, as keepers of the Mesorah - which includes the
text of Kisvei Ha'Kodesh - transmitted them to us faithfully, and if with
it the explicit understanding that unless otherwise indicated by a mesorah
such as "ayin tachas ayin - mammon", the text is literal. If we deviate
from that Mesorah in one area, then the whole concept is undermined, as
above.


RYZ asked me about visions that includes mesholim - such as the seer
nafu'ach. A vision can include an allegory - all of Ma'aseh Merkovoh is an
allegory - but the vision is a real transmission of the message of a
Malach or Hashem to the Novi.

> However, because the above is based largely on conjecture, I am loathe
> to respond to it.  I therefore request that RYGB clarify whether this is
> a debate about Hazalic parshanut or Hazalic history and, if the latter,
> could I trouble him to explain in slightly greater detail why he
> believes we are bound by Hazal's chronology?
> 

Actually, this issue is far more basic than that of the Bayis Sheni
chronology. One may, conceivably, argue that chazal made a mistake on the
chronology (although I think this positio is untenable, of course) because
that is not part of the Mesorah. But the lieteralness of the Torah is.

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

In a message dated 7/13/99 3:00:08 PM EST, TROMBAEDU@aol.com writes:

> Ah yes, but what exactly qualifies as "Divrei Minus?"

I think it is self understood especially in light of the Rambam, however in 
any case Safeik D'oiraisoh Lchumroh.

BTW another form of forbidden Literature is love stories, (Divrei Cheshek).

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 7/13/99 3:37:37 PM EST, sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu 
writes:

> RYZ asked me about visions that includes mesholim - such as the seer
>  nafu'ach. A vision can include an allegory - all of Ma'aseh Merkovoh is an
>  allegory - but the vision is a real transmission of the message of a
>  Malach or Hashem to the Novi.
>  
That's what I figured you meant, agreed

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 7/13/99 4:41:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Yzkd@aol.com 
writes:

<< 
 I think it is self understood especially in light of the Rambam, however in 
 any case Safeik D'oiraisoh Lchumroh. >>

My apologies, could you just repost the citations in the Rambam, I 
accidentally deleted them, and I didn't get a chance to gu upstairs to look 
them up.

Thanks,

Jordan 

In a message dated 7/13/99 3:49:30 PM EST, TROMBAEDU@aol.com writes:

>  could you just repost the citations in the Rambam

Hil. AZ 2:2-3, 

Moshe Feldman wrote:

>I'm sure that in the time of the Rambam, when he publicized his views
>about Bilaam's talking ass and the like, some neo-RYGB made a similar
>comment about Mesorah.  

Don't you mean proto-RYGB ?  ( ;-) )

Kol tuv,
Shlomo Godick

As Rav Bechhofer asked, I am enclosing my translation of a letter of Rav Kook
that deals with allegory. 

Letter 134
Addressed to Moshe Zeidel
Dated 1908

(my translation – I apologize for the poor job, eespecially  with the idioms)

I enjoyed your precious words, which recently arrived.  However, I have not
found the appropirate time to enjoy as well in replying, my friend, words of
peace and truth.  Even now I am surrounded with worries and distractions,
however, I a suppressing these obstacles and will write a little, b’ezrat hashem

In general, I see an obligation to arouse your pure spirit about the opinions
that come through the new research, that most of them contradict the simple
meaning of Torah.  My opinion is, that all whose opinions are straight should
know, that even though there is no truth demonstrated in all these new
investigations, still we are under no obligation to contradict them outright and
to stand against them, because it is not at all the main point of Torah (ikar
shel Torah) to tell us simple facts and events that happened.  The main point is
the core (hatoch), the explanation of the inner part of these matters, and this
will be elevated even more in any place that is found an opposing force, that
encourages us to be stronger.  The main points were already said by the
rishonim, and at their head in the Moreh Nevuchim (footnote to part I chap 71,
part II chapters 15,16, 25, and to look at part III chapter 3), and today we are
willing to expand this even further (leharchiv et hadevarim yoter).  We have no
concern (nafka mina) if in truth there was ever in the real world (olam
hameziut) a golden age, when man enjoyed both physical and spiritual wealth, or
whether existence started out in actuality from the bottom to the top, from the
bottom of the scale of creation to its top, and it continues to rise.  We only
have to know that there is a complete possibility (efsharut gemura), that man
even if he rises to a great height, and will be ready for all honor and
pleasure, if he shall destroy his ways he could lose all that he has, and cause
harm to himself and his descendants for many generation, and this we learn from
the occurrence (uvda), of man’s existence in Gan Eden and his sin and exile. 
 And the master of all souls knows how deeply this needs to be implanted in the
hearts of men to be careful from sin, and according to this depth indeed came so
many letters about this in the Torah of truth.  And we come to this level, we no 
longer need to fight specifically against the picture that is publicized among
the new researchers, and when we are no longer concerned we can judge straight,
and now we can annul their decisions with ease with this measure that the truth
shall show us her way.

The main glory of our lives is the truth, of the unity in its majesty and
eternal glory, and the eternal justice that goes with it without separation,. 
This is the soul of the Torah (nishma  d’oraita – footnote to zohar b’ha’alotcha
152) that especially through it can we glance also on its body and clothing. 
And in general, the idea of gradual evolution is also now in the beginning of
its evolution, and there is no doubt that it will change its form, and will
yield visions that in them we will also see leaps, that complete the vision of
existence, and then the light of Yisrael will be understood in its full
brightness.

This is opposite of the gentile researchers, and those Jews who follow them, who
take the tanach according to the Christian interpretaion, that through it the
world becomes a prison.  But the pure understanding of the joy of life and their
light that is in the Torah, is specifically through the secure pledge of the
past, when man was very happy, and only a happening of sin made him lose his
way.  It is understood that and an accidental stumbling block will surely be
fixed, and man will return to his high level forever, but the idea of evolution
without help from the past,, can frighten us forever lest we stand in the middle
of the road, or even retreat, as we have no sure place to say that it is man’s
fixed nature, and even more so to the physical man as he is of body and spirit
together.  Therefore, only the existence of man in Gan Eden sustains the world
of light, and in general it is appropriate that it should be a historical and
cactual fact, even though it is not necessary (me’akev) for us.

And in general, this is a great principle in the battle of opinions, that any
opinion that comes to contradict something from the Torah, we have to in the
beginning not to contradict it, but to build the palace of Torah above it, and
that way we are elevated by it, and through this elevation the opinions are
exposed, and later, when we are not pressed by anything, we can with a full and
confident heart to fight against it as well.  There are several examples that
prove the point,  but it it is difficult for me to elaborate, and for a wise
heart like you the short form is suuficient, inorder to know how to worhip
hashem (lidgol bshem hashem) above all the winds that blow, and to use
everything for our true good, that is also the good of all.
    
The rest of the letter deals with other issues.

Notes relevant to our discussion.
1) The torah does not really care about historical events.
2) He advocates extending the use of allegory  even above that of the rishonim
(no mention at all of hazal).  Previous sanction is not required.
3)  It is not necessary for the secular opinion to be proved beyond all
reasonable doubt, and one may even have real doubts about what the truth is. 
However, the use of allegory is justified as a possible explanation, and once
all possibilitities are explored, eventually the truth will be revealed.

Meir Shinnar

On Wed, 14 Jul 1999 meir_shinnar@smtplink.mssm.edu wrote:

> 
> Notes relevant to our discussion.  1) The torah does not really care
> about historical events.  2) He advocates extending the use of allegory

This is one of the documents that make up R' Kook's well known shitta on
evolution. It is really not relevant to our discussion on several
accounts:

1. He is advocating not opposing new interpretations on pragmatic, not
theological grounds.

2. He, of course, does not allow for dismissing Gan Eden. He allows for
the re-interpretation of the events of Ma'aseh Bereishis. The Ramban did
this, the Malbim did this, Prof. Gerald Schroeder does this: There is a
difference between re-intrepretation and allegorization. 

3. Both of these aspects to his approach are well elucidated and elegantly
explained by R' Kook here as based in a critical difference between R'
Kook and current allegorizers: R' Kook finds, it seems, little or no value
in parshanut. His entire focus is on the neshomo or penimiyus haTorah - an
approach I admire and attempt to emulate. Current allegorizers bear far
more similarity to, say, Shadal, the commentators who actually had little
use for the neshomo or penimiyus haTorah (inseparable, let's face it, from
Kabbalah and mystical understandings).

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

In v3n123, Sholem Berger <bergez01@med.nyu.edu> writes:
: Now a comment lefi aniyus dati on the difference between allegory and vision
: as employed in the interpretations of the Rishonim: could you explain it?
: If a vision is seen in the mind's eye of the prophet and does not play itself
: out in the sensory world to which we are privy, how is it different from
: an allegory?

First, I think you're suffering from a map-territory problem. There's a
difference between telling a story, and a news article about someone telling a
story. The news story can be historically accurate even if the story is
fiction.

Second, things seen in nevu'ah aren't fiction, they just aren't physical.
For example, the Rambam says that every story involving someone interacting
with a mal'ach had to be bin'vuah. Yet, he also says mal'achim are real.

To go a bit tangential: I was challenged by a Reform Jew to justify wearing
tephillin. To his mind, the pasuk "li'os al yadecha ul'totafos bein einecha"
is metaphor -- the key is to keep a certain idea in heart and mind (or, in
deed and thought). I actually agreed that a metaphor is involved, but not in
the text -- in the mitzvah itself. How much better actually living through
the metaphor would be to teach the lesson than some text would be.

Similarly, the Rambam isn't claiming the story is a metaphor, the story is
a description of the navi experiencing a metaphor. The latter makes a much
deeper impression. Add that to the point R' YGB repeatedly made that the
events experienced via nevu'ah are *real*, and there's a real difference
between the two.

In v3n125, Yitzchok Zirkind <Yzkd@aol.com> quotes Moshe Fledman and writes:
:> But it is far from
:> pashut pshat to say that the talking ass was just a dream.

>  Isn't also against the Mishne Avos 5:6, 10 things were created Erev Shabbos 
>  Beim Hashmoshois...Pi Ho'oson?

Yes, but not relevent. No one is claiming it was "just a dream". A nevu'ah
isn't a dream -- it's an experience of a real albeit non-physical event. (see
above)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 14-Jul-99: Revi'i, Devarim
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 338:6-12
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 7a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-I 8

In v3n125, R' YGB defend his position from the questions of Meir Shinnar
and writes:
:>                            Rav Bechhofer in previous postings has
:> suggested that he disagrees with the Ramban's interpretation of seven
:> days of creation as 7 24 hour days.  Why is this qualitatively
:> different?

: 1. I do not disagree with the Ramban.
: 2. The Ramban is a Rishon, not Chazal.

3. Ma'aseh B'reishis and Ma'aseh haMerkavah are in their own category,
since the famous mishnah "Ein Dorshin" already implies that they have
allegorical content. Admittedly, claiming that allegory exists doesn't mean
that historicity is necessarily absent, but it does indicate that there's
something qualitatively different here.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 14-Jul-99: Revi'i, Devarim
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 338:6-12
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 7a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-I 8

In v3n125, Freda B Birnbaum <fbb6@columbia.edu> asks "with no tone of voice ...
for information purposes only":
: If there was a woman who was capable of keeping her end up in such a
: group, would you consider including her in the group?  If so, why?  If
: not, why not?  Would it make a difference if she were single or married,
: younger or older, related to one of the male members by blood or marriage
: or not?

I didn't really think about it. To some extent, that exposes a personal flaw.
In my defense, though, the chevrah I'm picturing on being interested happen to
be male friends of mine and people who already attend a roving, mechitza-less
(and therefore all-male) Fri night minyan.

If there were interest in the Friday night minyan, I guess we can scrounge
up the money for a mechitzah. (AishDas's operating budget is pitifull. Hint,
hint.)

But that's not really what you're asking about. Truth is, the problem is far
more accute in men's education than in women's. Women tend to have more exposure
to Nach and machshavah, while we educate boys to develop the skill set and get
them into Talmud Bavli as rapidly as possible. (As we were discussing on
another thread.) Passaic actually has shiurim like the ones I'm describing
for women only.

But if someone wanted to attend bidavka a shiur AishDas is offering. Frankly,
I don't know. I guess I'd take the pulse of the chevrah. I'm not the
dictatorial type. (Although my kids might say otherwise. <grin>)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 14-Jul-99: Revi'i, Devarim
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 338:6-12
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 7a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-I 8

In a message dated 7/14/99 10:06:23 AM EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:

> >  Isn't also against the Mishne Avos 5:6, 10 things were created Erev 
> Shabbos 
>  >  Beim Hashmoshois...Pi Ho'oson?
>  
>  Yes, but not relevent. No one is claiming it was "just a dream". A nevu'ah
>  isn't a dream -- it's an experience of a real albeit non-physical event. (
> see
>  above)
>  
My question is not wether the Nvuoh is real, but is the Pi Ho'oson real, one 
that needed to have a (special) creation? is the Sir Nofuach real? (I refer 
you to Hil Yesodei Hatorah 7:6), or is the Pi Ho'oson different since it was 
by Billam (which Kom Kmoshe)? in which case it was a non-physical creation 
(not alike the other things mentioned in that Mishne that were created Bein 
Hashmoshos, also then why couldn't it be the Malach or the Mazal that 
controls the O'son).

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind



Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

The Aruch haShulchan writes that technically leaving a few blatt in a 
masechta to schedule a siyum during the 9 days in not a problem (the minhag 
is to avoid this).  He cites M.K. 9a, but the gemara seems to contradict him. 
 The gemara says that the chanukat Beit HaMikdash couldn't be postponed until 
Sukkot by delaying part of the building - similarly (it seems to me) you 
should not delay finishing a masechta.  Perhaps you can say that the gemara 
is referring to a special din in chanukat habayit (though that doesn't sound 
like what the Aruch HaShulcan means).  I also thought you could be mechalek 
between the case of chanukat habayit, where scheduling completion might 
involve cessation of work for a few days (or at least delaying the mitzva of 
chanukat habayit, which acc. to Ramban in Naso is a din d'oraysa), with the 
case of a siyum masechta where you could just learn another masechta for a 
few days and finish whenever you want with no bittul Torah.  

The whole point of the gemara is to show that ain me'arvin simcha b'simcha 
from the fact that chanukat habayit was not done on Sukkot.  Strange in light 
of shittas Tos. that ain me'arvin simcha b'simcha only applies to simchat 
nisuin, though in light of Mishna in Ta'anis 'yom chasunato v'yom simchat 
libo' perhaps binyan habayit fits the category as nesuin between Hashem and 
Jewish people...sounds too much like derush for my tastes though : - ).

-Chaim

Yitzchok Zirkind asks:
: My question is not wether the Nvuoh is real, but is the Pi Ho'oson real, one 
: that needed to have a (special) creation? is the Sir Nofuach real?

According to the Rambam -- yes, both the sir nafuach and the pi ha'ason are
real. I tried to address this question when I mentioned that the Rambam was
forced to his explanation because of the question of how to see mal'achim,
which are real yet non-physical. And his answer is that they are seen through
nevu'ah. To the Rambam, nevu'ah is less like a dream, and more like another
sense. Things seen in nevu'ah are real, but non-physical.

LAD, the Rambam was bothered by something much like the mind-body problem. The
question there is how an intangible mind can cause activity in the physical
body. How does a non-physical entity interfere with the laws of physics?
Aristotle (and therefore the Rambam) don't really have that problem, because
their physics is based on impetus, not force and momentum.

Here, the Rambam is wondering how a non-physical angel can interact with the
physical sense of sight. He therefore places the "seeing" of angels into the
realm of non-physical sight.

I'm not sure why it's a problem, since mal'achim cause the physical effect they
are sent to do. (In fact, the Rambam defines a mal'ach as the intellect behind
the impetus of some event.) If they can interact with the physical in one way,
why not visually as well? Yet the Rambam sees this as a severe enough problem
to force a new interpretation on numerous events in Tanach.

I could use some help.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 14-Jul-99: Revi'i, Devarim
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 338:6-12
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 7a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-I 8

*********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]