Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 063

Sunday, November 24 2002

• veeid ya'aleh min haaretz
• Re: veeid ya'aleh min haaretz
• Re: ve'eid ya'aleh min ha'arez
• ve'eid ya'aleh min ha'arez
• aliya
• Re: Living in Yerushalayim
• Re: Mussar
• david and batsheva
• tosafot
• Re: Living in Yerushalayim
• Re: Living in Yerushalayim
• Re: Living in Yerushalayim
• RE: Living in Yerushalayim
• Re: Re:Living in Yerushalayim
• Re: david and batsheva
• RE: rambam's shitta
• RE: Rambams shittam
• RE: Avodah V10 #62
• Re: Rambam and education
• Naftoli Herz Wessely, Threat or Menace?
• Administrivia: lost posts
• Re: Rambam's shitta religion?

RGD asked for a simple pshat in those words. One interpretation I saw
is a geiser or a natural steam vent.

Arie

I told my daughter (the one who asked me) what someone told me Sunday
night, that the description of the "eid" was as part of the rain cycle.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On 18 Nov 2002 at 18:21, Gershon Dubin wrote:
> I need to explain this pasuk, whether it is part of the rain cycle, if
> not what it is, without recourse to midrashim such as those brought by
> Rashi, for an unaffiliated person.

I always understood the simple pshat to be that a spring is coming up 
from the ground, a natural phenomenon that we see every day. And it 
wouldn't be at all unusual for a garden to grow alongside a spring. 

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
> I need to explain this pasuk, whether it is part of the rain cycle,
> if not what it is, without recourse to midrashim such as those brought
> by Rashi, for an unaffiliated person.

It's an interesting question. What are you doing with the rest of the
creation story, for an unaffiliated person?

Looking at some basic stuff, Ramban takes an almost Humean approach: if
Helen Keller falls in the forest, does she make a sound? The potential
for the plants was placed in the ground on the third day, the rain came
and made it grow just in time for Man's creation - without Man to use
the plants, there was no point in their existing. Things only exist
because of our sense-experience - so too here, plants are only brought
into existence because of our ability to use them. It just demonstrates
Man's superiority over creation.

If you want an almost literal description of the rain cycle, see the
braita in Taanit 9b attributed to R' Eliezer. I can make a diyuk on the
pasuk that supports it: it says "v'eid yaaleh min ha'ARETZ vetishkah
et ha'ADAMAH" the mist rises from all over the world, and allows the
earth/dirt/arable land to drink.

We could speculate on a metaphysical reason for this verse as well.
It's a readily understandable example of physical laws, natural processes,
set in motion by God. Physical laws govern everything, thus they are
mentioned as the first creation (in the second story). Only then are
Man and the rest of plants and animals created.

In fact, vv. 5-6 are in future tense, while vv. 7 and onward are in past
- i.e., storytelling mode. So 5-6 may describe existential reality:
that God created physical law, that governs Man and everything else;
that Man governs everything else but cannot change physical law which was
created before him; that the rest of creation exists only for Man's use,
etc., while vv. 7+ are the story of what God did at that time. As for
ordering, ein mukdam ume'uchar batorah, which Rashi draws from the very
simple pshat that the text contradicts itself in terms of ordering -
so therefore the text doesn't care about specifics of ordering.

Of course, so much of the creation story can be read as allegory,
particularly the curse to Eve: that with pain we give birth, as a result
of eating from the eitz hadaas - which is exactly true: it's because of
our giant brains that birth is so painful for women, and that childrearing
is difficult for so long. Horses can stand upon birth; we come out at a
much earlier stage of development, because it's a compromise between brain
growth and ability to fit through the birth canal. If we waited until
we were capable of standing, we could not fit through the pelvic arch.
The skull is soft at birth, again so it can squish a little on the
way out.

I'd be interested to see what Aviva Zornberg has to say, but I can't
find my copy at present.

   - jon baker    jjbaker@panix.com     <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker> -

RMF:
> Why do we find that people who make aliyah don't necessarily choose
> to live in Yerushalayim (other than cost)?

There is NO obligation to live in Jerusalem in spite of its maalah.

Shlomo Goldstein

RDE wrote:
> The Shomer Emunim Rebbe told me that the issue is also one of kedusha. The
> greater the kedusha of a place the greater one is judged by midos hadin.
> Therefore he noted there are tzadikim who have not moved to Jerusalem
> because of the fear of midos hadin.

Based on that argument, one might choose not to move to Eretz Yisrael
at all (remember: "va'taki haaretz es yoshve'ha"). So if someone does
move to EY, why not move to Yerushalayim?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

>                                                           .... If we
> needed mussar to hold onto what we had in the 19th and early 20th cent,
> lo kol shekein it's critical today!

The fact that Mussar was the source of salvation in the past doesn't
necessarily mean that the same medicine will work today. The intellectual
excitement and social ferment that existed in the past - clearly doesn't
exist today. Assimilation is primarily one of comfort and pleasure rather
than ideology. Chassidus - especially now that it has penetrated even
Lithuanian circles - is possibly a better model.

Even if you grant that Mussar could be the solution, I think it
would require a R' Yisroel Salanter or R' Simcha Zissel to apply it
successfully. As I have posted before, the Mussar movements success
was in large part due the experimentation and fine tuning by charismatic
tzadikim.

There is no question that something is needed to galvanize Avodas HaShem,
however I don't see that Mussar is the solution - at least not here in
Israel. Perhaps if enough Americans - such as yourself - make Aliyah
the situation would change.

                                                            Daniel Eidensohn

I had trouble with the recent daf yomi trying to prove that in the 
past men had children from the age of 8 (or really 8 + 7 months).

It is interesting that according to the Gemara Batsheva was about 5 
years old when David saw her and the roof and the Nach describes her 
as especially beautiful. Since she was too young too be married by 
herself her father must have married her to Uriah and later consented 
to the marriage to David (not a big deal since he is listed as one of 
the warriors of David).
The major problem is that the Gemara assumes that when the same name 
appears twice in Nach it must refer to the same person. There could 
be two people named Achitophel.
This is even more surprising that the Gemara rejects the proof from 
Abraham because possibly the order given in Chumash may not be the 
order by age but is not willing to assume two people with the same 
name.

This gets much worse with Calev who the pasuk calls the son of 
Chetzron while the one in the spies is Calev ben Yefunah. So the 
pasuk explicitly lists them as two different people and the gemara 
ignores this and assumes as a given fact that they are the same 
person even though it gives rise to great difficulties in the ages of
the people, some being about 170 when giving birth and some being 8
years old, all one after another.
The Artscroll on Divrei haYamim goes into the difficulties in detail
with the shitot of Radak and Gra.
The impression one gets is that any shitah that tries to account for
the gemara in the pesukim has great difficulty.

For reasons I don't understand Chazal in general try to identify many
different people in Nach as being the same person even though there
is no obvious reason to do so. In many places this is not universally
agreed. Thus, though every knows the Rashi that Hagar and Ketura are
the same in the medrash there are other opinions.

--
 Eli Turkel, turkel@math.tau.ac.il on 11/20/2002

<You could make a claim that any STAM Tosafos - almost like a Stam Mishna
 - represents a consensus.>

On what grounds do you say this? The tosafot that appear on any daf were
written by some specific person and represent his personal opinion. They
were chosen to appear on the daf by what manuscripts were available to
the publisher and not on any historical or halachic grounds.

In numerous cases we know that tosafot haRosh disagree with tosafot
on the daf. More importantly a disagreement bewteen tosafot in
different mesechtot probably represents different opinios rather than
a contradiction and should be treated differently than a contradiction
in the Rambam.

--
 Eli Turkel, turkel@math.tau.ac.il on 11/20/2002

See Yoma 12a that Yerushalayim was not apportioned to any shevet.  In other
words, it belongs to every shevet and, therefore, people from all shevatim
have a connection to it.  R' Hershel Schachter has an article on this
printed, I think, in his Eretz HaTzvi.

Gil Student

> The Shomer Emunim Rebbe told me that the issue is also one of kedusha. The
> greater the kedusha of a place the greater one is judged by midos hadin.
> Therefore he noted there are tzadikim who have not moved to Jerusalem
> because of the fear of midos hadin.

Why should this reason prevent anyone from taking up residence outside the
Old City, which lacks k'dushas Yerushalayim? Is there a din of samuch
v'nireh for middas hadin? Is the middas hadin inversely proportional to
the distance from the k'dushah?

Elazar M. Teitz

On 20 Nov 2002 at 18:48, Elazar M Teitz wrote:
>         Why should this reason prevent anyone from taking up residence
> outside the Old City, which lacks k'dushas Yerushalayim?  Is there a
> din of samuch v'nireh for middas hadin? Is the middas hadin inversely
> proportional to the distance from the k'dushah?

While I agree with your logic, I would only point out that there is 
an inyan of the midas ha'din being stronger throughout Eretz Yisrael. 
R"L we are feeling that this morning. 

-- Carl

> See Yoma 12a that Yerushalayim was not apportioned to any 
> shevet.  

Yet, IIRC, the mizbeach straddled the border between two shevatim. 

Akiva

From: "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
>> 1. Is the additional kedusha only in the Old City, or even if samuch
>> v'nireh (compare laws of mukaf choma)?

> Yes the additional kedusha would only be in the Old City and in parts of
> the Silwan (which is the original lower Jerusalem), and probably parts
> of Mount Zion. Yerushalayim can only be added to by a melech and navi,
> and offering korbonos....

There is an interesting problem. The walls that exist now are not the
original walls and are not necesarily built on the location of the original
walls. There are views that  that Jerusalem covered a much greater area than
that of the present Old City.

                                                    Daniel Eidensohn

> For reasons I don't understand Chazal in general try to identify many
> different people in Nach as being the same person even though there
> is no obvious reason to do so. In many places this is not universally
> agreed. Thus, though every knows the Rashi that Hagar and Ketura are
> the same in the medrash there are other opinions.

Rav Tzadok  (Resisei Layla 44] states that the opinion that Bilam lived for
hundreds of years is not meant literally. It just means the manifestation of
evil of this type was described as Bilam - even though it wasn't the same
person who advised Pharoh and tried to curse Klall Yisroel.

                                                            Daniel Eidensohn

>RYGB wrote
>: Look again, from the *beginning* - he rejects Aristotle on the basis of
>: pesukim in Navi and - were Aristotle to have proof he would regard the
>: pesukim in Bereishis as metaphor - but he cannot because of the Nevi'im.
(me - old)
>Again, a unique and novel way of understanding the rambam. The rambam
>rejects Aristotle because Aristotelian causality would make all divine
>intervention and miracles impossible - but is willing to accept the
>possibility of a Platonic interpretation of eternity - the rejection
>is precisely because there is no logical proof of the second opinion a
>la Plato, rather than from neviim. If there was, he would be willing to
>reinterpret, even though there is no mesora.

RYGB
: Plato's kadmus does not stand in contradiction to ikkarim - that is why he 
: does not need to reject it from that standpoint! (Plato's kadmus pertains 
: to the world of forms, not the world of substance). This point allows me to 
: cut out a lot of what you have below (which I did).

Plato would stand in direct contradiction to the simple pshat of maaseh
breshit, but the contradiction wouldn't be as fundamental to the concept
that hashem can intervene in the world.
Note that the rambam would have no problem rejecting the simple pshat of
parshat breshit if Plato's shitta was logically convincing - regardless of
the lack of mesora for it, and that it goes against many maamre hazal.  The
issue of a lack of mesora is irrelevant in the rambam's discussion - merely
the issue of whether it is logically compelling - and the proof for the
Platonic position is just not compelling enough to justify abandoning simple
pshat.

RYGB
> To reiterate, in different formulation for context, what I wrote to RET: Do 
> you believe that the Rambam developed this ikkar on his own and then 
> decided it was fundamental to Judaism?!

The rambam's ikkar was that Judaism conforms with reason. BtW, Note
that in the Mishne Tora hilchot tshuva (IIRC) creation is not listed
as an ikkar..

me (old)
>2) Is astrology false? The rambam suggests a svara that anything that is
>forbidden is false - astrology, kishuf, etc. This svara is consistent
>with the rambam's general shitta on taame hamitzvot, but does not seem
>to be shared by any other rishon, gaon, or member of hazal - and this
>svara is the basis of the issue.

(RYGB)
: Right. And the Rambam asserted that this svara is inseparable from the
: issur.

the question is how the rambam derived this principle, that no one else held
from, and goes against the pshat of so many gmarot?

me (old)
>However, this is not a halachic issue, as the rambam views those who think
>differently as fools, but doesn't consider such thought to be assur.
>Therefore, the whole discussion is not on the halachic realm, but on
>the hashkafic. Furthermore, there is no source prior to the rambam
>(perhaps hovot halevavot from Marc SHapiro - I don't have those editions,
>and don't know how extensive his rejection of astrology and witchcraft
>is) which held that, and (almost?) no one after him or before him held
>by that svara.

RYGB
> Right. Who claimed it was Halachic? But since you would have it that all 
> Chazal that the Rambam saw he understood as you do, that astrology has 
> validity, he would hold all Chazal to be fools, right?

sigh
This is an utter distortion of what I said.  The rambam does not hold chazal
to be fools (something we both agree on).  My point is that he did not come
to the conclusion that astrology is false from hazal (and no one else has
come to the same radical rejection of the validity of all astrology, kishuf,
etc from hazal) - he came to the realization that it was false, and
approached hazal with the understanding that they are not fools, and
therefore must have rejected it.
Therefore, did the rambam hold his opinion to be pshat in the gmara - yes
(as I had said before).  Did he come to his opinion through learning pshat
in the gmara - no. 

With regard to it being a halachic issue, it is you who said

Which you, and RMJF, believe to be the Rambam's distortion and erroneous
interpreatation of Chazal, culminating in an incorrect psak in Hil. AZ
Chap. 11

psak implies a halachic issue - I don't think either I or RMJF views
any psak as being incorrect. I am glad that you no longer view this as
a halachic issue (what did you mean by an incorrect psak???).

Me 
>(By the way, initially you insisted that the rambam's position is
>completely based on mesorah - but then change and say that he was Yachid
>bdoro and mimoshe ad moshe - which is it?)

RYGB
: My good friend, you have this wonderful tactic you deploy consistently in 
: our debates: The claim that I have shifted my position in some minute 
: manner and therefore I am inconsistent and ipso facto incorrect. It does 
: get tiresome.

In this case, in any event, you are wrong: What I was saying is that even
lu ye'tzuyar that no other Rishon espoused this viewpoint in writing,
that the Rambam did espouse it is enough for us to assume that this was
a legitimate perspective that cam down b'mesorah to him, as the Rambam
is a source in and of himself without need for reference to parallel
RS"G's et al.

Let me bring the original statement by you:
RYGB
: Simply put, Rishonim don't make up stuff. They interpret, extrapolate BUT
: NOT MAKE UP SHITTOS BASED ON BOICH SEVAROS OF FALLIBLE HUMAN LOGIC. The
: Rambam was from the Beis Medrash of the Rach and the Rif. We do not EVER
: assume about a

: Rishon that on his own he departed from Chazal and used his own "logic" to 
: counter their positions. OF WHAT USE IS MESORAH IF IT IS SUBJECT TO THE WHIM
: OF THE TRANSMITTER ANYWAY? 

We hav no evidence for any such mesora for the rambam.  We have evidence in
other cases that the rambam feels free to use human reason rather broadly.
We can then either assume that there is a hidden mesora or that the rambam
used his reason.  The gra's  and the rashba's attack on the rambam is based
precisely on the fact that they thought he didn't have a mesora...

You brought a story about a debate between a C rabbi and an O To which
the C rabbi responded: "No! There was a legitimate alternative tradition
throughout history. However, no record of it remains because it was
repressed!"

: Is the Rambam = said C rabbi?  

You are now suggesting that the rambam is the only representative of
this repressed tradition.

me (old)
>You have asserted that issues that relate to core issues of hashgacha
>and interaction with the beria have different rules. I am sure that you
>sincerely believe that, but the rambam nowhere makes that distinction,
>and indeed, seems to use his allegorical interpretations - so my question
>remains - outside of this being a core belief for you, where do we have
>evidence for this position?

RYGB
: It is very simple, actually. The Rambam believes, as we all do, that Chazal 
: had access to the sodos of the Beriah - via ther mesorah from Nevi'im and 
: via Chacham adif me'Navi. How, then, could they have committed - en masse - 
: the grievous error of assuming astrology can foretell events and predict 
: outcomes if it, indeed, cannot?

The second half of this is a very nice summary of my position....I am
glad we agree. How indeed could hazal, being chachamim, committed such
an error, therefore they couldn't have committed this error...

Meir Shinnar

RMB
> See also  Moreh chelek B pereq 15. The Rambam rules out using natural
> philosophy to trump what we know from nevu'ah and mesorah.

Where do you get that? He rules out relying on a kabbala from natural
philosophy to trump our own mesora - which is why he devotes so much
time to proving that the Aristotelian position isn't proven. He never
rules out using actual proofs to trump what we know - the problem is
that people believe what they hear from philosophers, not that actual
proof is rejected.

Meir Shinnar

RMB
>:                                   ..., and actually includes (and
>: perhaps is even primarily) philosophy ...

> Here's where I disagree, and why I think shas *be'iyun* IS one plasusible
> qiyum of the "gemara" the Rambam understood the tanna to be speaking
> of....

If all one had was the Mishne Torah, your explanation might be plausible.
However, from other sources, this does not seem to be the rambam's shitta.
Thus, when R Pinchas Hadayan accuses him (based on the hakdama to the
Mishne Torah) that he is advocating whole sale abandonment of learning
gmara, so that even the names of the amoraim would be forgotten, his
defense isn't to cite TT 1:11, but to say that he never meant to be
that extreme, and that when asked, he once spent (IIRC) a year and a
half teaching gmara. Similarly his curriculum for his student - rif and
mishne tora. Learning the conclusion (and how it is ultimately related
to the torah shebichtav and torah shebealpe) deeply, but not learning
the shakla vetarya of the gmara. There are sources where (IIRC) the
rambam is against learning all the different hava aminas in the gmara.

That is one form of learning beiyun, but it still is quite a bit away
from "shas should be the centerpiece of one's learning as an adult",
and is quite a different way of learning than most do today.

With regard to philosophy - the mere inclusion of philosophy as part of
talmud torah was radical. One can again look at the curriculum that the
rambam devised.

Meir Shinnar

> The rambam does put "gmara" at the center of one's learning, but the
> meaning of the word gmara is not shas, and actually includes (and
> perhaps is even primarily) philosophy - ("vehainyanim hanikrim pardes
> bikhlal hagemara hen - hilchot talmud torah, 1:12) - and one needs to
> study first heassur vehamuttar ( hilkhot yesode hatora 4:13), but that
> is quite different than studying gmara and the shakla vetarya - which
> was not the center of his curriculum, and questionable to what extent
> it even was a necessary part of his recommended curriculum.

I am currently working on a Meshech Chochma (Shemos 12:21) which is
consistent with the above and is based on the theme that that true
service of G-d is only for a prophet or philosopher. Included is my
partial translation. Comments and corrects would be appreciated. The
emphasis on intellectual skills as a minimum for spirituality would also
indicate that the skills do not have to be developed from gemora.

Meshech Chochma (Shemos 12:21): It is said about the Jews that they are
believers the descendants of believers (Shabbos 97a). However the (Taanis
5b) notes that we find that non-Jews have stronger religious beliefs than
Jews even when their religion is utter nonsense, "The Kittites worship
fire and the Kedarites worship water, and even though they know that water
can put out fire they have yet not changed their gods but My people hath
changed their G-d for that which doth not profit." And even if you want
to answer that the faith that is being praised, is believing in things
that will happen in the future such as the resurrection of the dead -
non-Jews also have strong faith in events that will happen in the future.

To explain the distinction between Jewish and non-Jewish faith, one
must note that the appreciation of things such as love, beauty and
power are all inherent in a person. The ancient peoples sanctified all
these natural powers and placed high value on them and described them
as resulting from specific gods. Thus they had a god of beauty, a god
of power and a god of love as is well known. A person who personified
one of these natural attributes was described as a godly person. Even
today the peoples of the world make images and sanctify these tangible -
directly experienced characteristics. Even the Moslems have sanctified
the grave of their savior in Mecca and done other things. Consequently
we see that the emotions and senses directly support their faith which
is built upon experience and imagery. Thus non-Jewish religious faith
is essentially just an extension of natural emotion. But that is not
how G-d conceives religious faith.

When Avraham came along, he realized that G-d is not part of creation and
is not a natural occuring power. Furthermore Avraham realized that G-d
can't be described or visualized and is beyond human comprehensible. If
this were not so than G-d would be finite and thus would have had a
beginning. But He is the source of all that exists which He made from
absolute nothingness. He is one but not one of many. If He was not
absolute unity than He would be subdivisible and thus be bounded in
some sense. In fact all tangible existence is totally separate from the
one Creator. All this is such pure abstract intellectual awareness that
Chovos HaLevavos (Sha'ar HaYichud II) asserts that true service of G-d
is for either the philosopher or prophet.

Nevetheless all Jews - even without reaching the levels of prophets or
even philosophers - truly believe in these pure abstract thoughts of His
existence and His unity and they scoff at all that which is entirely
based upon natural emotional experience. They understand that faith
based entirely on innate human feelings and thoughts is worthless and
transient representing only conjecture - G-d in the image of man.

This is why Chazal state, "How did the Jews merit to recite the Shma
which extols the unitary of G-d? Because they were descendants of Abraham
, Yitzchok and Yaakov." Because of this knowledge gained from their
forefathers - Jews understand this profound abstract philosophical issue
and scorn emotion based faith. How did G-d ensure that Jews would continue
to believe in this abstract unity and prevent the Jews from being confused
and misled by their emotions? The answer is that He greatly multiplied
intellectual abstract Torah both in the Written Torah and the Oral Torah.

This was part of a two part program. Firstly to train the intellectual
powers and strengthen them so that they would overcome the power of
fantasy and imagination. Secondly to deal directly with the misdirection
produced by the untrained emotions, He gave them mitzvos which worked
against harmful feelings and strengthened and sanctified positive
feelings. For example the natural power of love was directed to love
of fellow man, family and society. The natural power of vengenance
was used against the enemies of G-d. The natural aspect of kindness of
channeled into doing things for other people. The appeal of the esthetic
was directed to in a controlled fashion towards specific mitzvos such as
esrog and which were time bound to holidays. By losing their signifcance
with the passing of the holiday, it taught that beauty is not an end in
itself but only the means of serving G-d. In other words G-d gave the
Torah to purify the Jews and develop an intelligent religion which would
not be corrupted by unbridled imagination and unrefined feelings. That
is why the high priest wore a special gold ornament on his forehead which
was inscribed - 'Holy to G-d' (Shemos 28:36) - that the intellect has to
be holy. In contrast on the heart - the source of the emotions a verse
concerning the children of Israel was written. This teaches us that the
emotions should be directed to the mitzvos because the majority of the
are concerned with the unity of the people e.g., the Temple, coming to
Yerushalayim for the Yom Tov, allocation of grain to the poor, tithes
and teruma. ....

Daniel Eidensohn

Someone pointed out the following URL on the "Sefer haMidos" controversy:

<http://www.shemayisrael.com/chareidi/archives5763/rosh_yk/aweselly.htm>

I read the haskamos, and yes, nobody had actually read the Pirke Avos
commentary. The Amsterdam leaders issued standard charomim against
reprinting within ten years; the Noda Biyehuda and R' David of Lissa said
favorable things about his first work, Gan Na'ul, having read that; Noda
Biyehuda said that his brother had read the translation of the Wisdom of
Solomon and thought it was appropriate within the boundaries of errors in
transmission, given that it's apocryphal and thus not up to the textual
standards of Tanach. But as the article says, he gave a haskama based on
the assumption that Wessely would write from a traditional perspective. From
what I've read, he did, in that work.

The article says that "one critic says that Sefer haMidot 'reflects
contemporary German philosophy and ethics'"; the scholarly works I cited
would have substituted "rejects" for "reflects".

   - jon baker jjbaker@panix.com <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker> -

I dropped about 10 posts this morning. If you sent anything to Avodah
between Thursday evening (around 9:21 EST) and this email that didn't
reach Avodah, that's why.

Kindly bear with me and re-send. Thanks.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 I slept and dreamt that life was joy.
micha@aishdas.org            I awoke and found that life was duty.
http://www.aishdas.org       I worked and, behold -- duty is joy.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                            -  Rabinranath Tagore

At 05:59 PM 11/21/02 -0500, Shinnar, Meir wrote:
>Plato would stand in direct contradiction to the simple pshat of maaseh
>breshit, but the contradiction wouldn't be as fundamental to the concept
>that hashem can intervene in the world.
>Note that the rambam would have no problem rejecting the simple pshat of
>parshat breshit if Plato's shitta was logically convincing - regardless of
>the lack of mesora for it, and that it goes against many maamre hazal.  The
>issue of a lack of mesora is irrelevant in the rambam's discussion - merely
>the issue of whether it is logically compelling - and the proof for the
>Platonic position is just not compelling enough to justify abandoning simple
>pshat.

If I read this paragraph correctly, you are modeh to me that Plato's
approach is not bona fide kefirah, so it is irrelevant to our discussion.
You are, rather, attempting to steer us in the direction of another one of
our perennial discussions, whether the Rambam allegorized pesukim. Well,
to deal with that issue in short, as the first Pres. Bush said, that's
a hypothetical - l'ma'aseh the Rambam never got to the stage where he
had to allegorize, so we do not know if he would do so if push came to
shov or not.

There is another issue here, which is the nature of the first perek in
Bereishis.There are quite a few simuchin to say that there is no pashut
pshat in those pesukim - see Reb Yeruchom (I know, he's a Ba'al Mussar,
and they have gotten flak here lately, but nevertheless) in the Daas
Torah on the account. Od Chazon la'Mo'ed.

But the far more novel issue here is that I think I understand you
(u'd'imcha) to hold that the Rambam created Judaism (speaking of
Creation!) - that is, his 13 Ikkarim are not at all an extrapolation,
let alone derivation, from Chazal - they are the conclusions of his
(stress on lower case h) own reason, and are not necessarily "Chazalic"
at all - except where, conveniently, the Rambam's logic happened to
dovetail with that of Chazal - a happenstance that occurred frequently,
but a happenstance nonetheless. Your impressive "hitchamkut" in the next
paragraph sustains my notion:

>The rambam's ikkar was that Judaism conforms with reason. BtW, Note
>that in the Mishne Tora hilchot tshuva (IIRC) creation is not listed
>as an ikkar..

Uh-uh, A real answer please. Did the Rambam make this ikkar, and, let
us say, corporeality, up - meaning, was it a product of his own reason,
affixed somehow onto Chazal?

>the question is how the rambam derived this principle, that no one else held
>from, and goes against the pshat of so many gmarot?

Correct, that is indeed the question, to which we give different answers.
Yours, I think, is rooted in the perspective I have attributed to
you above.

>                                        ...  The rambam does not hold chazal
>to be fools (something we both agree on).  My point is that he did not come
>to the conclusion that astrology is false from hazal (and no one else has
>come to the same radical rejection of the validity of all astrology, kishuf,
>etc from hazal) - he came to the realization that it was false, and
>approached hazal with the understanding that they are not fools, and
>therefore must have rejected it.
>Therefore, did the rambam hold his opinion to be pshat in the gmara - yes
>(as I had said before).  Did he come to his opinion through learning pshat
>in the gmara - no.

I do not understand. Are you conceding to me? Then, we have, according to 
the Rambam, an explicit Gemara (or two, or more) which reject astrology?

Or are you saying that you "know" the Rambam learned wrong pshat in the 
Gemara?

>With regard to it being a halachic issue, it is you who said
>>Which you, and RMJF, believe to be the Rambam's distortion and erroneous
>>interpretation of Chazal, culminating in an incorrect psak in Hil. AZ
>>Chap. 11

>psak implies a halachic issue - I don't think either I or RMJF views
>any psak as being incorrect. I am glad that you no longer view this as
>a halachic issue (what did you mean by an incorrect psak???).

The rejection or acceptance of astrology is not an halachic issue. The
Rambam calls the acceptance of the validity of astrology stupid, but not,
IIRC, a transgression (11:16).

However, the Rambam says that "Lo Te'onenu" includes any publication of
the statements of astrologer (11:9), i.e., horoscopes, etc.

If the Rambam's pshat in the Gemara is wrong, then this halacha has no
basis except for the Rambam's own sevara - which is usually preceded by a
"Yeira'eh Li."

>We have no evidence for any such mesora for the rambam.  We have evidence in
>other cases that the rambam feels free to use human reason rather broadly.
>We can then either assume that there is a hidden mesora or that the rambam
>used his reason.  The gra's  and the rashba's attack on the rambam is based
>precisely on the fact that they thought he didn't have a mesora...

>You brought a story about a debate between a C rabbi and an O To which
>the C rabbi responded: "No! There was a legitimate alternative tradition
>throughout history. However, no record of it remains because it was
>repressed!"

>: Is the Rambam = said C rabbi?

>You are now suggesting that the rambam is the only representative of
>this repressed tradition.

That is correct. We perceive the Rishonim as Baalei Mesorah. The
difference between Rambam and said C rabbi is that the Rambam does not
assert that it was suppressed. He asserts it as pshat in Chazal. If
I understand your current position correctly, you now agree that he
asserted that, but with no basis in any mesorah, as, in your opinion,
there is no such Chazal, and his pshat in the Gemara is not correct. This
is reiterated in your last paragraph (deleted).

So, did the Rambam create Judaism?

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

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


[ 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         ]