Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 074

Sunday, December 8 2002

• Not one of the phantom maamorei chazal...
• Re: Women and Kiddush
• mutar
• Re: women and chanukiyot
• Blue Eyes
• Wine and Kiddush (was Re: women and chanukiyot (Wife making ha'moitzi))
• chanukah and shalom bayit
• Re: women and chanukiyot (take advantage of everything that is mutar)
• RE: rambam's shitta
• Fw: Rambam in Arabic
• Rambam in Arabic

> One is called to account in the Next
>> World for that which was mutar to one, and one did not take advantage
>> of it. 

> Source?????

Lots of people have said this. Looking on the web, it's always attributed
to "the talmud", but nobody specifies a page number. Maybe it's one of
the phantom maamorei chazal? Suffice it to say, I've heard it in lots
of places, modern, Chabad, etc.

This is a real live maamar Chazal. You'll find it in the last 2 lines
of Yerushalmi Kedushin.

SBA

On 5 Dec 2002 at 14:16, Jordan Hirsch wrote:
>> I know of some families that are of Galitcian descent(since the Mogen
>> Avrohom came from Galicia) that have this minhug that all the household,
>> INCLUDING THE WOMEN, say along kidush with the head of the household.
>> This should solve the problem.

> I do not understand. Would not this fall under "Trei Kolei Lo Nishma'in."?
> Either that, or no one is being Motzei you, you are merely making Kiddush
> for yourelf, albeit queitly.

The latter would seem to hold. 

This is also commonly done with Megilla in order to avoid the problem 
of missing words.

-- Carl

RJJB:
>> One is called to account in the Next
>> World for that which was mutar to one, and one did not take advantage
>> of it.

> Source?????

Lots of people have said this.  Looking on the web, it's always
attributed to "the talmud", but nobody specifies a page number.
Maybe it's one of the phantom maamorei chazal?  Suffice it to say,
I've heard it in lots of places, modern, Chabad, etc.>>

Magen Avraham 225:14 bshem Yerushalmi Kiddushin Asarah Yuchsin (the
very end)

Shlomo Goldstein

RCS 
> On 5 Dec 2002 at 12:34, Jonathan Baker wrote:
>> RCS: 
>>> On 4 Dec 2002 at 13:31, Jonathan Baker wrote: 

>>>> Remember, one of the arguments against women as shlichei tzibur, or 
>>>> women as kor'ot megillah for mixed groups, is about levels of obligation. 
>>>> Inherent in that argument is that people of equal level of obligation 
>>>> can motzi one another in brachot/tefillah. Certainly a woman can motzi 
>>>> a man in benching. 
>>> Not in most instances. See SA OC 186:1 and MB 2 and 3 there. 
>> Fine. But as long as their chiuv is the same, she can. 
> Technically can - yes. Even remotely advisable - no. See Rashi in 
> Succah 38a (among others). 

I've seen that Rashi, and the Tosfos, and I don't see how they're 
generally applicable, as broadly as you want them to be.  V. infra.

>> And the Tosfos on Sukkah 38a seems to imply that it works, even over 
>> the d'oraita/d'rabbanan chiyuv barrier, but that it's not a good thing 
>> to do. 

> Where do you see that in that Tosfos? As far as I can tell that 
> Tosfos is dealing with whether or not women have a chiyuv d'oraysa in 
> bentching (and I admit to some difficulty in understanding the 
> Tosfos, but I don't see what you see there). 

If "a curse comes upon him", but the Mishna (and Gemara) say that she
benches for him, or helps him through hallel, that doesn't sound like
"he doesn't fulfill his obligation".  In other words, even though there
are different levels of obligation, she can still do it for him.  It
crosses the d'O/d'R barrier, as odd as that seems.  It's like kohen/grusha
marriage: it's mo'il, but it's not a good idea.

>>>> One is called to account in the Next World for that which was mutar
>>>> to one, and one did not take advantage of it
>>> Source????? 
>> Lots of people have said this. Looking on the web, it's always 
> See my response to Reb Simcha. You seem to have given an 
> interpretation to that Yerushalmi which is completely different from 
> that given by the Pnei Moshe and the Korban Ha'Eida, who are the 
> Rashi and Tosfos of the Yerushalmi. 

Even though they're both late acharonim?  They should necessarily be
taken as seriously as early Rishonim?

Even so, it's only a small extrapolation from wanting to make extra
brachot of shevach, on things which happen once a year, to saying
she'asah nisim la'avoteinu.  And others have drawn it more widely 
than the "eat more types of fruit" literal reading.

Make more brachot on mitzva acts.

[snippity doo dah]

>                    Besides, I don't see Rashi's words as being 
> b'geder "kadeish atzmecha ba'mutar lach." He goes way beyond that. 

I don't see Rashi's words as applying generally at all.

If you can draw Rashi broadly, then why not draw the Gemara in
Kiddushin broadly.  Oh, right, drawing Rashi broadly forbids more
things, while drawing the Gemara broadly permits more things.  It's
always easier to forbid than to permit.

> Certainly 
>> looking at the list, it's the "frummies" who are more likely to have 
>> the woman not light, and the "frummies" are generally considered more 
>> concerned with "chumrot" than the just plain folks. 

> Whom are you calling "fruhmmies?" (Ironically, I would guess that you 
> classify me as a fruhmmie and yet my wife - who did not light when 

Your home, probably not.  The attitude towards halacha evidenced here,
probably.

> she was growing up - lights in my house). How does one qualify to be 
> a "fruhmmie?" Rav Nebenzahl in one of his sichot in Bamidbar implies 
> that we should all want to qualify to be "fruhmmies" regardless of 
> our hashkafa (he decries the fact that much of the DL world qualifies 
> itself as "not Charedi" and says that all Jews should be chareid 
> l'dvar Hashem - which is the derivation of the term). How does 
> someone on this list qualify to be a "fruhmmie?" 

That attitude of fanaticism which is looked down upon by all of us.
As in "those frummies over there".  Anyone to my right is a fanatic,
anyone to my left is an apikores.

Frummie is almost literally a translation of "chasidish".  Fromm == chasid.

And since I'm probably about as far left as anyone on the list, most of
the list is to me "frummies".

>>>>> No. The Gemara only says tavo me'era on a man who needs his wife to 
>>>>> say brachos for him. Not the other way around. 
>>>> NEEDS his wife to, not WANTS his wife to. IOW, it's a polemic against 
>>>> men who don't take the trouble to learn the most basic of mitzvot, the 
>>>> most basic of prayers - brachos on food. Doesn't sound like a ban on 
>>>> having one's wife be motzi one with a bracha. 
[snip] 
> Whoa.... Before we talk about Tosfos, let's understand Rashi. Rashi 
> says "v'im lomad, tavo lo me'eira she'mevazeh es kono la'asos lo 
> shluchim ka'ela."  Rashi is quite explicit that it has NOTHING to do 

Oh.  We're looking at different Rashis.  You're looking at the one on
the Mishna, I'm looking at the one on the Gemara.

[big snip]

> But of course, Tosfos would agree with Rashi that the fact that the 
> Gemara says that while technically a woman could be motzi a man with 
> brachos (and neir Chanuka) the fact that the Gemara speaks so 
> strongly against it means we should not do it. 

OK.  Let me go over this, now that I see you're talking about Rashi on
the Mishna.

Mishna: women/slaves can say hallel for free-men, but a curse comes on 
 if they do.

Rashi: because they haven't learned, and even if they have learned, it's
 a slap in the face to Hashem that he uses such agents.

Tosfos: s"v Mi: this tells us that women are exempt from Hallel on Sukkot,
 unlike on Pesach, because of mitzvat asei shehazman grama, rather than af
 hen hayu b'oto haneis.

Tosfos: s"v V't'hei: this should have been said on the gemara regarding
 benching, because here it's clearly a bizayon for them to lead and he to
 answer, because they are not obligated in hallel.

Gemara: ...the sages say that a curse comes on one whose sons and wife
 bless for him.

Rashi: because he hasn't learned.

Tosfos: s"v B'emet: this is referring to birchat hamazon, and one might
 argue that women have the same d'oraita level of obligation as men, since
 we see that they can fulfill the obligations of others, but really they
 don't, unless the men have only eaten a shiur that oblgates them d'rabanan,
 and women don't lead in public.  Similarly the Behag says they shouldn't
 lein megillah in public.

So really what's going on here is a very narrow thing, having to do with
levels of obligation in benching and hallel.  In terms of hallel, pesach
is set aside because of af hen hayu b'oto haneis.  Tosfos also broadens
it to being "berabim" - leading things in public.  

However, what Tosfos and the Gemara do NOT say anything about, is brachot
in general, birchot hanehnin, birchot hamitzva, etc.  Only about certain
issues where levels of obligation, or public performance, are in question.
In the home is not "berabim".  It can be "yotzim yedei chovatam" for others
in the family.

>>>> it's a befeirush SA that a woman can motzi her husband on neirot Chanukah, 
>>> See the Biur Halacha 675 s"v Isha Madlekes. 
>> By the same token, though, see MB s"k 9-10 there. He may bring 
>> down that gemara in the BH, but in the MB, he gives complete parity. 
> He says that she can be motzi him, but he means if the husband is not 
> at home - not in front of him (otherwise you have to understand the 
> entire halacha as ONLY applying b'fanav, and I don't think anyone 
> holds that way). If the husband is at home, then it's like any other 
> bracha - she could technically be motzi him, but the Gemara in Succa 
> 38a and Rashi and Tosfos there would have all sorts of nasty things 
> to say about him. 

I don't understand the MB that way at all.  The MB in s"k 9 is talking
*specifically* about each being present in the room at the time the 
lighting is taking place.  Lechatchilah.  Bedieved it works even if the
other party doesn't answer Amen.  It then brings a teshuva Olat Shmuel
(who?) that says that a woman doesn't have to light, because she's tafel
to her husband (which sounds like a Westernized gloss, as another poster
suggested), but if she wants to light, she should say the bracha, and if
the man is not home, she still lights, because she is bat chiuva.

You're creating this "technically be motzi him" argument, which sounds
like a "bedieved - me'ikar hadin" type of argument, when the MB himself
is saying lechatchilah.

>>>>> Because according to most poskim (and keep in mind that in my house 
>>>>> the women do light) having her husband light for her does not put a 
>>>>> woman into a "lesser" position. The idea that it does is what 
>>>>> Rebbetzin Katz would call the influence of "feminism." The idea that 
>>>>> any time a woman doesn't do the exact same thing that a man does, it 
>>>>> puts her in a lesser position. 

>>>> And a Maimonidean would say that anyplace where Tosfos interjects Minhag 
>>>> Ashkenaz, it's a western influence from Xianity and Xian lands, and thus 
>>> Mah inyan shmitta eitzel Har Sinai? 
>> That's what I would ask you. If you're going to interpret Rashi on Sukkah 
>> 38a as a Westernized gloss and thus impermissible, 
> Why would I have a hava amina that Rashi is a "westernized gloss and 
> thus impermissible?" Rachmana Litzlan - we're talking about the Gadol 
> HaParshanim here. Dismiss him as a "westernized gloss?" Chas 
> v'Shalom. Never. 

And yet, you're over-interpreting Rashi, Tosfos, MB, etc.  And then 
get upset that I'm over-interpreting the Yerushalmi.

>> remember that others 
>> regard much of what we do as impermissible Westernized glosses. Where do 
>> you draw the line? 
> I'm not sure the line is quite so clear. But Rashi is definitely not 
> a "westernized gloss." 

Maimonideans would consider him to be.  I know strict Maimonideans who do.

>I try very hard to stay away from areas that are not my area of expertise
>unless I studied the particular case sufficiently. I know very little about
>genetics, but know enough to say that blue is not dominant, brown is. I also
>know, as RYZ points out, that genetics is very complex.

*I* got it wrong - the Rav I quoted would never get anything like that
wrong. I tell people there are two things I miss about Chicago (as of
yesterday a third).

1. My daf yomi shiur.
2. This Rav.

As of yesterday:

3. Chicago's efficient clearing of streets after snow.

What he actually said was that since blue is *recessive*, if you have
two blue eyed parents they will not have a brown-eyed child. Hence the
mamzerus issue.

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

On 5 Dec 2002 at 18:53, simchag@att.net wrote:
> From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
>> How can she be motzi you with ha'Motzi (assuming that she is making 
>> the bracha for you as well as for herself)? 

> From: "Mishpachat Freedenberg" <free@actcom.co.il>
>> I also asked the same question myself. How can she make motzi for her
>> husband? 

> where does everybody take this that you can't be moitzeh someone else
> with a birchas hanehenin when you are also partaking of the food?

> Nobody has been by a Bris or any other function where a brocha is made
> on a cup of wine and the m'vorech doesn't want to drink or only wants
> to drink a small sip and he gets someone to listen and be mechavin to
> be yoitzeh with his Boirei Pri Hagofen and drink a reviis?

I agree that the quote from me above was mistaken, but why do you 
tihnk a reviis would need to be drunk in order to make Borei Pri 
HaGefen (unless of course he was being yotzei Kiddush - see below)?  

BTW - my first son's Bris was on the first day of Rosh HaShana, and I 
recall R. Meir Stern (RY of the Talmudic Research Center in Passaic 
and Avraham Yaakov's sandak) reminding R. Chaim Davis (then also a RY 
in that Yeshiva and now Rosh Yeshiva of Beis Medrash l'Torah in 
Passaic) to be m'chavein to be yotzei Kiddush with the bracha.  

-- 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.

There is a story of R. Isser Zalman Meltzer waiting for his wife to come
home late before lighting Chanukah because it meant a lot to her to see
the candles being lit. He felt that Shalom Bayit over-rode lighting the
candles bi-zman (shekia/tzet).

--
 Eli Turkel, turkel@math.tau.ac.il on 08/12/2002

On 5 Dec 2002 at 18:29, simchag@att.net wrote:
> The exact location of this 'phantom maamor chazol' is at the end of
> perek daled of Yerushalmi Mesechtas Kidushin...the last maamor in the
> name of Rav. and to quote the yerushalmi

> 'Osid odom litein din v'chesboin aal kol shero'as einoi vloi ochal' 
> and then the Yerushalmi goes on to bring a story of R' Luzer was
> 'choishesh' for this d'rash and he used to save and put together prutahs,
> perutahs, to be able to buy and eat from everything

But it's clear from both the Pnei Moshe and the Korban Ha'Eida there 
that the ma'amar Chazal is going on eating different kinds of food 
(the Korban Ha'Eida refers specifically to things that are mischadesh 
mi'shana l'shana) and that it does not have the much broader 
application that RJB was attempting to give it. 

It's a good proof for eating nutritious food though :-) 

[Email #2. -mi]

On 5 Dec 2002 at 12:34, Jonathan Baker wrote:
> RCS: 
>> On 4 Dec 2002 at 13:31, Jonathan Baker wrote: 
>>> Remember, one of the arguments against women as shlichei tzibur, or 
>>> women as kor'ot megillah for mixed groups, is about levels of obligation. 
>>> Inherent in that argument is that people of equal level of obligation 
>>> can motzi one another in brachot/tefillah. Certainly a woman can motzi 
>>> a man in benching. 

>> Not in most instances. See SA OC 186:1 and MB 2 and 3 there. 

> Fine. But as long as their chiuv is the same, she can. 

Technically can - yes. Even remotely advisable - no. See Rashi in 
Succah 38a (among others). 

> And the Tosfos on Sukkah 38a seems to imply that it works, even over 
> the d'oraita/d'rabbanan chiyuv barrier, but that it's not a good thing 
> to do. 

Where do you see that in that Tosfos? As far as I can tell that 
Tosfos is dealing with whether or not women have a chiyuv d'oraysa in 
bentching (and I admit to some difficulty in understanding the 
Tosfos, but I don't see what you see there). 

...
> Lots of people have said this. Looking on the web, it's always 
> attributed to "the talmud", but nobody specifies a page number. 
> Maybe it's one of the phantom maamorei chazal? Suffice it to say, 
> I've heard it in lots of places, modern, Chabad, etc. 

See my response to Reb Simcha. You seem to have given an 
interpretation to that Yerushalmi which is completely different from 
that given by the Pnei Moshe and the Korban Ha'Eida, who are the 
Rashi and Tosfos of the Yerushalmi. 

>>> Kadeish atzm'cha b'mutar lach is a recipe for asceticism, 
>>> or a requirement to follow the rabbis when they forbid something, not 
>>> a requirement for all to come up with their own personal chumras and 
>>> impose them on others. 

>> I didn't see anyone who is trying to impose a chumra on others. 
>> Aderaba, I would argue that requiring a woman to light her own 
>> Chanuka candles is - if anything - a chumra. 

> Or, telling her she's incapable of lighting is a chumra. 

I don't see that. It's always easier to have someone else do something
for you. Besides, I don't see Rashi's words as being b'geder "kadeish
atzmecha ba'mutar lach." He goes way beyond that.

> Certainly 
> looking at the list, it's the "frummies" who are more likely to have 
> the woman not light, and the "frummies" are generally considered more 
> concerned with "chumrot" than the just plain folks. 

Whom are you calling "fruhmmies?" (Ironically, I would guess that you 
classify me as a fruhmmie and yet my wife - who did not light when 
she was growing up - lights in my house). How does one qualify to be 
a "fruhmmie?" Rav Nebenzahl in one of his sichot in Bamidbar implies 
that we should all want to qualify to be "fruhmmies" regardless of 
our hashkafa (he decries the fact that much of the DL world qualifies 
itself as "not Charedi" and says that all Jews should be chareid 
l'dvar Hashem - which is the derivation of the term). How does 
someone on this list qualify to be a "fruhmmie?" 

>>>>> Because (as RCS mentioned) the Gemara says nasty things about a man 
>>>>> who can't make brachot for himself, and thus has to have his wife say 
>>>>> them for him. In other words, the party which can't do on its own is 
>>>>> a lesser party. 

>>>> No. The Gemara only says tavo me'era on a man who needs his wife to 
>>>> say brachos for him. Not the other way around. 

>>> NEEDS his wife to, not WANTS his wife to. IOW, it's a polemic against 
>>> men who don't take the trouble to learn the most basic of mitzvot, the 
>>> most basic of prayers - brachos on food. Doesn't sound like a ban on 
>>> having one's wife be motzi one with a bracha. 

[snip]

> Oh, I see what you're talking about. Tosfos there seems to have 
> an extended version of that Rashi. 

Whoa.... Before we talk about Tosfos, let's understand Rashi. Rashi 
says "v'im lomad, tavo lo me'eira she'mevazeh es kono la'asos lo 
shluchim ka'ela."  Rashi is quite explicit that it has NOTHING to do 
with whether or not one is capable of reading. This is NOT a 
situation of "kol ha'rauy l'bila ain bila m'akeves." Rashi says that 
even if you CAN read and say it for yourself, you are cursed - that's 
the word he uses - if you send a woman (or child or slave) to read 
for him (i.e. to say the bracha for him). Pretty strong stuff. And 
this is Rashi who - as all of our "feminist" friends will remind us - 
had daughters who wore tefillin....

> But by the same token, Tosfos counters Rashi's argument 

Tosfos isn't being cholek on Rashi. Tosfos says that Rashi should have
made his comment on the Gemara and not on the Mishna, because the Mishna
is only talking about a case when he has to respond Haleluka even if a
Gadol is makri to him. The "tavo lo me'airo" goes with the first piece of
Gemara right after the Mishna. Yes, Tosfos talks about women and avadim
being patur from Hallel (which is why Tosfos says Rashi's comment doesn't
belong in the Mishna - because when it comes to Hallel the reason they
shouldn't be motzi him is because they have no chiyuv), but he isn't
being cholek on Rashi's comment, only on its placement in the Mishna.

> by talking about levels of obligation: 
> that it's bad for a woman who has a derabanan level to motzi a man 
> who has a d'oraita level. Which does not apply by either birchot 
> hanehenin or by neirot Chanukah (see MB 675 s"k 10). 

But of course, Tosfos would agree with Rashi that the fact that the Gemara
says that while technically a woman could be motzi a man with brachos
(and neir Chanuka) the fact that the Gemara speaks so strongly against
it means we should not do it.

>>> As RMFeldman pointed out, 
>>> it's a befeirush SA that a woman can motzi her husband on neirot Chanukah, 
>>> as did R'n Katz from KSA (even if she interpreted it differently). 

>> See the Biur Halacha 678 s"v Isha Madlekes. 

> YM 675. 

Correct. 

> By the same token, though, see MB s"k 9-10 there. He may bring 
> down that gemara in the BH, but in the MB, he gives complete parity. 

He says that she can be motzi him, but he means if the husband is not 
at home - not in front of him (otherwise you have to understand the 
entire halacha as ONLY applying b'fanav, and I don't think anyone 
holds that way). If the husband is at home, then it's like any other 
bracha - she could technically be motzi him, but the Gemara in Succa 
38a and Rashi and Tosfos there would have all sorts of nasty things 
to say about him. 

>>>> Because according to most poskim (and keep in mind that in my house 
>>>> the women do light) having her husband light for her does not put a 
>>>> woman into a "lesser" position. The idea that it does is what 
>>>> Rebbetzin Katz would call the influence of "feminism." The idea that 
>>>> any time a woman doesn't do the exact same thing that a man does, it 
>>>> puts her in a lesser position. 

>>> And a Maimonidean would say that anyplace where Tosfos interjects Minhag 
>>> Ashkenaz, it's a western influence from Xianity and Xian lands, and thus 
>>> forbidden. But we don't hold that way. The whole mode of argument in 
>>> the Gemara is Socratic method - in other words, our whole Torah is based 
>>> on Hellenistic methodology. 

>> Mah inyan shmitta eitzel Har Sinai? 

> That's what I would ask you. If you're going to interpret Rashi on Sukkah 
> 38a as a Westernized gloss and thus impermissible, 

Why would I have a hava amina that Rashi is a "westernized gloss
and thus impermissible?" Rachmana Litzlan - we're talking about the
Gadol HaParshanim here. Dismiss him as a "westernized gloss?" Chas
v'Shalom. Never.

> remember that others 
> regard much of what we do as impermissible Westernized glosses. Where do 
> you draw the line? 

I'm not sure the line is quite so clear. But Rashi is definitely not 
a "westernized gloss." 

-- Carl

RYGB
> I am not sure why my good friend desires to harp on this point, but if so 
> it is, then so be it. Yagdil Torah v'ya'adir:

At 08:14 AM 12/2/02 -0500, Shinnar, Meir wrote:
>This is the problem of refusing to read what the rambam is writing about,
>and using dictionary definitions and core principles to read pshat.

RYGB
> Shucks. Here I thought that Hebrew was a language that I understood, and 
> now RMS is telling me that I do not!

Actually, I think what he is saying is that the dictionary is wrong, no?

RMS is actually suggesting re-define many words in the Hebrew language -
for example, the Rambam earlier in that first ("rishon" - another word
RMS seems to find obscure) perek, first halacha, says Hashem was "mamtzi
kol nimtza" - to me that means "brings into existence." Reb Meir, what
does that mean to you?

The fifth halacha, therefore, may be phrased somewhat ambiguously to
cover as much as possible (hence the reference to the Moreh) - but not
as a counterpoint to the notion of HKB"H as Borei.

>As RYGB says, there is no other way to learn the Rambam.

>Meir Shinnar

YGB says so again.

me
sigh The Hebrew language is not so simple. Much of the Moreh Nevuchim
is devoted precisely to explaining the Hebrew language, and that many
words have multiple meanings that need to be understood in context.
One needs to understand the context to understand the word, and one needs
to realize that a word may have multiple meanings. This isn't that the
dictionary is wrong.

The meaning of rishon is quite clear - first in some order - but the
question is rishon in what order - and it is not clear from that text
(in hilchot tshuva 3:7) that it is the temporal order, rather than the
logical (or ontological) order, that is meant (lehavdil, remember the
eulogy of George Washington - (IIRC) - first in war, first in peace,
first in the hearts of his countrymen - meaning of the term first depends
on the sequence that one is dealing with)

mamtzi kol nimzta means what it says - that god is the reason for
the existence of all beings, whether that is viewed as a boreh in the
traditional sense, as the source of existence in a neoplatonic sense,
or as a first cause in an aristotelian sense.

The words tamid and eyn ketz are used to refer to something without end -
whether unceasing, or ongoing, or infinite in extent in both directions.
This is not redefining the dictionary - but realizing that the meaning
of terms relating to infinite have a certain ambiguity about them

However, within the context of the fifth halacha (yesode hatora 1:5),
the meaning is not ambiguous - the fifth halacha makes no sense within
a "boreh" framework - at least, not to anyone with familiarity with the
then current modes of reasoning, and is a classical Aristotelian proof.
This is why the Ohr Sameach refers to the Moreh nevuchim where he
explicitly says that he uses Aristotelian proofs in his halachic works
even though he didn't agree with it - thus mitigating the Aristotelian
import of the Mishne Torah text (a rare case where he relies on the
Moreh nevuchim over the mishne torah..). There is no other way to read
the rambam.

Meir Shinnar

I have read the Rambam in the Arabic, as have many others. I don't know
which Hebrew translations you are talking about, but I can comment
briefly on a) R. Ibn Tibon, b) R. Qafih, and c) R. Shelat yl'ht.
One criticism of all, although it only slightly applies to R. Qafih,
is that the Rambam used a clear, lucid style in Arabic, in the Moreh,
in Perush haMishnayos, and in his t'shuvos. None of the translations
match this in any way, although R. Qafih at least tries. Ibn Tibon was
scared to death of doing anything other than a word-for-word translation,
which makes his translation not Hebrew, but Arabic in Hebrew words.
He himself knew this, but was afraid of diverting from the Rambam's
original one iota. His care, however, caused multiple errors with people
who had no knowledge of Arabic, and misinterpreted (and "corrected")
Ibn Tibon's Arabic in Hebre words.

R. Qafih's translation into modern Hebrew avoids that, but in his attempt
to use correct Hebrew, he sometimes is not as careful as he might be:
in particular, there are many diyyuqim that are fairly evident in the
original, when the Rambam uses one word as distinguished from another
that he uses in a different sense, and you cannot make these diyyuqim
from R. Qafih's translation.

R. Shelat, OTOH, is a bafflement to me. He actually prefers Ibn
Tibon's "non-Hebrew" to either R. Qafih, or making a new translation.
He carefully styles his own translations, when he does make them, to
imitate Ibn Tibon's tsubrokhene Hebrew. My conclusion, after reading
carefully his introduction and many of his notes, is that he, like most
Israeli mamlakhti-dati students, spent a lot of time (much more than any
American would) studying the Moreh and the Igros hoRambam in high school,
and so has come to the point where he is used to Ibn Tibon, and even finds
it very strange to read the Rambam in regular Hebrew; to him, I believe,
the Moreh in regular Hebrew would sound like translating Shakespeare
into modern English. Since his books are patently designed not for the
scholar nor for the American, but for other members of the RZs who are
"into philosophy" and want to study all that the Rambam said, he writes
in the pseudo-Hebrew that they expect to see from the Rambam.

The problem with that is that for all others, the languages is still
awkward, not transparent, and not really Hebrew. And that is such a
great contrast to the Rambam himself, with his careful craftsmanship in
both his Hebrew and his Arabic: clear, correct, concise. Halvai that any
of us could write in English like the Rambam does in Hebrew or Arabic;
he is really a pleasure to read.

These considerations also bear on the arguments brought by R. Qafih
concerning the t'shuvos of the Rambam to Hakhmei Lunel and a couple of
his other t'shuvos that -- according to Shelat and several others --
were written originally in Hebrew, and not translated from the Arabic.
It is impossible to reconcile the language (let alone the substance) of
these t'shuvos with the careful Hebrew of the Rambam in the Mishneh Torah.
There could be many possible reasons for this, but most of them are highly
unsatisfactory (e.g. some that have been advanced: the Rambam was senile;
they were forged; he wrote them in Arabic, knowing that the recipients
didn't understand it, and gave it to an incompetent person to translate).
You asked for my reaction. I am sorry to bring up problems, but they
are the truth. The best way is to learn elementary Arabic, and sit down
with a dictionary.

RSM a ecrit:
> One criticism of all, although it only slightly applies to R. Qafih, is that 
> the Rambam used a clear, lucid style in Arabic, in the Moreh, in Perush 
> haMishnayos, and in his t'shuvos. None of the translations match this in 
> any way, although R. Qafih at least tries. Ibn Tibon was scared to death of 
> doing anything other than a word-for-word translation, which makes his 
> translation not Hebrew, but Arabic in Hebrew words. He himself knew this, 
> but was afraid of diverting from the Rambam's original one iota. His care, 
> however, caused multiple errors with people who had no knowledge of Arabic, 
> and misinterpreted (and "corrected") Ibn Tibon's Arabic in Hebre words. 

So maybe you can clear up something. If Ibn Tibbon is "literal" while
R' Qafih is truer to the sense of the Rambam, what word did the Rambam
use (and what concept did it represent) in describing the 13 Yesodot
in Hheleq in terms of "emunah": "leha-amin mesiuth haborei", "...she-
ne'emin shezeh hu hacol echad...", etc. - each yesod is leha'amin bezeh
o bazeh. Whereas, R' Qafih does not use the language of emunah, but just
says each idea out as an idea: that God exists, that He is unitary, etc.
The Maimonideans on SCJM hold that Rambam had no truck with this "emunah"
business, that it was an import from Xian Europe (the Ibn Tibbons being
in southern France), and that there was no mitzva to believe anything,
but rather to have some kind of intuitive grasp of these ideas.

What did Rambam really believe regarding belief?

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


[ 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         ]