Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 030

Monday, October 27 2003

• Re: Basics for Philisophical discussions
• RE: Basics for Philisophical discussions
• Hashkofa and Authority
• RE: Hashqofoh and Authority
• Re: Avodah V12 #28
• passing judgement
• Re: Hashgocah Protis - Sifsei Chaim's view of Gra
• Naked and Cunning
• Re: Morid haTal
• nusach Ari
• Women Kaddish
• RE: Basics for Philosophical discussions
• RE: Basics for Philisophical discussions
• Re: Basics for Philosophical discussions
• Epistomological issues

[Micha:]
> A less cynicism-inviting approach is to consider "mesorah" a homonym
> that refers to two different processes. Then, one has to explain how
> the two differ and when each applies.

> For example Rt Shoshana L. Boublil's position:
>> The distinguishing feature is the question of revelation. The mabul
>> as a geographical event is described in broad strokes. The
>> revelation involved is personal -- between Hashem and Noach...

>> Yetzi'as Mitzrayim is a public revelation which encompassed
>> thousands of humans....

> It appears that to RtSLB, real mesorah is only that for which the
> Kuzari proof works. Things transmitted via the same channels but were
> not initially established in that way may be questioned.

Excuse me, but this is NOT what I said, so I'll try to clarify. The
context of the original response was as to when can you use Derash/Sod
for a specific event and when Peshuto shel Mikra encompasses the event
completely.

The Torah is not meant to be a physics or geography book. The Mabul and
Bereishit are described in broad strokes, i.e. we are told that certain
thing happened but a lot is left out of the biblical account.

As Rav Hess A"H taught us in his class on Agadot Chazal -- when Chazal
felt that some part of the story was not reported in the Torah, they added
information (at times) via Agadot. The classic example is the story of
the Akeida. Any parent who loves a child will automatically question a
demand to sacrifice that child. Avraham is greater and his belief was
greater than ours, yet Chazal accepted that others would wonder about
this point -- and there are quite a few Agadot Chazal on this issue,
each addressing a different aspect of the story, many times teaching us
further respect and awe of Avraham.

The "questioning" is only about the unwritten details, never about the
reported details. Do you really think that the Torah has given every
single detail about these historical events? Chazal didn't believe so
as evidenced not only in the Aggada but, for example in the peirushim
on Bereishit, Rashi on the question of light of the first day; Ramban
on the story of Bereishit being Sod etc.

So, if a modern day archeological find adds to the biblical tale, I have
no problem with it. Not as proof but as information.

To go back to the original context of basics for philisophical
discussions, whether Mikra Yotzei Yidei Pshuto or whether the biblica tale
is a summary of the events and science can add additional details that may
increase our understanding of the events has nothing to do with the basic
issue of what is the source of the information that the Torah DOES give.

On the issue of allegory that is actually part of the above issue:

 From the nature and content of the responses about the use of allegory,
I suspect that people have been translating the term "Drush" to allegory
where, as RYGB states they are not the same. Allegory is "a form of
extended metaphor is which objects and persons in a narrative...are
equated with meanings that lie outside the narrative itself." (Thrall,
Hibbard, Holmon, A Handbook to Literature, 7.) Paul Ricoeur states that
"An allegory can always be translated into a text that can be understood
by itself; once the better text has been made out, the allegory falls away
like a useless garment; what the allegory showed, while concealing it,
can be said in a direct discourse that replaces the allegory" (Cited
from J.D. Crossan, In parables, p. 11).

The story of Bereishit cannot be an allegory b/c that would mean that
the event itself did not occur. Similarly for the Mabul. Some of the
prophecies of Yirmiyahu involve allegory.

Now if you would say that we don't know the details of the Bri'a or the
Mabul, and we can use Drash or Sod to further our understanding, and
that modern science and archeology are additional tools in our search
for understanding of the events -- that would be acceptable.

Shoshana L. Boublil

RYGB
> This much I do know - there is no "modern" - 
> by that I mean
> since the Gr"a - who can be considered qualified. Certainly 
> not present
> company. But no one except Chazal has the right to decree 
> allegorizations
> (if there is ever a case where they did, none comes to mind).

What is the basis for this statement?  We know from past discussions that
you sincerely believe this.  But this is a great hiddush - and where is the
source for it??

To clarify previous post (which is my part and which is RAL - as I had given
the reference to avodah 3:155, I thought it clear)
This is RAL 
>>At another level, one may alter the substance of whole areas 
> by examining
>>them, legitimately, through a different prism. The great model here
>>is Maimonides, whose recourse to the concept of "Torah speaks in the
>>language of man [i.e. in human idiom] (Sifrei, Shelah 112)," 
> on the one
>>hand, and to the mode of allegory on the other, enabled him 
> to interpret
>>so much of Bible and midrash aggadah in a philosophic rather 
> than purely
>>literal, popular vein.
This is my pshat
>>There is no sense that the rambam was relying on a prior 
> tradition that
>>those elements were subject to allegory - but the general 
> principle of
>>torah speaking in human idiom and that allegorical 
> interpretations are
>>permissible (and the rambam's own statement that he would be 
> willing to
>>allegorize all of ma'ase breshit is not related by him to 
> any mesora or
>>license - nor does he ever suggest that he requires license 
> for any of
>>his allegorizations)

To answer RYGB
> I am assuming that both of the paragraphs above emanate from Rabbi
> Lichtenstein's pen - or, if not, that Dr. Shinnar is accurately
> interpreting para. 1 with his own para. 2. 
> If so, it is, indeed,
> deeply troubling to me that Rabbi Lichtenstein may have made such
> an assertion. If that is the case, then the RW's rejection of Rabbi
> Lichtenstein, something I have never fully understood, is eminently
> reasonable and entirely justified. Thank you, at the very least, for
> clarifying that point.

RYGB's willingness to be mevaze talmide chachamim is, unfortunately, well
known on this list, and again deserves a public mecha'a. 

I cited the rambam on the criteria for allegory - that it is not based on
mesora
>know that these prophecies and similar matters that we say that they
>are allegorical - our word in them is not a decree, that we did not
>receive a prophecy from hashem that will tell us that it is an allegory,
>nor did we have a tradition for one of the sages from the prophets who
>will explain that these details are allegorical.
RYGB
> Let us, please, leave the Rambam out of this. What you cited from MThM
> is not relevant, but I feel we argued about this enough in 
> the past and
> someone really interested can search the archives.

It seems directly relevant - the rambam is saying precisely that his
allegorization is not due to a mesora, but due to attempts to reconcile
torah with sechel.  The fact that it is inconvenient does not make it
irrelevant...

Again, you are arguing a position against which there are explicit rishonim
(rambam) and acharonim) - without a single source in favor of your
position..(stating a position is not arguing it)

You seem to start from an extreme nitkatnu hadorot viewpoint - and wonder
the basis for this

> I have no idea what you define as emunah. It certainly is not 
> the standard
> definition. According to the standard definition, belief in Hashem and
> His truth as expressed in Torah she'b'ksav understood through the lens
> of Torah she'b'al peh, yes, one who feels compelled to allegorize the
> Mabul is me'ketanei amanah.

No, it is precisely that I view it through the lens of the torah shebealpe-
as given to us by the baale hamesora - with their criteria of how to
understand them - that I don't take a karaite view of the mabul..
Meir Shinnar

I wrote:
> I have not seen a single authority
> being quoted by R' Bechhofer who agrees with his psak. Which recognized
> gadol - chassidic, litvak, sefardic, modern orthodox etc declares that
> when teaching hashkofa that it is wrong to omit views that are not an
> accepted part of the mesora of that group?

R. Bechhoffer wrote in response to my
: I made clear in my essay that my benchmark is: "Perakim
: b'MachashevesYisroel" by R' Shaul Yisraeli zt"l. I believe that the
: Beis Yechezkel, by R' Moshe Tzuriel shlita is a similar work. I am not
: an expert on current seforim, but these are two giants in machashovo
: who wrote books that were melaket and explain. This, BTW, is an exact
: parallel to halachic literature. We are in the dor of the Likkutim,
: not of the Teshuvos.

I looked through R' Tzuriels Beis Yechezkel,his 3 volume Otzros Gedolei 
Yisroel and his latest work 2 volumes Otzros HaMusar. There is no 
mention of the Beshht's view of HP In fact there is only one chassidic 
source he deals with in his Otzros Gedolei Yisroel and that is Rav 
Tzadok. The ideas in Rav Tzadok's writings however are not cited while 
the others works are -  the Rambam,Gra,Maharal,Ramchal, Netziv and R' S. 
R. Hirsch. There is simply a listing of what topics are found on which 
page of R' Tzadok's works. In his general summary of hashkofa topics at 
the end of volume 3 of  Otzros Gedolei Yisroel - for the topic of 
hashgocha protis -  he lists Rambam, Rabbeinu Bachye, Meshech Chochma, 
Malbim, R' Yeruchim, Derashos HaRan, Kuzari, Ramchal, Ramban, Nefesh 
HaChaim and Aspaklaria volume 6. - Not a single chassidic sefer.There is 
not a single citation from a work which cites the "revolutionary 
universally accepted" view of the Besht!

Thus you have only a single work - that of R' Shaul Yisraeli which 
receives your approval. The work of R' Tzuriel, Michtav MEliayahu, 
Sifsei Chaim, R' Aryeh Kaplan's 2 volume handbook of Jewish Through, R' 
Levi violate your principle. It is obvious that your principle was made 
up by yourself and that you are a daas yachid - since your view is 
clearly not shared by the authors of the existing hashkofa source books. 
Within the world of chassidus - only the writings of Chabad of the last 
110 years have a discussion of the different views and Chabad's 
understanding of the revolutionary nature of the views of the Besht also 
apparently represent a daas yachid in the chaasidic world.

                      Daniel Eidensohn

At 01:55 PM 10/26/2003, you wrote:

>Absolutely extraordinary. It is quite amazing how RYGB can read my mind
>to realize I had a pre-conceived notion that IE believed in qadmus (of
>matter) and that I sought, indeed desperately (sic) sought, like minded
>rishonim. Now, I've previously had occasion to remark the mind reading
>skills of some posters to this forum (more usually demonstrated on topics
>such as WTG's and such like where the inner spiritual states of complete
>strangers are invariably described with unfailing confidence by our cadre
>of avodah psi-adepts), but it is nevertheless a fantastic experience
>to be the object of such a personal demonstration. I say fantastic with
>some precision, because alas it is a fantasy. In fact I have no dawg in
>this hunt, do not care one way or the other what IE's conception of this
>matter was, and certainly held no preconception of same.

As you might note, I almost never (I would say never, but cannot vouch 
without reviewing the archives) participated in the WTG discussions. But, 
over the years I believe I have come to a fair assessment of the minds of 
many of our merry little band of fellow travelers here, so, yes, I am 
willing to engage in some mind-reading from time to time. Me finds myself 
often subject to others' mind-reading here, present correspondent not 
excepted (see excerpt below), and would assert the right to try my luck in 
turn.

>Let us set aside for the moment whether RDE has been through RYGB's
>necessary curriculum (and who says he has not?). let us be clear that
>RYGB is rather articulating a different epistemology than my own. I in
>fact do not much care about the authority of the disputant in matters --
>particularly hashqofic matters, though i certainly find their perceptions
>of interest. (in fact there are close professional analogies in which
>I'm presently engaged). I'm more of a sh'ma ho'emes mi'mi she'om'ro type
>of guy, and sometimes that guy can even be me. Otherwise I'd probably
>still believe in the four basic elements and astrology, all of which were
>propounded by the great majority of authorities of much greater weight
>than exist today -- even according to RYGB's criteria. In fact however,
>RYGB's bar, if he truly believed in it himself, which I doubt (see, now
>I 'm a mind reader too, avodah abilities much be catching, kindalike an
>internet virus) since he has not been bashful about propounding various
>original ideas (i.e. those with out discernible support in the classic
>sources), is much too high. To those who have doggedly pursued that
>last sentence to its nested end, I merely meant to say that one doesn't
>necessarily have to know everything in the universe before expressing
>an opinion. One merely has to know enough and make sense.

The assumption attached to the previous paragraph is that one perspective 
in a dispute such as that over hashgochoh makes more "sense" than the 
other. Hard pressed to see that...

YGB 

[RYGB:]
> I made clear in my essay that my benchmark is: "Perakim b'Machasheves 
> Yisroel" by R' Shaul Yisraeli zt"l. I believe that the Beis Yechezkel, by 
> R' Moshe Tzuriel shlita is a similar work. I am not an expert on current 
> seforim, but these are two giants in machashovo who wrote books that were 
> melaket and explain. This, BTW, is an exact parallel to halachic 
> literature. We are in the dor of the Likkutim, not of the Teshuvos.

Does the word "Teshuvos" have a meaning other than "answers"?

Shoshana L. Boublil

RDE writes
"I found this a rather fascinating observation which was actually
the opposite of my understanding of what R' Bechhofer has been doing.
While RYGB has publicly declared that I am his equal as a garnisht with
the same inability to "to determine who is right, who is wrong, which view
should be presented, which should not, nor certainly to present your own
view." And yet he has felt free to pass judgment on what I am allowed
and not allowed to say and do - despite that I am only following my
mesora and am not innovating a new approach of disseminating information!"

I fully concur that I see no reason in the world why every article has to
be a survey article. However, while RYBG claims no one can pass judgement
on different shitot he seems to do exactly that to R. Lichtenstein.

I for one prefer to vote with RAL

 - 
Prof. Eli Turkel,  turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 27/10/2003
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University

RD Eidensohn wrote:
>Thus my point was that there is no
>evidence that the Gra was deviating
>from the Rishonim. There is no place
>that the Gra says that HP applies
>to everything in the sense of the Besht.

The Gra says that HP applies also to animals (quoting the Yerushalmi about
tzipora kala); everything is hidden miracles.  How does the Besht differ?

[Email #2. -mi]

My post in Avodah v12 #27 titled "Re: Rambam and Creation" and beginning
"During shaleshudes in shul we are learning the Mabit's Iggeres Derech
Hashem..." should have been under the above subject. I apologize for
the confusion.

Gil Student

In yesterday's parsha, we are told (2:25-3:1): "And the man and his wife
were both arum and were not ashamed. And the nachash was more arum than
all the other animals..."

I find it striking that the exact same word seems to be used in these
adjacent psukim. They are generally translated in different ways (naked,
cunning) but I wonder if there might be some way to explain the psukim
using the same meaning for both occurrences of the word.

To say that the nachash was more naked than anyone else sounds silly to
me. But to say that Adam and Chava were "cunning and unashamed" sounds
rather tantalizing. In what way were they cunning, I wonder...

Ibn Ezra on the spot sees this very question, and seems to say that it is
merely a rhetorical device ("tzachus b'lashon") to which no special
significance should be given. He even cites two cases in Sefer Shoftim
where such homonyms were used not merely in adjacent psukim, but in the
very same pasuk.

Still, that was Navi and this is Chumash. Perhaps there is indeed a
deeper message that Hashem put there for us. I wonder if there might be a
perush somewhere who disagrees with that Ibn Ezra, and comes up with
another way of explaining these psukim. Anyone ever see anything along
these lines?

Akiva Miller

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

R' Eli Turkel wrote: "RAY claimed that in South America that rain
is plentiful and the main problem is floods. Hence, he said the psak
was during the entire year to say Morid haTal even during the Israeli
winter ..."

I do not follow. Morid haTal / haGoshem is a praise to the RBSO, said
during periods when such praise is true.

OTOH: veSein Brocho / Tal uMotor Livroch is a request. If anything,
the South Americans would want to change the nusach of the later.

Just wondering,
 - Danny

"IIRC, when I asked a Lubvitcher friend of mine a few decades ago
about Nusach HaAri he explained that Rabbi Shneur Zalmen from Liadi had
taken Nusach Sefard which was supposed to be the Nusach of the Ari and
"corrected" it. What had happened is that Nusach Sefard had many differing
versions of what this Nusach was, hence all of the parenteses in Siddurim
of Nusach Sefard representing all those versions. The founder of Lubavitch
took it upon himself to ferret out what he believed to be the actual
Nusach of the Ari and that resulted in what is now called Nusach HaAri."

Agreed. However, the claim was that what Chabad thought was Nusach Ari
does not always agree with the writings of the Ari, in particular the
example was the Baracha of Barech Olenu vs Borchenu in winter/summer.

 - 
 Eli Turkel,  turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 27/10/2003
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University

While looking for something else I came across a tshuvah from R' Moshe(O"C
5:12) where he mentions that in previous generations an almanah would
come into the bet medrash to say kaddish.

KT
Joel RIch

At 06:31 PM 10/26/2003, you wrote:
>> We have gone through this before. If Noach was an allegory, who is to
>> say that the Avos are not? And if the Avos are an allegory, who is to
>> say that the makkos are not? And if the makkos are an allegory, who
>> is to say that kerias yam suf is not. Please not that I am not arguing
>> "slippery slope." I am arguing that the moment we allegorize something
>> that Chazal did not we are already deep inside the pit.

>IOW we turn our backs on "intellectual honesty"?

No! Don't turn your back on intellectual honesty. Aderaba, if you think
the Torah is not a document that relates precise truth then follow through
on your conclusions. Adhere boldly, openly and honestly to Conservative,
Reform, Reconstructionist, whatever, Judaism. Or call yourself Orthoprax
and not Orthodox.

>> It is in Rashi in this week's parashah.

>And only has connection to this discussion in the most "creative" way.
>How you can bring that as your source and justification?

It says "ma'amin v'eino ma'amin" (7:7). This is the selective believer. Is
that more clear?

BTW, see the end of Sotah "pasku anshei amanah."

YGB 

>RYGB
>> This much I do know - there is no "modern" - by that I mean
>> since the Gr"a - who can be considered qualified. Certainly not present
>> company. But no one except Chazal has the right to decree allegorizations
>> (if there is ever a case where they did, none comes to mind).

>What is the basis for this statement?  We know from past discussions that
>you sincerely believe this.  But this is a great hiddush - and where is the
>source for it??

I have addressed this elsewhere today.

>> If so, it is, indeed,
>> deeply troubling to me that Rabbi Lichtenstein may have made such
>> an assertion. If that is the case, then the RW's rejection of Rabbi
>> Lichtenstein, something I have never fully understood, is eminently
>> reasonable and entirely justified. Thank you, at the very least, for
>> clarifying that point.

>RYGB's willingness to be mevaze talmide chachamim is, unfortunately, well
>known on this list, and again deserves a public mecha'a.

Bizayon? If I restate RAL correctly and must perforce reject his comments 
that is bizayon?!

>It seems directly relevant - the rambam is saying precisely that his
>allegorization is not due to a mesora, but due to attempts to reconcile
>torah with sechel.  The fact that it is inconvenient does not make it
>irrelevant...

It is only relevant if the Rambam ever did it. He did not.

YGB 

>I am anticipating your reaction. It is beyond reasonable doubt that
>the Rambam felt free to reinterpret maamarei 'Hazal and even verses,
>when he felt that the simple understanding contradicts reason. He is
>explicit about that and states it several times. There are others who
>reinterpreted passages against what is suggested by 'Hazal, in a way that
>is mutually exclusive, so that it seems reasonable that they intended
>their pshat to supercede what had been presented as the accepted view.

>Now, I expected you to cite Gra as a critique of Rambam, and so I
>stated that even Gra does the same kind of reinterpretations. The
>only difference between Gra and Rambam, and by extension, between any
>two authorities differing in this area, is not whether any verses are
>interpreted non-literally, but what the threshold of difficulty is,
>after which one feels compelled to prefer a non-literal interpretation.

>Thus, the speculation about whether a passage can be interpreted in a
>non-literal way is not revolutionary. It isn't any different from any
>other kind of useful pilpul.

See Rebbitzen Boublil's useful distinction between drush and allegory. 
Applies to above paragraphs.

>And therefore? Should I refrain from trying to understand how
>different shitot harishonim translate into different psaqim in matters
>of kashrut, and should I subsequently refrain from analysing when it
>may be appropriate to be lenient and rely on only some of the opinions
>(i.e. standard halakhic analysis)? Should I refrain from understanding
>the historical context in which our gedolim lived, from the Tannaim,
>Amoraim and Geonim through the Rishonim etc. until those included in the
>Mking of a Godol (to cite I work I believe you appreciated)? Why should
>this kind of analysis be different?

Allegorizing the Flood is the same as allegorizing Rashi.

>>>Note: sod is also a form of reinterpretation. Dibra Torah belashon bnei
>>>adam is also a form of reinterpretation.

>> Both are from Chazal. Not from katlei kanya b'agma. shu'alim ketanim
>> mechablim keramim.

>Sorry. Much of Sôd is not from 'Hazal, but from much later
>authorities. This doesn't make the sôd deficient, it merely indicates
>that not all sôd is from 'Hazal.

Then don't use Sod. We who use it believe it is from Chazal.

YGB 

R Arie Folger wrote:
> When the Gaon criticizes Rambam for interpreting magic away, he is
> not criticizing the general approach, since the Gra himself also
> uses it, rather, he is criticizing Rambam's reason for
> reinterpreting those particular verses.

AIUI, the reason /is/ the approach.

This is the same chiluq I am making between ma'aseh bereishis and the
mabul. The problem is not with allegorizing the text, it's with
retreating from the mesoretic position. The reason for allegorizing.

> OTOH, when we look at the Mabul, see a text which is not quoted
> often, and which is not even alluded to often, and we have a
> plausible way to interpret it such that it doesn't contradict what
> we observe...

> I don't think that this argues for a deficient Massorah (unless
> popular understanding of a text counts as Massorah....

Your parenthetic remark sidesteps around what I believe is the primary
point. It's not the *popular* understanding of the pasuq that I'm
calling mesoretic. It's the understanding given in every document and
record of mesorah in our hands, from Chazal to the rishonim to the
acharonim.

Unless the reason for the allegorization is a problem from within
mesorah, one is asking mesorah to retreat in the face of all that
evidence I ellided.

(FWIW, the existance of a living olive tree even in the literal text
and not bothering those who take it literally implies that the
restoration post-mabul was at least as miraculous as the mabul
itself.)

> Note that until
> recently there was no reason to question the literalness of the text
> and its popular understanding...

Which is the heart of my difficulty. We had people asserting a
non-literal ma'aseh bereishis back when Aristotilian natural philsophy
would deny creation altogether -- even some of the non-literal
versions. It was not merely accomodating outside opinions, it was
mesoretic, the idea that ma'aseh bereishis describes something beyond
human ken, as well as the problems with the grammar of the word
"bereishis", with the existances in 1:2, etc...

I am therefore troubled by RYGB lumping in those who allegorize
bereishis 1 with those who do so for the mabul. The rishonim I list in
the thread on creation who allow for an old universe, the Tif'eres
Yisrael, the Maharal, RMBreuer, etc... are scarey people to label
"qetanei emunah".

I would have answered RAA's question with a "no, allegorizing
bereishis 1 does not make one a QE -- IFF done so because there is
mesoretic support". This is the 9th ikkar, that the Torah, meaning the
combination of TSBK and TSBP, is perfect. But to do so without TSBP is
a different kettle of fish.

Back to RAF:
> Lastly, I suggest that we draw a line between issues of Talmudic
> science and Messorah.

Agreed. I know of no one here who disagrees, though.

RMS wrote:
>> Where is the license to make such judgements procured?

> Where is the requirement for such license detailed??

> If I may cite Rav Lichtenstein (in an article cited by Eli Clark in
> avodah 3:155

> At another level, one may alter the substance of whole areas by
> examining them, legitimately, through a different prism. The great
> model here is Maimonides, whose recourse to the concept of "Torah
> speaks in the language of man [i.e. in human idiom] (Sifrei, Shelah
> 112)," on the one hand, and to the mode of allegory on the other,
> enabled him to interpret so much of Bible and midrash aggadah in a
> philosophic rather than purely literal, popular vein.

> There is no sense that the rambam was relying on a prior tradition
> that those elements were subject to allegory - but the general
> principle of torah speaking in human idiom and that allegorical
> interpretations are permissible (and the rambam's own statement that
> he would be willing to allegorize all of ma'ase breshit is not
> related by him to any mesora or license - nor does he ever suggest
> that he requires license for any of his allegorizations)

We've argued this before ad nauseum, RMS understands the Moreh 2:25
one way, that he'd bow to ra'ayos from philosophy, RYGB that the
Rambam would bow to ra'ayos from Tanakh. However, in 2:5 and 15, the
Rambam says he only takes liberty in those of Chazal's statements
which do not come from our nevi'im. Look at the last paragraph (or so,
pargraphing is pretty arbitrary) of 2:15, to me it seems VERY fitting
to this debate. Friedlander's translation:

: We have mentioned these things only because we know that the majority
: of those who consider themselves wise, although they know nothing of
: science, accept the theory of the Eternity of the Universe on the
: authority of famous scholars. They reject the words of the prophets,
: because the latter do not employ any scientific method by which only
: a few persons would be instructed who are intellectually well
: prepared, but simply communicate the truth as received by Divine
: inspiration.

RMS again:
> This, by the way, answers RMB's question about epistemology - the
> very notion that torah and sechel have different epistemologies is
> problematic (dare I say trafe...)

Boy am I glad that I don't assert that!

I am saying that if one considers BOTH valid, then mesorah doesn't
give way for scientific evidence. The question remains awaiting
answer. Your dismissal of mesorah consistantly treating the story as
historical is in fact giving Torah the lesser weight.

As for the challenge of what I would do if it were evidence without
any interpretation, that contradicted mesorah: It can't happen. As RMS
writes, both describe the same emes. They can't constradict. My
reaction to the question is roughly akin to if I'd been asked what I
would do if the messiah came and he had scars on his hands and feet
and said "good to be back!" My emunah is that is can't happen. I don't
live in fear of a "what if it does".

 -mi

 - 
Micha Berger             When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org        you don't chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org   You light a candle.
Fax: (413) 403-9905        - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

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


[ 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         ]