Avodah Mailing List

Volume 36: Number 79

Tue, 03 Jul 2018

• 1. Re: The Molad of Tamuz (Richard Fiedler)
• 2. Re: The Molad of Tamuz (David Cohen)
• 3. Re: The Molad of Tamuz (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: The Molad of Tamuz (Richard Fiedler)
• 5. Re: The Molad of Tamuz (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Individualism? (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: AN INSTANCE OF THE 7th KIND OF CONTRADICTION IN THE MOREH NEVUCHIM (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: AN INSTANCE OF THE 7th KIND OF CONTRADICTION IN THE MOREH NEVUCHIM (H Lampel)
• 9. Re: AN INSTANCE OF THE 7th KIND OF CONTRADICTION IN THE MOREH NEVUCHIM (Micha Berger)

It is imperative to understand what is the purpose of the Molad. Today only
the Molad of Tishrei has any effect on the Hebrew Calendar. The Molad of
any given year and the succeeding year determine the entire calendar for
that year. The Molad of Tishrei is the one Molad that is not announced.
Micha Berger and Dr. Irv Bromberg of University of Toronto are very
concerned about the accuracy of the Moladot. They presume that Chazal
created the Molad to supplant simple actual witnesses to improve the
accuracy of determining the new month but that time has made it out of
wack. This is because the length of the interval between successive moladot
is 532 ms longer than the astronomically determined value. Which means 3
1/2 hours error since the time of Rabban Gamliel. 

In the gemora of Rosh Hashanah at the end of Daf 24 begins a discussion:
?Two witnesses came and said we saw the [the old moon] in the morning in
the East and [the new moon] in the West. R? Yohanan ben Nuri?s said they
were false witnesses. Yet Rabban Gamliel accepted them.?
I created a spreadsheet from the time of creation of all of the moladot and
discovered that occasionally the Old Moon could indeed be seen on the
morning of the day before the Molad of Tishrei. Such was the case for the
Molad of Tishrei 120 CE a time consistent with the life of Rabban Gamliel.
On Sunday morning September 8 the Old Moon would have been visible until
daybreak. That night was the start of the Molad of Tishrei. The actual
Crescent New Moon would not be seen until Wed September 11 at 6:12 PM.
It should be obvious that Chazal was not at all concerned about being
Mekudesh of the Moon at the correct time but rather at a consistent time
for all Am Yisrael as it shows with its latter statement ?Atem, Atem,
Atem?.
Could the Gemara give any greater hint to the fact that Rabban Gamliel was using the Molad system than by his statement in Rosh Hashanah Daf 25? 
?Rabban Gamliel said to them: Such I have received as a tradition from the
house of my fathers: the New Moon* is not seen [until] less than 29 days,
12 hours and 793 halakim [have passed].?
*New moon here is the actual sighting and not the conjunction which Is invisible.
Why did Rabban Gamliel note ?not less?? The answer can be found in a
reference by Azariah De? Rossi to a book by Rabbi Abraham Bar Hiyya Hanasi,
Sefer ha?Ibur, where the latter remarks that according to Ptolemy, the
Egyptian sages originally held that there were only 792 halakim.
Now in my opinion since the Mishnah was talking about an impossibility,
that of seeing the old moon in the morning and the new moon that night, the
circumstances of this case were the following:
Rabban Gamliel calculated the Molad and announced the Molad perhaps on
Shabbat Mevorkim. Now potential witnesses were primed to see the new moon
shortly after sunset as the Rambam states: 
?The moon becomes hidden and cannot be seen for approximately two days - or
[slightly] less or slightly more - every month: approximately one day
before its conjunction with the sun at the end of the month, and one day
after its conjunction with the sun, [before] it is sighted in the west in
the evening?.
So potential witnesses went out on the evening that starts the day of the
Molad seeking to receive the rewards stated in the gemora Rosh Hashanah and
not surprisingly claimed to have seen the new moon.
Incidentally they commented that they saw the old moon, in the morning, in the East. Rabban Gamliel chose to ignore that fact receiving much criticism.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180703/33b713e8/attachment-0001.html>

R' Micha Berger wrote:
>> If it were, the most efficient way would be to announce the time in
>>  local standard time. (And then I wouldn't have room to speculate
>> whether the clock being used is really J-m Mean Time rather than
>> mean time for some meridian further east.) Aside from a tiny minority
>> of us pendants, who bothers subtracting out the time to know what the
>> announcement means to them?

Leaving aside the fact that there is no consensus as to whether the molad
clock is Jerualem mean time, the mean time of a meridian further east, or
perhaps something other than mean time altogether (as R' Simon Montagu
pointed out yesterday), even if the proper way to translate "molad time" to
local standard/daylight time *were*, hypothetically, a matter of consensus,
it's still not clear that it would make sense to announce the molad using
local clock time.

It all depends what information it is that one is supposed to know.  If
"knowing the the molad" means having the knowledge to be able to state, at
any given point in the future, whether or not the moment of the molad has
passed yet, then it is, indeed, local clock time that would be most
helpful.  But if the idea is to help you keep a list of the moladot in your
head so that if you subsequently find yourself on a desert island, you'll
be able to reconstruct the calendar and observe all of the holidays on
their proper days, then knowing the molad time "as is" is much more helpful
than having it translated into local clock time.

As a parable, let's say that Reuven is standing outside with a clear view
of the western horizon.  He doesn't know what time sunset is expected to
take place.  Shimon is stuck inside in a room with no windows, but he knows
that sunset today will be at 19:53 Israel Daylight Time.  Neither of them
has a clock or watch.  Which one of them really "knows when sunset is"?
Well, that depends for what purpose.  Only Reuven will be able to correctly
say, at the appropriate moment, "sunset is..... now."  But if one of them
needs to send out a message an hour in advance and let everyone know what
time mincha and maariv will be scheduled for today, it's Shimon who's in a
better position to do that.

Given that the molad doesn't correspond to any actual event, it seems
unlikely that the point is to be able to look at one's watch and say
"now."  The fixed-interval molad was only "invented" for the purpose of the
calendar and only "exists" at all in that context, where a translation to
local clock time is irrelevant.

(Yes, nowadays we also use the "calendar molad" for kiddush levana cutoff
times, but I believe that was only adopted as a rough approximation of the
actual conjunction times, since the latter were not readily available.
That's a whole separate discussion, perhaps for another time... :-)

-- D.C.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180703/fe0d36ac/attachment-0001.html>

On 03/07/18 10:36, Richard Fiedler via Avodah wrote:
> In the gemora of Rosh Hashanah at the end of Daf 24 begins a discussion:
> 
> ?Two witnesses came and said we saw the [the old moon] in the morning in 
> the East and [the new moon] in the West. R? Yohanan ben Nuri?s said they 
> were false witnesses. Yet Rabban Gamliel accepted them.?
> 
> I created a spreadsheet from the time of creation of all of the moladot 
> and discovered that occasionally the Old Moon could indeed be seen on 
> the morning of the day before the Molad of Tishrei. Such was the case 
> for the Molad of Tishrei 120 CE a time consistent with the life of 
> Rabban Gamliel.
> 
> On Sunday morning September 8 the Old Moon would have been visible until 
> daybreak. That night was the start of the Molad of Tishrei. The actual 
> Crescent New Moon would not be seen until Wed September 11 at 6:12 PM.

Therefore the witnesses must have come on Thursday, four days after the 
old moon had last been seen, according to your calculations.


> It should be obvious that Chazal was not at all concerned about
> being Mekudesh of the Moon at the correct time but rather at a
> consistent time for all Am Yisrael as it shows with its latter
> statement ?Atem, Atem, Atem?.
What does this even mean?  Whatever day they announced would by 
definition be consistent for the whole nation.  Nobody else was making 
any kind of calculations, so they didn't have to stay consistent with 
anybody else.


> Now in my opinion since the Mishnah was talking about an
> impossibility, that of seeing the old moon in the morning and the
> new moon that night, the circumstances of this case were the following:
> 
> Rabban Gamliel calculated the Molad and announced the Molad perhaps 
> on Shabbat Mevorkim. Now potential witnesses were primed to see the
> new moon shortly after sunset

First, there was no such thing as Shabbos Mevorchim.  Second, if he were 
for some strange reason to be using our system of *mean* moldos, as you 
suppose, then he would have (incorrectly) announced the molad for Sunday 
night (according to you), and therefore why would witnesses be waiting 
on *Wednesday* night?

> So potential witnesses went out on the evening that starts the day
> of the Molad seeking to receive the rewards stated in the gemora
> Rosh Hashanah and not surprisingly claimed to have seen the new moon.

Very surprisingly, according to you.  You say it was not visible until 
Wednesday, so how could they come Monday and claim to have seen it?


In fact your entire scenario makes no sense, because witnesses already 
knew which night to go out: the 30th night of the month.  That is the 
*only* night on which they could see a new moon and go report it the 
next morning.  The BD is not interested in viewings on earlier nights 
(which ideally shouldn't be possible) and if nobody shows up on the 30th 
day they automatically declare the next day to be rosh chodesh whether 
the moon is seen or not, so they have no interest in witnesses who show 
up the following day.  So anyone interested in being a witness knows to 
go out on the 30th evening and hope.




-- 
Zev Sero            A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all
z...@sero.name       Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper

> On Jul 3, 2018, at 6:58 PM, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:

> On 03/07/18 10:36, Richard Fiedler via Avodah wrote:
>> In the gemora of Rosh Hashanah at the end of Daf 24 begins a discussion:
...
>> I created a spreadsheet from the time of creation of all of the moladot
>> and discovered that occasionally the Old Moon could indeed be seen on the
>> morning of the day before the Molad of Tishrei. Such was the case for the
>> Molad of Tishrei 120 CE a time consistent with the life of Rabban Gamliel.
>> On Sunday morning September 8 the Old Moon would have been visible
>> until daybreak. That night was the start of the Molad of Tishrei. The
>> actual Crescent New Moon would not be seen until Wed September 11 at
>> 6:12 PM.

> Therefore the witnesses must have come on Thursday, four days after
> the old moon had last been seen, according to your calculations.

I am using an astronomy program called Sky View Caf plus some custom
charts made for me by Robert Harry van Gent, of the Mathematical Institute
of Utrecht.

The witnesses came per the announcement of the Molad on Sunday Night after
sunset and did not see anything but presumed that since this was the
the start of the 30th day after Rosh Chodesh Elul and since the gemora
states that from the time of Ezra Elul was always 29 days thought that
it was safe to pretend they saw the Crescent New Moon. In fact of course
nothing was visible.

>> It should be obvious that Chazal was not at all concerned about
>> being Mekudesh of the Moon at the correct time but rather at a
>> consistent time for all Am Yisrael as it shows with its latter
>> statement "Atem, Atem, Atem".

> What does this even mean? Whatever day they announced would by
> definition be consistent for the whole nation. Nobody else was making
> any kind of calculations, so they didn't have to stay consistent with
> anybody else.

Please open the gemora of Rosh Hashanah.  
'Atem' [you, plural] is written three times, to imply 'you' [may fix
the festivals] even if you err inadvertently; 'you' even if you err
deliberately; 'you' even if you are misled.

>> Now in my opinion since the Mishnah was talking about an
>> impossibility, that of seeing the old moon in the morning and the
>> new moon that night, the circumstances of this case were the following:
>> Rabban Gamliel calculated the Molad and announced the Molad perhaps
>> on Shabbat Mevorkim. Now potential witnesses were primed to see the
>> new moon shortly after sunset

> First, there was no such thing as Shabbos Mevorchim. Second, if he
> were for some strange reason to be using our system of mean moldos,
> as you suppose, then he would have (incorrectly) announced the molad
> for Sunday night (according to you), and therefore why would witnesses
> be waiting on Wednesday night?

Were you there? The gemora says Rabban Gamliel calculated the Molad, why if not to announce it.

>> So potential witnesses went out on the evening that starts the day
>> of the Molad seeking to receive the rewards stated in the gemora
>> Rosh Hashanah and not surprisingly claimed to have seen the new moon.

> Very surprisingly, according to you. You say it was not visible until
> Wednesday, so how could they come Monday and claim to have seen it?

That is the point. My spreadsheets cover the Molad from the Molad of
Tohu [Creation] until now. Ever Molad of Tishrei is approximately 70%
of the time two days before the moon can be seen, or 26% of the time one
day before the moon can be seen or 4% of the time three days before the
moon can be seen. When the discrepancy is three days the Old Moon can
be seen that morning.

> In fact your entire scenario makes no sense, because witnesses already
> knew which night to go out: the 30th night of the month. That is the
> only night on which they could see a new moon and go report it the
> next morning. The BD is not interested in viewings on earlier nights
> (which ideally shouldn't be possible) and if nobody shows up on the 30th
> day they automatically declare the next day to be rosh chodesh whether
> the moon is seen or not, so they have no interest in witnesses who show
> up the following day. So anyone interested in being a witness knows to
> go out on the 30th evening and hope.

That is the essential modes operandi of the way the Fixed Hebrew Calendar
is setup. Elul is always 29 days before Rosh Hashanah. Before the Dehiyyot
Rosh Hashanah was always the same as the Molad of Tishrei. After the
Dehiyyot were established, I believe by Saadia Gaon, The Molad of
Tishrei was deferred by one or two days. In fact the Dehiyyot Molad
Zaqen explicitly prevents the possibility of seeing the Old Moon in the
morning of Erev Rosh Hashanah.

On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 09:40:28AM +0300, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote:
: But here again there is a sub-mahloket on the calculation of the hours and
: halakim: according to the Rosh and the second opinion in the Tashbetz we
: use the same sha`ot zemaniot that we use for all other halachic times: 12
: equal hours from sunset to sunrise, and 12 differently equal hours from
: sunrise to sunset. According to the first opinion in the Tashbetz we use 24
: equal hours, starting from sunset, and this is followed by the Mahatzit
: Hashekela and the Eliyahu Zuta.

Also, days. From the winter solstice to the summer one (+/- a bit for
the analemma, the variation of noon due to the tilt in the earth's
access) days are increasing. Sunset is a little later than yesterday.
The 29 days of the molad would be longer than 29 x 24 hours by the
amount sheqi'ah got later.


On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 06:09:10PM +0300, David Cohen via Avodah wrote:
: Given that the molad doesn't correspond to any actual event, it seems
: unlikely that the point is to be able to look at one's watch and say
: "now."  The fixed-interval molad was only "invented" for the purpose of the
: calendar and only "exists" at all in that context, where a translation to
: local clock time is irrelevant.

Good point! We could continue applying the calendar algorithm without
knowing anything about what the words we're saying mean -- other than the
day.

Which would give impetus to positions that say we're using the solar
sunset, rather than 6pm or 6 standard hours after chatzos. Because that
would preserve the day the month starts on even when the molad is around
that time of day.

But what would motivate sharing that information just when it would be
in mind the moment of qiddush hachodesh? Between the baqashah and the
actual qiddush, no less? The point appears to be knowing or announcing
the current month's molad, not future dates', something integral to the
qiddush being done.


On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 05:36:30PM +0300, Richard Fiedler via Avodah wrote:
: Micha Berger and Dr. Irv Bromberg of University of Toronto are very
: concerned about the accuracy of the Moladot. They presume that Chazal
: created the Molad to supplant simple actual witnesses to improve the
: accuracy of determining the new month but that time has made it out
: of wack. This is because the length of the interval between successive
: moladot is 532 ms longer than the astronomically determined value. Which
: means 3 1/2 hours error since the time of Rabban Gamliel.

The molad was used, around 1500 years ago, to give us the algorithm for
computing the calendar. The fact that there is now a 3-1/2 hour error
or so since the Sanhedrin established the calendar doesn't change that
such is our calendar. The replacement of eidim happened back then,
so what we have is what we have -- months declared, if implicitly, by
Sanhedrin.

R' Gamliel has nothing to do with anything I said, since his Sanhedrin
was centuries earlier and was not meqadeish future chadashim by canonizing
a calendar.

What the 3-1/2 hour error does highlight is the need to reinstate the
Sanhedrin and replace the current calendar.

: I created a spreadsheet from the time of creation of all of the moladot
: and discovered that occasionally the Old Moon could indeed be seen on the
: morning of the day before the Molad of Tishrei. Such was the case for the
: Molad of Tishrei 120 CE a time consistent with the life of Rabban Gamliel.

I don't know how knowing an average time in the 5th century could tell you
when the moon could be seen even in the 5th century. The time between
lunations is chaotic.

Unless you know the actual time of the previous molad for real, not
based on adding averages, you don't know how the interval the eidim were
claiming the moon appeared in since the previous month. You cannot
recreate Rabban Gamliel's situation to know whether it was possible
or not.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Life is complex.
mi...@aishdas.org                Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org               The Torah is complex.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                                - R' Binyamin Hecht

On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 01:01:47AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
: Anecdotally, it seems to me I've seen an increase in "individualistic"
: practices across the orthodox spectrum [e.g., davening at one's own pace
: with less concern as to where the tzibbur is up to (shma, shmoneh esrai,
: chazarat hashatz...), being obvious about using a different nusach
: hatfila, wearing tfillin at mincha...] I'm curious as to whether
: others have seen this? If yes, any theories as to why? (e.g., outside
: world seeping in?)

Or even the fact that fewer shuls try to separate tefillin wearers and
non-wearers on ch"m into separate minyanim.

Or regularly-meeting minyanim in Israel where the nusach is left to the
sha"tz, rather than the minyan having an established nusach.

According to traditional attitudes, not having a single custom is
divisive.

In today's mindset, getting together despite different background and
minhagim and davening together emphasizes our underlying unity.

I do think this is an artifact of the West's strong valuation of autonomy.
And given that "live and let live" is a very different ethic than "kol
Yisrael areivim", that could be considered assimilationist.

But I think there are other factors as well.

Current hashkafos tend to be about *my* connection to G-d, or *my*
self-perfection, and therefore play down the role of "our" and "us".

Also, to talk of some interrelated issues: The lack of minhag hamaqom,
or even an expecation of having one, naturally leads to the loss of
valuing minhag. Or of communal unity.

Yeshivos are hotbeds of such textualism. And everyone heard their RY or
found in a seifer a beautiful reason to... for different practices.

You know the4 main reason why there is such a point to (eg) say "geshem"
or not to say "amein" after the first line of birkhas haTorah or after
"ha'avir sheinah" is because all those things are machloqesin. In each
case there are opinions lehefech -- "gashem", or treating those as
seperate berakhos. Which forces a discussion by the acharon of why he
picked the side he did, which has the person learning the seifer motivated
to follow that side, and so such opinions end up more vehemently followed
than things we agree on. And this fosters diversity.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             We are great, and our foibles are great,
mi...@aishdas.org        and therefore our troubles are great --
http://www.aishdas.org   but our consolations will also be great.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabbi AY Kook

On Sun, Jul 01, 2018 at 04:25:09PM -0400, H Lampel via Avodah wrote:
: 1. The Rambam ascribes this kind of contradiction to the Midrashim and
: Aggados (but not the halachic Talmud) as well. Would the Strausian
: school claim he thought the Aggados and Midrashim were "likewise"
: secretly promulgating heretical ideas?

The Rambam of Strauss doesn't see himself as a heretic. Rather, as the
continuation of existing tradition, if an esoteric one the masses can't
handle. So, why wouldn't he think that Chazal believed similarly to
he did and also hid their truth in contradition? Especially since they
(unlike the Yad or the Moreh) already contain metaphor and parable?

: (a) Any scriptural passage describing a physical being having a physical
: perception of or physical interaction with an angel must be understood as
: a vision of things in the spiritual world, and not the material world, and

Which is another (in addition to what RZL said in a segment I didn't quote)
difference between the Rambam and the Ramban, according to the Abarbanel.

The Rambam understands nev'uah as an experience of actual, if
metaphysical, things. Which the koach hadimyon then wraps in the familiar,
so they seem similar to the sights and sourds of physical things. And
thus mal'akhim seen in nevu'ah are really there, and can really save Lot.
And the Man in the Throne at the end of Mishpatim is a created entity,
because lo yir'ani adam vachai.

The Ramban understands nevu'ah as being a message from G-d. Which is why
he can't accept the Rambam's take that much of parashas Va'eira is nevu'ah;
it would mean that the mal'akhim didn't really come, Lot had no way to be
saved, the cities of the plain had no one destroying them, etc...

And, according to the Rambam, the mal'akh the donkey saw could really be
there. Although how the donkey could reach the level of knowledge the
Rambam would say would be necessary to experience a seikhel nivdal like
the mal'akh is beyond me. Leshitaso, was that the big neis?

: (b) the term "angel" sometimes refers to a natural force. And a support
: for the latter point can be found for those who subscribe to the Ramban's
: premise.

I think this is a distinction without a difference. An angel is an
intellect that imparts impetus to a physical object that then moves or
otherwise makes some potential, actual.

It is therefore both a thing of the spiritual world and a natural force.
Natural forces have their metaphysics, which are spiritual, and in
Aristo's metaphysics, intellects.


...
: Friedlander's inaccurate translation:
...
: Pines' translation is more accurate:

I do not know Medieval Judeo-Arabic well enough to compare the English
against the original and say which is more accurate.

What I am missing is what is material about the difference in translation.
How does Pines's or your version's better buttress your thesis?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
mi...@aishdas.org        you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org   happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Dale Carnegie

On 7/3/2018 2:31 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> The Rambam of Strauss doesn't see himself as a heretic. Rather, as the
> continuation of existing tradition, if an esoteric one the masses can't
> handle. So, why wouldn't he think that Chazal believed similarly to
> he did and also hid their truth in contradition? Especially since they
> (unlike the Yad or the Moreh) already contain metaphor and parable?

I have not really studied Strauss. But in almost every description of the
Strausian approach I've seen, the Rambam, to avoid persecution, secretly
believed in Aristotelian eternity, a belief the Rambam vociferously fought
against as heretical, one that would undermine the entire Torah. And
it portrays the Rambam's 7th kind of contradiction as his hint that he
would be thereby secretly conveying this hidden heretical actual belief.

> the mal'akh the donkey saw could really be
> there. Although how the donkey could reach the level of knowledge the
> Rambam would say would be necessary to experience a seikhel nivdal like
> the mal'akh is beyond me. Leshitaso, was that the big neis?

L'fi HaRambam, the entire episode was Bilaam's vision. He saw this
story, including the donkey's seeing the angel and speaking to Bilaam
[which was actually happening in the spiritual world, as you explain]
being played out, meant to teach him the lessons he was meant to learn.
This is how Abarbanel (on MN 2:42) explains the entire episode of the
angels visiting Avraham, Sarai being in the tent and preparing food, etc.

>: (b) the term "angel" sometimes refers to a natural force. And a support
>: for the latter point can be found for those who subscribe to the Ramban's
>: premise.

> I think this is a distinction without a difference. An angel is an
> intellect that imparts impetus to a physical object that then moves or
> otherwise makes some potential, actual.

> It is therefore both a thing of the spiritual world and a natural force.
> Natural forces have their metaphysics, which are spiritual, and in
> Aristo's metaphysics, intellects.

I agree. But it's enough of a chiddush that the Rambam makes a point
of it.

> [RZL wrote:]...
>: Friedlander's inaccurate translation:
> ...
>: Pines' translation is more accurate:

> I do not know Medieval Judeo-Arabic well enough to compare the English
> against the original and say which is more accurate.

> What I am missing is what is material about the difference in translation.
> How does Pines's or your version's better buttress your thesis?

As I wrote,
>     The Rambam is explicitly speaking of contradicting /premises/ used
>     to give evidence for a point, not contradicting /points/. ...

The Rambam is not saying that he will be secretly contradicting
himself about the point he is expressly making. Only that sometimes,
to support that point, he will use premises that contradict premises he
uses elsewhere.

> the concluding points being made are all true, and do not
> contradict (if not in cases where one of the other reasons for
> contradictions apply).

In their Hebrew translations, Ibn Tibbon, Shem Tob, Efodi, as well as KPCH
speak of contradicting hakdamos. Pines accordingly speaks of contradicting
premises. Friedlander, however, speaks of contradicting solutions: "on
one occasion the object which the author has in view may demand that
the metaphysical problem be ?treated as solved in one way, it may be
convenient on another occasion to treat it as solved in the opposite?way."

Zvi Lampel

On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 04:51:41PM -0400, H Lampel wrote:
: I have not really studied Strauss. But in almost every description of the
: Strausian approach I've seen, the Rambam, to avoid persecution, secretly
: believed in Aristotelian eternity, a belief the Rambam vociferously fought
: against as heretical, one that would undermine the entire Torah...

The way I understood estoricism is that Strauss believed the Rambam had
beliefs that the masses would consider heretical, and therefore he hid
them. Not that the Rambam himself thought he was being a heretic, or
that his position was inconsistent with Chazal's.

So, why couldn't he believe Chazal were hiding the same truths from
/their/ uneducated contemporaries?

:>    ... Although how the donkey could reach the level of knowledge the
:> Rambam would say would be necessary to experience a seikhel nivdal like
:> the mal'akh is beyond me. Leshitaso, was that the big neis?

: L'fi HaRambam, the entire episode was Bilaam's vision. He saw this
: story, including the donkey's seeing the angel and speaking to Bilaam
: [which was actually happening in the spiritual world, as you explain]
: being played out, meant to teach him the lessons he was meant to learn.
: This is how Abarbanel (on MN 2:42) explains the entire episode of the
: angels visiting Avraham, Sarai being in the tent and preparing food, etc.

Yes, that's who I cited.

But my problem stands. Bil'am saw a real event, and therefore he saw his
donkey having a real exchange with an angel. No problems with Bil'am's
witnessing the exchange, but I don't understand how the Rambam explains
that exchange itself.

However, the Rambam believes that nevu'ah comes from knowledge, and the
consequent connection to haSeikhel haPo'al / the Active Intellect. How
could the donkey have that exchange?

: As I wrote,
: >     The Rambam is explicitly speaking of contradicting /premises/ used
: >     to give evidence for a point, not contradicting /points/. ...
...
: In their Hebrew translations, Ibn Tibbon, Shem Tob, Efodi, as well as KPCH
: speak of contradicting hakdamos. Pines accordingly speaks of contradicting
: premises. Friedlander, however, speaks of contradicting solutions: "on
: one occasion the object which the author has in view may demand that
: the metaphysical problem be ?treated as solved in one way, it may be
: convenient on another occasion to treat it as solved in the opposite?way."

CC-ing RSM. Here's a link to the original.
http://www.teachittome.com/seforim2/seforim/moreh_nevuchim_arabic.pdf#page=22
(Page 22 of the pdf, page 11 of the book, the 7th reason starts on
line 7.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Life isn't about finding yourself.
mi...@aishdas.org        Life is about creating yourself.
http://www.aishdas.org            - George Bernard Shaw
Fax: (270) 514-1507


------------------------------



_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


------------------------------


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

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodahareivim-membership-agreement/


You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org


When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."

A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)