Avodah Mailing List

Volume 39: Number 51

Fri, 04 Jun 2021

• 1. Re: Rambam Prophesy (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Yelidei haAnak (Zev Sero)
• 3. Re: We Were Like Grasshoppers (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: Rambam Prophesy (Alexander Seinfeld)
• 5. Re: Yelidei haAnak (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: We Were Like Grasshoppers (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: We Were Like Grasshoppers (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: Rambam Prophesy (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Rambam Prophesy (Alexander Seinfeld)
• 10. Re: Rambam Prophesy (Zev Sero)

While on the subject of Rambam and nevu'ah, his position is unlike many
other rishonim in another way. At least, according to the Abarbanel on
Moreh 2:42. Since most people don't own a MN with Abarbanel (nor with
Abravanel), here's a HebrewBooks.org link to the first page of the coverage
https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=30672&;st=&pgnum=79 .

The Abarbanel answers the Ramban's question on the Rambam on parashas
Vayeira (roughly): How can the Rambam say that Avraham saw the malakhim
in a prophetic vision, if the malakhim then go on to do some very real-world
things, like save Lot?

According to the Rambam, things seen in prophecy really occur. They are
visions of events happening in higher planes of reality. The prophet's
mind and pen may make sense of the vision by interpreting its contents
as things familiar from normal sensory experience, but the event seen
is both non-physical and real. This is consistent with the Rambam's
position on the vision of Hashem in a Throne in Mishpatim. Nevu'ah means
experiencing something real, even if your perception mechanisms are then
forced to clothe it in the familiar. And since G-d does not have a body in
any plane of existence, not even a metaphysical "body", their vision had
to be of kevod Hashem, something created.

The Ramban, on the other hand, understands prophecy to be the relaying of
a message by the medium of a metaphor. The message relays a truth, but
the vision is not of something real, it is a kind of communication. He,
therefore, is not bothered by the idea that the metaphor they were given
the message in was an anthropomorphic one, that of Hashem sitting on
a throne. But, he couldn't understand how symbols of a message could save
Lot.

Derashos haRan, who many cite for his similarlities to the Rambam on
the difference between nevu'ah and Moshe's nevu'ah, actually is on
the Ramban's side on this. (The Ramban lived in Girona 50 years before
the Ran. The Ran ends up in Barcelona, but in general draws from the
shalsheles of the Ramban, Rashba and Ritva a lot.)


Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 It's nice to be smart,
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   but it's smarter to be nice.
Author: Widen Your Tent                      - R' Lazer Brody
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF

On 31/5/21 7:18 pm, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> But I would have made the whole word bold. Unqelus took the giants and
> turned them into heros (giborim)!

"Gibor" means "hero" only in Ivrit, not in LHK.  "Giboraya" is Unkelus's 
translation of "Nefilim".   Where he uses it for "Anak" he's not being 
completely literal, because Anak was one specific Nefil/Gibor.  When it 
comes to "benei Anak min hanefilim" he translates it "benei Anak min 
Giboraya"; does Davis bold that one too?

-- 
Zev Sero            Wishing everyone a healthy summer
z...@sero.name

On 31/5/21 7:31 pm, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> Question about "vannehi ve'eineinu kachagavim"... Israel, in particular
> the Negev, can get locust swarms that devour everything in sight. In
> particular, the four kosher breeds of chagavim. (Did Hashem permit them
> so that they may be eaten during food shortages even when not piquach
> nefesh?)
> 
> So, how does "we looked like locusts" an apt turn of phrase for
> defeatests?

Because 12 locusts is hardly a swarm.  12 locusts against one giant is 
hardly a contest.

-- 
Zev Sero            Wishing everyone a healthy summer
z...@sero.name

On 5/31/21, 8:30 PM, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>  wrote:
>>The problem with this Rambam is that not only does God talk to Avimelech
>>in the dream, they conduct an entire conversation...

>Because he defines nevuah as a connection with Hashem, not as simply
>receiving a message from Hashem.  Anyone can receive a message; Hashem
>doesn't need Western Union to send them.  But that's not nevuah.

>"When the Spirit rests on him, his soul is mixed up with the level of
>the angels known as 'Ishim', and he turns into another person, and he
>understands with his mind that he is not as he was, but has been raised
>above the level of other wise men, as it is said in Shaul's case, 'you
>will prophesy and will become another person'."

>That doesn't happen when you receive a message.  A message is just
>information.  Lavan and Avimelech remained the same as they were before,
>they just knew something they hadn't known before.

Sounds like we are agreeing that Rambam deals with Laban and Avimelech's
nevuah semantically. For conceptually, the exclusion of them is not at all
obvious, for 2 reasons:

1. Most people would call a direct communication with God "nevuah".

2. And in the case of Avimelech, it's more than information, it's a
conversation. And indeed, it changes him (and Lavan) - it causes him to
change his behavior.

On Tue, Jun 01, 2021 at 01:38:25AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
> On 31/5/21 7:18 pm, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
>> But I would have made the whole word bold. Unqelus took the giants and
>> turned them into heros (giborim)!

> "Gibor" means "hero" only in Ivrit, not in LHK.  "Giboraya" is Unkelus's
> translation of "Nefilim"...

Yes, but gevurah is gevurah. Not a mention of height nor of any angelic
origins. There is no reason to assume that a rationalist like Unqelus
thought the Nefilim were anything but a class of / specific group
of Giborim.

>                                                                 When it
> comes to "benei Anak min hanefilim" he translates it "benei Anak min
> Giboraya"; does Davis bold that one too?

He bolds the whole "gibaraya", not just the "-ya" he does here. It seems
RAD believes that "gibara" would have been a literal translation of
"Anaq" and therefore pluralizing it is not literal; but using "gibaraya"
for "nefilim" isn't even a literal use of the root.

In Bereishis 6:4, "gibaraya" is used for "hanefilim" as well as
for "hagiborim" that the Benei haElohim fathered with Benos haAdam.
The Benei haElohim are rendered "Benei Ravrevaya", so it seems he --
kedarko -- doesn't go anywhere near calling them children of G-d.
More like "sons of the leaders".

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 You will never "find" time for anything.
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   If you want time, you must make it.
Author: Widen Your Tent                        - Charles Buxton
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF

On Tue, Jun 01, 2021 at 01:40:55AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
>> So, how does "we looked like locusts" an apt turn of phrase for
>> defeatests?

> Because 12 locusts is hardly a swarm.  12 locusts against one giant is
> hardly a contest.

And people are hardly locusts. So why insist on 12?

I am just noting that "and we were like ants" wouldn't have that
ambiguity inherent in naming an insect that actually can harm a giant --
by starvation. So, why chagavim?

For that matter, the devastating (and kosher) chagavim are desert locusts,
and come in from Egypt -- the same direction the meraglim were.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Every second is a totally new world,
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   and no moment is like any other.
Author: Widen Your Tent              - Rabbi Chaim Vital
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF

On 1/6/21 11:22 am, Micha Berger wrote:
>> Because 12 locusts is hardly a swarm.  12 locusts against one giant is
>> hardly a contest.

> And people are hardly locusts. So why insist on 12?

They're saying how they felt, and how the locals perceived them (which 
they [claim to] know because they [claim to have] overheard them saying 
so).

> I am just noting that "and we were like ants" wouldn't have that
> ambiguity

1. Ants can also swarm.  Soldier ants.
2. Are ants even mentioned in the chumash?  We know Mishlei had ants on 
his mind, and had a word for them, but were they a thing in ancient 
Egypt?  Not did they physically exist, but were they significant enough 
to be part of the culture?  Were Bnai Yisrael of the midbar so familiar 
with them that they would have come to mind as readily as grasshoppers 
or beetles?

-- 
Zev Sero            Wishing everyone a healthy summer
z...@sero.name

On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 10:05:39PM -0400, Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah wrote:
>> Because he defines nevuah as a connection with Hashem, not as simply
>> receiving a message from Hashem.  Anyone can receive a message; Hashem
>> doesn't need Western Union to send them.  But that's not nevuah.
...
> Sounds like we are agreeing that Rambam deals with Laban and Avimelech's
> nevuah semantically. For conceptually, the exclusion of them is not at all
> obvious, for 2 reasons:

> 1. Most people would call a direct communication with God "nevuah".

But if the Abarbanel is correct (see my earlier email in this dicussion),
the Rambam doesn't understand nevu'ah to be communication with G-d at all,
not via Western Union, not even via a connection with Him.

Nevu'ah is an awareness of metaphysical entities higher up the chain and
how they are interacting. Yesoday haTorah 7:1 describes it as "lehavin
be'osan hatzuros haqedoshos vehatehoros". And 7:6 ends by telling us
how Moshe was unique because "veniqsherah da'ato le*Tzur* haOlamim".

Which is an awareness of new information, but learning by observation,
not by being taught or told about it.

> 2. And in the case of Avimelech, it's more than information, it's a
> conversation.

But we would have to show the Rambam's understanding of nevu'ah involves
a concept of conversation altogether.


If you aren't going to take the Rambam as the Abarbanel explains him,
you need another answer to the Ramban's question: How does Avraham "see"
bederekh nevu'ah the same mal'akhim who do things in the real world in the
rest of parashas Vayeira? Did the mal'akhim not destroy the 5 cities? Did
they not visit Lot? Did Lot prophetically "see" them as symbols in a
message communicated from G-d, or were they actually there to save him?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 What you get by achieving your goals
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   is not as important as
Author: Widen Your Tent      what you become by achieving your goals.
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF            - Henry David Thoreau

On 5/31/21, 8:30 PM, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>  wrote:
>>The problem with this Rambam is that not only does God talk to Avimelech
>>in the dream, they conduct an entire conversation...

>Because he defines nevuah as a connection with Hashem, not as simply
>receiving a message from Hashem.  Anyone can receive a message; Hashem
>doesn't need Western Union to send them.  But that's not nevuah.

>"When the Spirit rests on him, his soul is mixed up with the level of
>the angels known as 'Ishim', and he turns into another person, and he
>understands with his mind that he is not as he was, but has been raised
>above the level of other wise men, as it is said in Shaul's case, 'you
>will prophesy and will become another person'."

>That doesn't happen when you receive a message.  A message is just
>information.  Lavan and Avimelech remained the same as they were before,
>they just knew something they hadn't known before.

Sounds like we are agreeing that Rambam deals with Laban and Avimelech's
nevuah semantically. For conceptually, the exclusion of them is not at all
obvious, for 2 reasons:

1. Most people would call a direct communication with God "nevuah".

2. And in the case of Avimelech, it's more than information, it's a
conversation. And indeed, it changes him (and Lavan) - it causes him to
change his behavior.

On 31/5/21 10:05 pm, Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah wrote:
> 1. Most people would call a direct communication with God "nevuah".

The Ramban explicitly disagrees.

> 
> 2. And in the case of Avimelech, it's more than information, it's a
> conversation. And indeed, it changes him (and Lavan) - it causes him to
> change his behavior.

It changes his *behavior*; it doesn't change *him*, which the Rambam 
says is the definition of nevuah.


On 1/6/21 12:36 pm, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:

 > Nevu'ah is an awareness of metaphysical entities higher up the chain
 > and how they are interacting. Yesoday haTorah 7:1 describes it as
 > "lehavin be'osan hatzuros haqedoshos vehatehoros".

No, that's not what nevuah is.  That's the *preparation* for nevuah. 
Once one has that understanding he is ready for nevuah, if Hashem 
chooses to grant it to him.  Nevuah itself is his soul mingling with the 
level of angels known as "ishim", and becoming a different person. 
Moshe's mind became attached to Hashem directly, not to the "ishim".




-- 
Zev Sero            Wishing everyone a healthy summer
z...@sero.name


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



_______________________________________________
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.)