Avodah Mailing List

Volume 35: Number 145

Tue, 26 Dec 2017

• 1. Re: Historicity of Aggadta (H Lampel)
• 2. Re: Historicity of Aggadta (Micha Berger)
• 3. Please help me fund my book! (Micha Berger)
• 4. Diberah Torah Kil-shon bnei adam (H Lampel)
• 5. Re: The Protection Offered by a Mezuza (Rich, Joel)
• 6. Re: Historicity of Aggadta (Lisa Liel)
• 7. Re: Historicity of Aggadta (H Lampel)
• 8. Rashi on kol hanefesh (Bereshis 46:26) (Sholom Simon)
• 9. Re: The Protection Offered by a Mezuza (Lisa Liel)
• 10. Re: Historicity of Aggadta (H Lampel)

On 12/25/2017 3:34 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> And so, I agree with:
> : So, the Rambam does not maintain that the literal meaning of  /all/
> : drashos is to be rejected. Some are indeed meant literally, and some are
> : not.
>
> And yet still won't bother worrying about contradicting any medrash's
> historical claims.
I already stated that the Rambam holds the intent of? a medrash is not 
literal if he holds it contradicts realia, logic, fundamentals or 
pesukim. And I should add, if it contradicts what he considers the 
consensus of Chazal. And in past iterations I submitted examples where 
the Rambam cites midrashic reports of history apparently qua history. 
You may insist that he (contra the Kuzari regarding Adam and the 
patricarchs speaking Hebrew) doesn't care about whether they are 
historically factual. But if you have examples of the Rambam not 
bothering to worry about contradicting a medrash's historical reports 
despite the above caveats, please provide them.

Zvi Lampel

On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 06:53:28PM -0500, H Lampel wrote:
:> And yet still won't bother worrying about contradicting any medrash's
:> historical claims.

: I already stated that the Rambam holds the intent of? a medrash is
: not literal if he holds it contradicts realia, logic, fundamentals
: or pesukim...

Yes, but you know I disagree. The Rambam says that the intent of a
medrash is not literal. They might also be literal. A mashal or melitzah
-- as he discusses from Mishlei at length -- can be pulled from history
or stam crafted as a story, but in either case "mimah shenimtza bikhlal
divreihem morim al inyanim amitiyim me'od."

However, if the story does contradict what is known, we know it's a pure
mashal, ahistorical. And therefore don't become like someone of the first
two katim, believing stupidity or ridiculing chazal for their allegedly
teaching stupidity.

But he doesn't ever say that if the story is plausible, that's the point
of the story. Nor that it's sufficient reason to assume it's true on a
literal level.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
mi...@aishdas.org        exactly the right measure of himself,  and
http://www.aishdas.org   holds a just balance between what he can
Fax: (270) 514-1507      acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham

My manuscript just went to the publishers. For the second time; I
retracted my first version because I didn't like the idea that the book
was all theory without any pragmatics. What's the value of exploring the
meaning of Torah and life based on haRav Shimon haKohein Shkop without
anything about how to align one's life with those ideals?

If you want some sense of what the book is about, the text that it's a
commentary / elaboration on is available at
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/ShaareiYosher.pdf -- although I have made
some improvements to the readability of that translation since that PDF.

If you would like to help me make this dream happen, whether because
you were always looking for a way to thank me for these email lists,
you like me or some of the things you've seen me write in the past,
you like Rav Shimon's hashkafah, or simply think *any* sefer that gets
more Orthodox Jews thinking about the big picture and why are we doing
it all is worth existing, please let me know.

Initial reactions are excited:

"This may IY'H attract some serious attention -- books like this don't
come out every day."

"Very chashuv, unique sefer."

"Wow. what an impressive work!"

"Right up our alley, as well. Torah, important -- but kind of unique. For
thinking people."

"I think the subject, approach and writing are gevaldik."

"I am excited as well, but they tell me the hardest part of the job
still lays ahead."

The sefarim market cannot consume books to the extent where publication
will make a profit. So, at least when it comes to the business and funding
models, all the houses expect fundraising and sponsorship to make a book
happen. But it is not "vanity press". The publisher adds significant value to
the book -- fact checking, editing, layout and other aesthetics, etc. The
publisher I am going with uses Feldheim as their distribution channel,
so my sefer could reach every Anglo sefarim store. And they have to pay
the people who do all that, not to mention feed their own families. They
put their name on the book, the book is their product. They need that
good name for future marketing and distribution. So, they won't take on
a book that would harm their business. They're willing to invest those
man-hours, and when done, to stand behind my work.

So, I have to rely heavily on word-of-mouth to raise that money. Including
hitting up everyone here on Areivim/Avodah.

I am using a foundation established in memory of my grandparents to
clear the money in a manner that is tax-deductible.

Email me <mi...@aishdas.org> for details if you are interested in
chipping in.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             For those with faith there are no questions.
mi...@aishdas.org        For those who lack faith there are no answers.
http://www.aishdas.org                     - Rav Yaakov of Radzimin
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Under the heading, Re: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew?,

Tue, 19 Dec 2017 From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
>   Mandel, Seth via Avodah wrote:
> : There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. Chazal say that dibb'ra Torah
> : bilshon b'nei odom...
>
> RMB: Well.... R' Yishmael says it [the dictum ''dibb'ra Torah
> bilshon b'nei odom.''] And it appears to be an argument for his
> rules of derashah, which do not include looking for magic words like
> "akh" (mi'ut), "raq" (mi'ut), "kol" (ribui) or even "es", but darshens
> the meaning of terms, whether ribui or mi'ut....And besides, R' Aqiva disagrees!
RSRH (Collected Writings Vol. V, p. 170), citing 30 cases,? points out 
that, ''R. Ishmael, no less than R. Akiba (and......all of R. Akiva's 
predecessors...)...considered particles [including of ''akh,'' ''raq'' 
and ''ess'] and superfluities ..in the Biblical text...subject to 
interpretations.''

He explains (p. 177) that ''R. Ishmael disagrees with R. Akiba only with 
regard to one very specific form of redundancy, namely, repetitions of 
the same expression; e.g.,...yidor nedder,...hasheiv heishiv, or the 
repetition of the same noun (ish ish). However, R. Ishmael interprets 
other redundancies in exactly the same manner as does R. Akiba.''

This leads me to propose an explanation for the phenomenon described by 
RMB as that...
> The Rambam really sloganeers (like the CS's "chadash assur min haTorah")
> when he uses it to explain that anthropomorphic descriptions of HQBH
> are idioms, not to be taken overly literally.
Rambam was not the first (and of course not the last*) to understand 
that Chazal intended by ''dibrah Torah kil-shon bnei adam'' a wider 
meaning than the one in dispute between R. Akiva and R.Yishmael, and 
even wider than the one RSRH shows both agreed to.

    Rav Hai Gaon (Teshuvas HaGaonim #98), too, used it to explain
    anthropomorphisms ("all the words of our Sages that have
    anthropomorphic descriptions ... are not to be understood literally
    but are metaphors or allegory. ... the Torah speaks in the language of
    man.)''

    So did Chovos Halevavos (Shaar HaYichud 1:1:10).

    And Sefer HaKuzari (5:27) used it to explain? what the Torah means
    when it says that blowing the chatzotzros will result in ''v-hayu
    lachem l-zikaron lifnei H','' which seems to imply that H' requires
    reminders.

    Raavad (Sefer HaEmunah 1:7) applied the dictum to explain why the
    rewards and punishments the Torah' explicitly references are only
    those in this world, and not the next.? He explained that speaking
    of spiritual rewards would confuse the common people, ''v'al zeh
    ne'emar dibrah Torah b-lashon bnei adam.'' (Semi-off topic: In
    Maamar Techiyyas HaMeisim, Rambam gives a similar, if not identical
    reason for no explicit reference to techiyyas hameisim, without
    invoking the dictum.)


So I propose that the Geonim and rishonim understood that the intent of 
Chazal's dictum? ''dibrah Torah kil-ashon bnei adam'' was a wide one, 
which includes the Torah's use of anthropomorphism. And that R. 
Yishmael, contra R. Akiva,? /extended/? it even to repetitions of the 
same expression; e.g.,...yidor nedder,...hasheiv heishiv, or the 
repetition of the same noun (ish ish). But nobody, including R. 
Yishmael, extended it even further, to other apparently extra words or 
particles such as"akh", "raq", "kol" and "ess". Those are meant for 
interpretation according to all.

This would explain why even though the rule is that we follow R. Akiva 
when he argues with R. Yishmael, , the rishonim embraced the dictum of 
"dibrah Torah kil-shon bnei adam." Because they embraced it in the sense 
that all Chazal agreed to. And this applies to anthropomorphisms. It is 
only regarding whether to extended the dictum's application to certain 
types of expressions that R. Yishmael and R. Akiva argue.

*Ibn Ezra--numerous times, such as on Breishis 6:6)
Radak (numerous times, such as on Breishis 9:15
Ramban (Breishis 6:6)
Hizkuni (Devarim 5:26)
Rabbeynu Bechaye (numerous times, such as on Breishis 1:26)
Ralbag (Shoftim 10:16)
Akeidas Yitzchak numerous times, such as on Vayeria Shaar 19 sv Va'ani ain)

Zvi Lampel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20171225/a7c7ced2/attachment-0001.html>

> 
> You want to statistically decide which hashkafah is true???
> ------------
> 
> 
> You remind me of a problem I have saying a particular line of Tehillim
> (37:25) with kavanah, and it comes up at the appendix to bentching,
> "Naar hayisi..." But I have seen a tzadiq whose kids miss meals and have
> to beg. Haven't you?
> --------------
It also bothered the gedolim who struggled to explain why the simple meaning of the segula of being a sandek didn't seem to be statistically fulfilled 
Kt
Joel rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

On 12/26/2017 3:21 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> However, if the story does contradict what is known, we know it's a pure
> mashal, ahistorical.

I'd like to revise that to say that if the story contradicts what is 
*currently* known, we are entitled (or perhaps required) to consider it 
a pure mashal *at that time*, with the understanding that our knowledge 
may change.

Lisa


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 12/25/2017 8:21 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> ...But he doesn't ever say that if the story is plausible, that's the point
> of the story. Nor that it's sufficient reason to assume it's true on a
> literal level.
The historical mentions the Rambam's makes, treating the plausible 
Midrashim as history without making any qualifications, indicates otherwise.

But specifically on the topic this discussion came from now: Regarding 
the Midrashic reports that Adam and the Avos spoke Ivris/Lashon 
Hakadosh, which I assume you agree the Kuzari accepts as historical fact 
(which of course teaches in its historicity an important thing to 
know)... Is your default position that the Rambam doesn't care whether 
it's historically so?

Zvi Lampel

Kol hanefesh . . . shvi'im.  Rashi says "I found in Vayikra Rabba" . 
. . a statement that Eisav had (with him) six, and the word nafashos 
(plural) was used; but here with Yaakov, kol hanafesh . . . shevi'im, 
nefesh is in the singular.  This is a hint that Eisav engaged in A"Z 
(plural gods), while Yaakov served one G-d.

But don't we (almost?) always see (in Torah) the singular being used 
for a noun when the count is larger than 10?  How can one darshen 
from something that follows the general grammatic rule?

What am I missing here?

-- Sholom

On 12/25/2017 10:30 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> You remind me of a problem I have saying a particular line of Tehillim
> (37:25) with kavanah, and it comes up at the appendix to bentching,
> "Naar hayisi..." But I have seen a tzadiq whose kids miss meals and have
> to beg. Haven't you?
I always understood it to mean that either he's quick to give tzedaka so 
as to prevent there being a tzaddik neezav v'zar'o mevakesh lachem, or 
that we aren't talking about literal aziva and lack of food, but rather 
aziva by Hashem and lack of Torah.

Lisa


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 12/25/2017 11:41 PM, H Lampel wrote:
>
>
> On 12/25/2017 8:21 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>> ...But he doesn't ever say that if the story is plausible, that's the 
>> point
>> of the story. Nor that it's sufficient reason to assume it's true on a
>> literal level.
The first statement is of course true. The reason a story is told is to 
make a point. Thus the citations where the Rambam says that all the 
maamerei Chazal impart valuable lessons.

The second statement is where we diverge. I understand that the Rambam 
does take the plausible reports of happenings (reported of course 
because they impart something worthy to know) to be historically true. 
In other words, that's the default position. He never says that we may 
deny the historic factuality of events Chazal presented as factual 
historical events. I understand the citations you bring where Rambam 
invokes Mishlei to defend interpreting maamarei Chazal non-literally to? 
be saying that even the implausible ones really have valuable lessons 
but must be interpreted non-literally to understand them.

So I would still ask you for examples of the Rambam not bothering to 
worry about contradicting a medrash's plausible historical reports.

I previously remarked that the historical mentions the Rambam's makes, 
treating the plausible Midrashim as history without making any 
qualifications, without explaining why he takes them as historical fact 
(for example, the neis of the pach shemen, and the military victory of 
the Chashmonaim), indicates he took them as historical fact, which 
thereby provides the lessons to be learned therefrom.

I quoted a passage from Rambam's Hakdama to Perek Cheilek (originally to 
counteract the face-value meaning of RSM's declaration that the Rambam 
holds that every Medrash is meant non-literally), where the Rambam makes 
clear that some reports are meant non-literally, but some are meant 
literally.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that your take can be worded as 
follows:

Chazal and Rambam did not care whether the historical events they 
learned lessons from, really occurred. All Chazal's statements are only 
for the sake of the lessons. Some of the lessons must be extracted by 
understanding the statements in a non-literal way, particularly if at 
face value they are implausible. Of the plausible reports, the lessons 
to be learned from them can be gleaned from a literal understanding, 
meaning the message is clear without needing to give unusual meanings to 
its the words. But that does not mean that they were meant to be 
historically factual. They are meant literally, but not historically.

I.e., the Rambam held that although lessons Chazal intended were 
ostensibly learned from, or reinforced by, events they reported, it is 
irrelevant whether the events did actually occur, and indeed they may 
not have.

But I think his words indicate otherwise. Here they are again:

     ??? And I will yet compose a work in which I will gather all the
     ??? drashos found in the Talmud and elsewhere...and I will reveal what
     ??? of the drashos are [meant in] a literal way, and which of them are
     ??? [meant as] mashal, and which of them were [describing something
    seen
     ??? only] in a dream but was stated in a purely absolute way, as if it
     ??? were [experienced] in a state of wakefulness...

If the Rambam considered it irrelevant whether the events did actually 
occur, and held that indeed they may not have occurred, why is he 
concerned with whether the report occurred in a dream? Why would he 
invoke a dream, if he considered the actuality of all reported events 
irrelevant? After all, its only the lesson that is relevant!

But if you accept that the Rambam considered the default position to be 
that reported events are meant to be understood as actually occurring, 
and that while some are merely mashal but others are real, then it makes 
sense that he felt it important to exclude implausible reports and 
explain which were pure mashal and which were experienced in a dream.

And describing the report as "stated in a purely absolute way, as if it 
were [experienced] in a state of wakefulness," implies that, had it not 
been implausible, being stated in an absolute way would imply that it 
was indeed experienced in a state of wakefulness.

Zvi Lampel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20171226/7fa4696b/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ???? ???? ????? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ??????? ?????? ??????.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 215599 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20171226/7fa4696b/attachment.pdf>

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



_______________________________________________
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.)