Avodah Mailing List

Volume 36: Number 130

Thu, 22 Nov 2018

• 1. Re: Bereishit (Micha Berger)
• 2. Yaakov and Esav (Professor L. Levine)
• 3. Thanksgiving: Harmless Holiday or Chukos HaGoyim? (Professor L. Levine)
• 4. Reward? (Rich, Joel)
• 5. Re: Bereishit (Zvi Lampel)

On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 08:07:16PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote:
:> While the Rambam treats nature as a hypostatis,
...
:> the Ramban famously says there is no "it" to nature.

: Famously, but phantomly. Ramban (see, for example, on Shmos 25:24) no less
: than Rambam, holds that olom kiminhago noheig. Ramban repeats a number of
: times that each "Va-yehi  khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that
: minhag permanent.

Actually, it's real, but I think you misunderstood what I meant. (As I
said in the previous email.)

Relevant is this excerpt from a recent shiur from Gush's Vitual Beis
Medrash. Rav Bednarsh gives 2 chiluqim that are orthogonal to the one I
mentioned (whether there is an "it" behind teva, or if nature is "merely"
a pattern of Divine Action):

1- According to the Rambam, hashgachah is Divine Assistance; according
to the Ramban it includes oneshim.

2- According to the Rambam, there is a mechanism that causes the
relationship between the person's da'as and their recieving HP or not.
The Rambam describes it more directly as Divine Response.

About fn #4... I spoke to RDBerger about his paper. I can ask a parallel
question on RAB's article to introduce the same answer, so I will do so
here. RAB writes (below):

> It was often understood that the Ramban stands in fierce opposition to
> the stance of the Rambam. In two places (commentary on Shemot 13:16 and
> his Torat Hashem Temima sermon), the Ramban writes that a believing
> Jew must believe that everything that happens is a miracle. The only
> rule of causation is that if we do mitzvot, we can expect a reward,
> and if we transgress the Torah we can expect to be punished by God. The
> Ramban makes it sound like there is no natural order, but rather only
> the principle of hashgacha pratit.

> Some understand the Ramban's view solely based on what he says in these
> two places. However, the general approach of the Ramban is much more
> nuanced.

> In his commentary on the tokhecha (Vayikra 26:11), the Torah's promise
> of rewards and punishments, the Ramban encourages us to turn to God
> and not to doctors for healing....
...
>         For example, the Ramban writes (commentary on Bereishit 18:19)
> that God exercises constant Divine Providence on Avraham because he is on
> a very high spiritual level.[3] But the rest of us are left to chance,
> to the natural order, until the time comes when God visits reward or
> punishment upon us. Ramban similarly explains (Bereishit 32:4) that in
> the encounter between Esav and Yaakov, God exercised Divine Providence
> and saved Yaakov because of his righteousness...

> In his commentary on Iyov (36:7), the Ramban writes explicitly that
> his understanding of Divine Providence is that of the Rambam in Moreh
> Nevukhim. He directly quotes the language of the Rambam cited above and
> tells us that God exercises His Providence on the righteous, but not fully
> on the average person, and certainly not on the wicked. Therefore, the
> Ramban tells us, the Torah expects us to live via the natural order...

Okay, so it's much more nuanced, but then what does he mean in the two
places we started with?

What I pointed out, that the Ramban is denying teva as an it -- that
even teva is through the same direct Influence as neis -- adds the same
nuance without ignoring those two more famous comments of the Ramban.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

Yeshivat Har Etzion
PHILOSOPHY > Topics in Hashkafa >
Shiur #06: Divine Providence and the Natural Order 1
Rav Assaf Bednarsh
Adapted by Leora Bednarsh

Should one attempt to provide for one's needs in this world by working
through the natural order, or should one do so by keeping mitzvot and
trusting in God to provide? Are the events of this world caused by direct
Divine Providence or by the natural scientific order? This question
has tremendous practical significance and is the subject of much debate
in the contemporary Jewish community. This topic is often portrayed as
"hishtadlut (effort) vs. bitachon (trust)."
...

The Position of the Rambam

No Jewish philosopher can entirely deny the doctrine of hashgacha
pratit. There are many examples in Tanakh that very clearly indicate
that God miraculously takes care of the righteous in this world in
accordance with His Divine plan.[1] However, almost all the cases in
Tanakh deal with exceptionally righteous and spiritual individuals.
That may be because most of Tanakh deals with these great individuals;
these are the people we need to learn about in order to learn to be
good Jews. The Rambam, however, maintains that this is not coincidence.
It is not simply that these happen to be the main characters in Tanakh.

According to the Rambam (Moreh Nevukhim III:18), hashgacha pratit is
not something that God automatically utilizes in running the world. God
relates to us when we relate to Him. When we open the channel, God's
bounty flows through that channel. If we don't bother to create those
lines of communication, then He does not communicate with us either.
Those who have achieved philosophical sophistication, who have studied
what the Rambam understands to be the Jewish mystical philosophical
tradition and focus their thoughts on God, enjoy the benefits of Divine
Providence.

According to the Rambam, not all people enjoy equal Divine Providence.
Those who are pious and good and religious enjoy more Divine Providence
because of their understanding of God, which fuels their piety and
goodness. Those who are prophets enjoy a higher level because of their
deep understanding of God. Those who are on a very rarified level of
philosophical spiritual achievement can be assured that God looks out for
them in this world. The wicked and the religiously ignorant, however,
have no such promise of Divine Providence. Even regular people who may
be reasonably religious and try to think about God quite often still
have not achieved that level of understanding at which they can assume
that they are beneficiaries of constant direct Divine Providence.

For the Rambam, then, most people do not enjoy the benefit of direct
Divine Providence all the time. Accordingly, it makes perfect sense that
we are expected to work through the natural order. The natural order
is the default. When we change the rules by achieving philosophical
knowledge of God, our lives begin to be run by the principles of Divine
Providence. But much of the time the world is run by the natural order
and God does not involve Himself. Thus, we should be expected to provide
for ourselves and to achieve whatever goals we feel the need to achieve
by means of the natural order. The natural order is the one thing that is
guaranteed. God created the world and created the scientific order as the
way in which the world will run until God decides to get involved because
someone let Him in to his life.[2] And even then, God is only involved
partially, to the extent that someone partially perfects themselves and
meditates upon God.

Of course, this does not mean that God has no part in our lives when
we do not enjoy Providence. There is still hashgacha klalit, general
Providence. God still arranges the world generally in such a way
that our needs are provided for. We say blessings, thanking God, for
example, for creating fruits of the tree, but not because He created
this particular fruit for me to eat today, rather because He created
a wonderful world that provides for much of our needs. It is our job
to appreciate that. But when I stub my toe or win the lottery, is that
God's direct intervention? According to the Rambam, most of the time it
is not. Rather, it is the natural order.

The Position of the Ramban

It was often understood that the Ramban stands in fierce opposition to
the stance of the Rambam. In two places (commentary on Shemot 13:16 and
his Torat Hashem Temima sermon), the Ramban writes that a believing
Jew must believe that everything that happens is a miracle. The only
rule of causation is that if we do mitzvot, we can expect a reward,
and if we transgress the Torah we can expect to be punished by God. The
Ramban makes it sound like there is no natural order, but rather only
the principle of hashgacha pratit.

Some understand the Ramban's view solely based on what he says in these
two places. However, the general approach of the Ramban is much more
nuanced.

In his commentary on the tokhecha (Vayikra 26:11), the Torah's promise
of rewards and punishments, the Ramban encourages us to turn to God
and not to doctors for healing. He states that when the masses of the
Jews are perfect, their lives will not be run by the natural order, but
rather directly by God; He will be their doctor. According to Ramban,
that is what the righteous did in the days of Tanakh, during the era
of prophecy. Anyone with access to prophecy does not need a doctor,
and in case of illness should turn instead to a prophet, who will tell
him which of his actions needs to be improved; he will then repent and
repair those actions so that God will heal his disease. "What business do
doctors have in the house of someone who fulfills the will of God?" asks
the Ramban. Although the Rabbis interpreted the verse "ve-rapo yerapeh"
(Shemot 21:19) as evidence that the doctor has permission to heal, the
Ramban restricts the significance of this inference. If someone asks for
help, the doctor should heal the patient - but Chazal never said that the
patient should seek medical care, only that the doctor should provide
it. The patient should ideally put all his trust in God and not in the
natural order. However, if the patient has already put his trust in the
natural order, the doctor has no choice but to heal him, because that is
the only option left. When someone puts his faith in the natural order,
his live is unfortunately run by the natural order. But when someone
puts his faith in God, his life is controlled by direct Divine Providence.

Similarities Between the Ramban and the Rambam

The Ramban here seems to take an anti-Maimonidean stance, focusing on
Divine Providence. However, on closer analysis, he does not deny the
existence of the natural order. He acknowledges the existence of teva.
Of course, he believes that it is far preferable to live by faith in
God and not by teva, but once our spiritual level fell and we became
accustomed to using medicine and working within the scientific order,
God "abandoned us to the happenstance of teva."

If we read the Ramban very carefully, we notice that the examples he uses
of those who should not seek medical help but rather turn directly to
God are limited to a time when the masses of Jews are righteous, during
the time of prophecy. The Ramban is referring to people on a very high
spiritual level. They enjoyed the benefit of constant Divine Providence
and therefore had no business working through the natural order. The
implication is that the situation is quite different for regular people
in regular times. Even righteous Jew nowadays, when, unfortunately,
the masses of Jews are far from perfect and when prophecy has not been
restored to us, are not on the same high spiritual level. Therefore,
they cannot have a reasonable expectation of constant Divine Providence
in their lives, and perhaps they should visit doctors. Although everything
that happens in the world is subject to Divine Providence, God has decided
to abandon us - regular people in the contemporary era - to the workings
of the natural order. We no longer merit constant Divine Providence.

This is, in fact, explicitly the opinion of the Ramban in several
places. For example, the Ramban writes (commentary on Bereishit 18:19)
that God exercises constant Divine Providence on Avraham because he is on
a very high spiritual level.[3] But the rest of us are left to chance,
to the natural order, until the time comes when God visits reward or
punishment upon us. Ramban similarly explains (Bereishit 32:4) that in
the encounter between Esav and Yaakov, God exercised Divine Providence
and saved Yaakov because of his righteousness. But Yaakov himself was not
sure that he was righteous enough to enjoy Divine Providence, which is
why he prepared using natural means to make peace, or if need be, war,
with Esav. He made various preparations using the natural order because
in his humility, he was not certain that he was on the level to expect
Divine Providence. If Yaakov Avinu questioned whether he deserved Divine
Providence, the clear implication is that we can certainly not rely on it!

In his commentary on Iyov (36:7), the Ramban writes explicitly that
his understanding of Divine Providence is that of the Rambam in Moreh
Nevukhim. He directly quotes the language of the Rambam cited above and
tells us that God exercises His Providence on the righteous, but not fully
on the average person, and certainly not on the wicked. Therefore, the
Ramban tells us, the Torah expects us to live via the natural order. We
are instructed to conscript an army and go out and fight in the event
of war, not just to sit and pray and wait for God to fight for us. We
cannot always expect to be on such a high spiritual level that we enjoy
constant Divine Providence. Rather, we must work under the assumption
that we may not always be experiencing Divine Providence, and we must
therefore work under the natural order. The Ramban tells us that if God
wants us to win a war, we will win without an army, and if, God forbid,
He wants us to lose a war, no matter how strong our military is, we
will lose. But sometimes, when we are neither completely righteous nor
completely wicked, God does not want any particular result, because He
is not exercising Divine Providence at that point. That is why it is so
important that we work through the natural order.

The Ramban in this commentary seems to be in line with mainstream
religious Zionist ideology. We work through the natural order because
not everything always is decreed by God.[4]

Differences Between the Ramban and the Rambam

As much as the Ramban claims to agree with the Rambam, there is still
a significant difference between their philosophies. The Ramban in
a number of places, including his commentary to Iyov, tells us that
Divine Providence can be either positive or negative. If someone is truly
righteous, then God watches and guards him all the time. If someone is
evil, God will intervene in the world to punish him. Those in the middle,
neither wicked nor righteous, are left to the natural order. The Rambam,
on the other hand, holds that Divine Providence can only be positive, not
negative. It is purely a function of one's connection to God. Therefore,
the more connected one is to God, the more Divine Providence; the more
disconnected one is, the less Divine Providence. Punishment only occurs
in this world because when God removes His Providence, one is exposed to
the many perils of the dangerous world that we inhabit. While the Ramban
has a volitional model of Divine Providence, in which God decides to
exercise Providence when a person deserves reward or punishment, the
Rambam has a more mechanistic model, under which Divine Providence is
an automatic result of spiritual achievement.

What the Rambam and the Ramban have in common, however, is their belief
that while Divine Providence is an ideal to strive for, it is not the
default, automatic way in which the world works. God sometimes involves
Himself through the principle of hashgacha pratit, but often does not.
The natural order is the authentic way in which God created the world
to run when He doesn't decide to get involved and change things.

For the Ramban and the Rambam, then, the answer to the question of faith
(bitachon) versus effort (hishtadlut) is clear. We are expected to take
care of providing our needs in this world the best we can using the
natural order. None of us are arrogant enough to assume that we are so
holy and righteous that we have constant Divine Providence. Of course,
we strive to be more holy, spiritual, and righteous. We strive to enjoy
more Divine Providence. And, at least according to the Ramban, perhaps our
ultimate goal is to reach the highest spiritual levels and abandon the
natural order. Nonetheless, in regular life, the Rambam and the Ramban
would have us work in the natural order because we can never be certain
that anything that happens to us in our lives is the result of God's
direct intervention. Our success or lack thereof may be purely a function
of the natural order. Therefore, we must take care of ourselves. God is
not always taking care of us, as we may not be sufficiently righteous.


_______________________

[1] For example, the Exodus and figures such as the Patriarchs, Daniel,
and Chananya, Mishael and Azarya.

[2] Even in this case, Rambam nowhere states that one who enjoys Divine
Providence should not work within the natural order. In the next two
shiurim, we will present various explanations of why even one who enjoys
Divine Providence might be required to work within the natural order.

[3] The Ramban understands God's "knowledge" of Avraham as constant
Divine Providence

[4] Many attempts have been made to resolve the apparent contradiction
between the Ramban's statement in his commentary to Shemot 13 and his
sermon Torat Hashem Temima and his formulations in his commentaries
to Bereishit 18 and 32 and Iyov 36. It seems likely that the Ramban
intended to claim not that everything that happens is a miracle, but that
miraculous Providence ultimately controls everything. Since even nature
was created by God, Providential intervention can override the laws of
nature, but the laws of nature do not restrict Divine Providence. When
Providence chooses not to intervene, however, nature still follows its
course. For further reading, see the original texts, as well as David
Berger, "Miracles and the Natural Order in Nahmanides," in Isadore Twersky
(ed.), Rabbi Moses Nahmanides (Ramban): Explorations in His Religious
and Literary Virtuosity (Harvard University Press, 1983), available at
https://www.biblicalnaturalhistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/MiraclesNahmanides.pdf.

The following is from part of RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 32:8.


8 Ya?akov was very much afraid and distressed, so he divided the people
who were with him, as well as the flocks, cattle and camels, into two camps.

In Ya?akov and Esav, two opposing principles confront each other.
The struggle between them, and the outcome of this struggle, are the
forces that have shaped world history. Ya?akov represents family life,
happiness and making others happy. Esav represents the glitter of political
power and might. This conflict has raged for thousands of years:
Is it sufficient just to be a human being, and are political power and social
creativity of no significance unless they lead to the loftiest of all human
aspirations, or, on the contrary, does everything that is human in man,
in home, and in family life exist only to serve the purposes of political
triumph?

How different from his attitude toward Lavan is Ya?akov?s attitude
toward Esav. We know how steadfast is the power of one who is sure
of his own integrity, and how oppressive is the feeling of guilt, even if
only imagined. It is easier to suffer wrong and injustice for twenty years
than to face for one minute a person whom we know was offended by
us and who cannot understand our motives, which do not justify our
actions but at least excuse them.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20181121/1ac3fc95/attachment-0001.html>

One of the interesting aspects of being American and living in the ?Medina
shel Chessed? is dealing with secular holidays. Of these holidays,
Thanksgiving is by far the most popular among Yidden, with many keeping
some semblance of observance. On the other hand, it is well-known that many
contemporary poskim were very wary of any form of actual Thanksgiving
observance. This article sets out to explore the history and halachic
issues of this very American holiday...

To find out more, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha:
Thanksgiving: Harmless Holiday or Chukos HaGoyim?<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsable.madmimi.com%2Fc%2F10500%3Fid%3D235159.1134.1.5a94e23db9dce9564c3726142e933bf4&;data=02%7C01%7Cllevine%40stevens.edu%7C2ffbb37203354d3791bc08d64fcd247f%7C8d1a69ec03b54345ae21dad112f5fb4f%7C0%7C0%7C636784139838359039&sdata=SMeBtucXNA32eCa8WWpKjafoqmojWLiBxMUKzL5dXDE%3D&reserved=0>"

YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20181121/27802d74/attachment-0001.html>

The beginning of the Aruch Hashulchan states (I think he may be quoting the
Smak) Malachim (angels?) have no yetzer hara (evil inclination?), animals
have a yetzer hara but no daat (knowledge?). Thus malachim get no schar
(reward?) and animals no onesh (punishment?)
Is this knowledge of HKB"H? What does it mean to have a yetzer hara - Is it
equivalent of free will? What does it mean to have free will without
consequence? How then do we understand the medrash in Breishit that the
trees were punished for not following HKB"H's direction? The dogs being
rewarded for not barking?

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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20181122/8e288070/attachment-0001.html>

On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 12:01 PM Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

>
> RMB:
> :> the Ramban famously says there is no "it" to nature.
>
> ZL:  Famously, but phantomly. Ramban (see, for example, on Shmos 25:24) no
> less
> : than Rambam, holds that olom kiminhago noheig. Ramban repeats a number of
> : times that each "Va-yehi  khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that
> : minhag permanent.
>
> ...
> The Ramban talks about nature being a pattern in events, but those events
> are /directly/ caused by HQBH.


Where does Ramban say this? As I wrote, he repeats a number of times that
each "Va-yehi  khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that minhag
permanent at maaseh breishis. See, for example, on Shmos 6:6. ''The posuk
says 'Vay-hiH khein'' because that is the teva that was instilled in them
forever...and they will remain with the first teva that was instilled in
them at the time of their formation (Vayamdual haTeva haRishon asher hussam
bahem bEis yetsirasam). And on Vayikra 26:11, in the passage about refuah,
he uses the phrase, VaHashem Heeneecham lemikrei haTivee-im, Hashem leaves
them to the natural mikrreim. How is this insisting that, contra Rambam,
''those events are /directly/ caused by HQBH''?

Regardless of the mechanics of seichel haPoel, etc, I see no basis to
create a machlokess between the Rambam and Raman on this point. Especially
since he /says/ he is in agreement with the Rambam.

RMB: [According to RambaM:] A homo sapien who lacks da'as is less of a
> person, and thus to that
> extent is less subject to hashgachah peratis. Instead, he is left to teva
> (Moreh 3:18). Not that he is left to minhago shel olam, but that HQBH
> delegates his fate.
>

 ZL: You are making a distinction that you attribute to RambaM, between
teva and minhago shel olam.
Teva is something that a daas-lacking person is left to. Through it, Hashem
delegates his fate.

Minhag shel olam is something else.

I don't follow. Where is such a distinction made?

And I thought you maintained that contra RambaN, RambaM does /not/ hold
that HQBH delegates the fate of lesser people. Only ''the RambaN talks
about nature being a pattern in events... /directly/ caused by HQBH. Is
there also a distinction between ''directly causing'' and ''delegating''?
Do you mean RambaM holds Hashem HAD delegated their fate (by setting up the
mechanisms at Creation)?

RMB:
> I tried to semi-explain by talking about the Ramban's lack of "'it' to
> nature". ... no metaphysical "object" to pin nature on... there is no such
> "thing" as nature. It's not a
>
hypostatis.

ZL: Where do you see what you are trying to explain in Ramban?

Regarding  the shiur by Rav Bednarshom, and the point that

1- According to the Rambam, hashgachah is Divine Assistance; according
to the Ramban it includes oneshim.

2- According to the Rambam, there is a mechanism that causes the
relationship between the person's da'as and their recieving HP or not.
The Rambam describes it more directly as Divine Response.


The last sentence should be about RambaN, right? And here's something to
ponder: As I wrote previously, the Rambam writes that the greatest miracle
of all, is nature's responding to man's behavior, favoring good behavior
and punishing bad behavior. Granted, favoring good behavior is miraculous.
But l-fi Rambam's shittah, what is miraculous about leaving the
practitioner of bad behavior to the wiles of nature?

Also, regarding:

> It was often understood that the Ramban stands in fierce opposition to

> the stance of the Rambam. In two places (commentary on Shemot 13:16 and
> his Torat Hashem Temima sermon), the Ramban writes that a believing
> Jew must believe that everything that happens is a miracle. The only
> rule of causation is that if we do mitzvot, we can expect a reward,
> and if we transgress the Torah we can expect to be punished by God.


Obviously, this is just the hava amina. The Ramban did not write that
''everything that happens'' is a miracle. His wording is that the whole
[teaching of the] Torah [about reard and punishment] is a miracle. Meaning,
as the maskana is, that the Torah's system of award and punishment is
miraculous.

Secondly, the Ramban does not say that everything is a miracle,without
causation, except reward and punishment. The causation between behavior and
reward and punishment is an explanation of, not in contrast to, his
statement that the whole teaching of the Torah is that there are miracules.

>
>
> :ZL:  His point in all his famous and repeated declarations is that it is a
> : central Torah fact that man's deeds are rewarded or punished by the
> forces
> : of nature, and that this is miraculous. No different from the Rambam. He,
> : just as Rambam, is not saying that outside of this area there is no
> minhago
> : shel olom, no "it" to nature.
>
> : Which doesn't mean that creation happened by miracles we could understand
> : either. It justifies the Michtav meiEliyahu's position that creation is
> : incomprehensible by any means. And instead we pick which simplified
> model,
> : which perspective, we choose to explain the unknowable from.
>
> : Except that the Rambam speaking for himself declares,
>
> : MN 2:17 (see http://press.tau.ac.il/perplexed/chapters/chap_2_17.htm,
> note
> : 6, for a ?compilation of translations of this passage.)?
>
> : For we, the community following in the footsteps of Moshe Rabbeynu and
> : Avraham ?Avinu, aleihem hashalom, believe that the world came into being
> in
> : such-and-such a ?form, and became such-and-such from such-and-such (haya
> : kach mi-kach), and such ?was created after such.?
>
> :>See pereq 30. There was no time, no 6 days. Just 6 steps in logic.
>
> : The interpretation that when the Torah says days it means levels is given
> : by the Ralbag, based upon, and compelled by, his take of Chazal who say
> : that Hashem created everything full bloom instantly and simultaneously.
> But
> : that's (just one of the possibilities) offered by Ralbag, not Rambam...
>
> It's the Ralbag's PESHAT in the Rambam, not his own shitah.


It is not his peshat in the Rambam. He does not mention Rambam, much less
attribute to him, the ''levels'' peshat, neither in his Torah commentary
nor in his Milchamos Hashem. If you can find such a passage, please locate
it for me.

On the contrary, here is how he addresses the question of  how there could
be days before the fourth day when the sun materialized. He gives two
possibilities. And he gives the ''levels'' approach  as an /alternative/
explanation to the answer that the sphere, by which time and days are
produced, was in operation from the moment of creation.They are two
/different/ ways of answering how there could be days one through three
before the existence of the stars, although both answers are predicated on
the Chazal-based view that everything in the universe and earth was
instantly and simultaneously created in its complete form (besides
vegetation and Adam and Chava).

And if the virtually identical verbiage to that of the Rambam is an
indication that Ralbag was intending to give peshat in the Rambam, note
that he is explicitly using that verbiage in the answer granting that
''days'' are units of time, in /contrast/ to the notion of ''days'' meaning
''levels''.

And also remember, as I have noted before, that Ralbag explicitly says
(Torah commentary, on VaYchulu) V-im nim-tsi-u rechokim meod mei-hakavana
asher matzanu kahn, kmo shetireh mimah shebier bazeh haRav HaMoreh besifro
hanichbad Moreh HaNevuchim, ViHachcham R. Avraham Ibn Ezra.... that his new
approach is /very far/ from that of the Rambam. And he repeats this in
Sefer Milchemes Hashem, Presentation VI, ?Part II, Chapter 8, Conclusion.

Abravanel and The Aqeidas Yitzchaq (shaar 3) on Bereishis. This is how
> the Rambam was understood by other rishonim. Even by a non-Aristotilian
> like R' Yitzchaq Arama.
>

But you see, you have to resort to secondary sources to support the claims
about what Rambam and Ralbag held, whereas we have the first-hand sources
in front of us. The fact is that the Ralbag does not attribute the
''levels''approach to the Rambam, and in fact considers the ''levels''
approach as an alternative to what the Rambam wrote..

Abarbanel is known to repeat ideas of his contemporary, R. Y. Arama. He is
also known to have a very eclectic style. You are of course correct that in
his 9th shayla he attributes the ''levels'' approach to the Rambam. But
look how he does it, and explain to me how it makes sense:


> The 9th shayla concerns what is mentioned in the Moreh Nevuchim. Rambam
> notes that time ?cannot exist without the movement of the celestial
> spheres, the sun and moon. However, this raises ?the question as to how
> there could be time before the fourth day on which the celestial spheres
> and sun were ?created. The Rambam answered this question by asserting that
> in fact the spheres and the sun were ?created on the first day. Thus time
> existed for the first 3 days in the same manner as it existed on the
> ?subsequent days. He explained that in fact everything ? both the Heavens
> and the Earth ? were created ?on the first day.


Stop here. Do you not see the Abarbanel explaining Rambam as holding that
the days of Breishis were units of time, and not ''levels''? Let's continue:

The Rambam cited Chazal that the word ?es? indicated that the creation on
> the first day ?included everything associated with the Heavens as well as
> everything associated with the Earth. He also ?cited the gemora (Chulin
> 60a) that everything that was created was created in its final form. He
> also cited ?another statement of Chazal that the Heavens and Earth were
> created simultaneously. Thus the Rambam ?believed that the work of Creation
> happened all on one day and was not divided amongst six days. He ?claimed
> that in a single moment of creation everything came into existence.


And of course, the Rambam continues (and Ralbag includes it) that whereas
all was created ex nihilo from the first instant of creation, following
that was a process of separating the components of the universe, forming
things, as he says elsewhere in the Moreh, kach mikach.

How then does the Abarbanel say in the next breath:


>  He explained that the reason ?for the Torah stating that there were six
> days of Creation was to indicate the different levels of created ?beings
> according to their natural hierarchy. Thus the Rambam does not understand
> the word day to be a ?temporal day and he doesn?t read Bereishis to be
> describing the chronological sequence of creation?.


Kasha reisha al sefa!

And note that in shayla 5 as well Abarbanel had written:

That which the Torah mentioned of the creation of the stars on the fourth
day, made HaRav haMoreh answer, as it seems from his words, in that chapter
30 of Part Three, that on the first day the sphere was created with the
stars and light. But their actions had affect on the fourth day upon the
vegetation.Such is apparent from the words of the Rav...Perhaps RambaN too
meant this, since he mentions this approach in the name of yeish meforshim.


And if one is to treat this as Abarbanel changing his mind, well then
consider another about-face over 80 pages later (p. 85 in our editions)

Behold you see that the opinion of the Rav was ...that all that is
mentioned regarding the activity of the six days, ?from the creation of the
heavens and the earth, and all of the phenomena, and the creation of Adam
and ?his wife, up until ?vayechulu? have no allegory whatsoever, for
everything was ?literal to him [the Rambam]. Therefore you will see that in
this very chapter, no. 30 in the second section, ?in all which the Rav has
explicated regarding the activity of the six days, he did not make an
allegory or a ?hint at all. Rather, he did the exact opposite, for he made
a concerted effort to support the doctrine of ?creation ex nihilo and
accepted all of the verses literally??

Obviously, Abarbanel was not consistent as to whether the Rambam understood
the creation days to be ''levels'' rather than units of time. So he should
not be cited with such certainty that he held so.

?I would also caution against uncritically accepting A?s description of B?s
opinion if A goes on to ?lambaste it, as the Abarbanel did with his
original reading of the Moreh Nevuchim.

?(The question presents itself, then, how did the Abarbanel?s contemporary,
the Akeidas Yitzcahk, ?and the commentary of the ShemTov?who is not
regarded as a rishon?as opposed to the ?commentary by Crescas), and the
Abarbanel himself in his second take, get from (a) the Rambam?s ?classical
rendition of a six-day meta-natural development of potential created on day
one, to (b) ?seeing the Rambam as promulgating that ?the six days are a
metaphor for six levels in the hierarchy ?of natural objects:
light/darkness, water, minerals, flora, fauna, man???

My theory is that the earlier commentators of the Moreh, such as Narboni,
greatly influenced by ?the Aristotelian academia of the time, anxiously
imposed their radical views on the Rambam. (We ?see that in the Rambam?s
own time, he complained of people radicalizing his views?including those
?who as accused him of (or ?complimented? him for) denying techiass
ha-meisim). They hijacked the ?Moreh so efficiently that it became popular
to think the Rambam thought like Narboni. This ?became the starting point
from which later commentaries saw the Moreh (similar to, l?havdil, Rashi?s
?commentary being one?s first impression of what the Chumash says, and
one?s natural thinking that ?what Rashi says is necessarily what the
Chumash undoubtedly means.)?


> In any case, the Rambam's problem with time is because in his world (again,
> following Aristo) time is a property of a process. Until the spheres spin,
> there are no processes, no time. The notion of time as a dimension in which
> processes occur evolves into being through Galieleo and Newton. When the
> Rambam analyzes "zeman", he isn't talking about time the way we think of
> time.
>

Not my  issue.

>
> His problem is with zeman as a whole without spheres, not yom before
> the sun.
>

*In the words of Ralbag the **problem is with zeman before the sun. His
answer is that the sphere, even without the sun, produces zeman. *

The problem that bothered the early ones, with what were day one, day two
and day three measured? Behold, the light-bearers were not in existence
until day four! [The answer is that even though the light-bearers did not
appear until day four], the heavenly sphere was in existence on day one,
and each revolution of it formed approximately one day.

Abarbanel puts it that the problem is zeman before the sphere, sun and
stars. The answer is that they all existed and formed zeman from the first
act of creation.

???"? (?????, ??? ?)

(?????? ??? ????? ?? ????? ??? ???? (?, ?-?)

...??????, ???? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ?? (??? ? ??? ?), ????? ????? ???
????? ???? ????? ????? ???, ??? ????? ??????? ??? ?????? ????? ????? ?????;
???? ???? ??? ?????? (????? ??, ?):... ??????? ??????: ?? ??? ???? ?????,
?????: ??? ??? ??????? ??? ?????? ???????? ????, ????? ??? ????? ?????
????? (?????? ??, ??). ??? ????? ??? ????? ??? ???? ?????: ???? ??????
????? ????? ??????????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?????? (?, ?) ?* ????? ???
?? ????? ????? ?????????? ????? ???? ???.* ???? ?????? ?????? ?????????
????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ??????,???   ???? ????? ???????? ??? ????,
????? ???? ???? ???

*.??? ????? ???? ????? ????? ?????, ???? ????? ??? ??? ????? ????? ????
???? ??? .*

*??* ????

???? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ???, ????? ?? ????? ?????? *???? ??????*,
?? ????? ????? ???????? ?? ???? ??????? ??? ?????? ?????, ??? ????

???? ???? ?????, ??? ???? ??? ????? *???? ??? ???? ??????? ????? ??? ????
??? ????? ???? ??? ???? ????? ???? ?? ??? ??????? ?????? ?? ??? ?????*;

??? ?????

*??? ????? ???????,* ?? [??"? ??? ??? ??????? ?????? ?? ???? ??????, ?"?]
*?**??? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?????, ??????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ?????? *?
??? ????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ??. ?????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?? ?????
???? ????? ??? ???????, ??? ????? ?????.

*???? ????? ????? *??? ???? ?????, ?? ??? ??????? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ?????.
??? ?? ????????? ??????? ??? ??????: ??????? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ???
???? ?? ??? ?????? (????? ??, ?), ???? ???? ??? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ????
?????. ???? ????? ????? ??? ??? ????? (??? ? ????? ???? ????), ?????: ???
?? ?????? ????? ??? ???? ??. ??? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ???? ??????
?????? ????? ???? ?????? ?????, ?? ???? ?????? ??, ??? ?? ????? ?????
?????? ???????, ??? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ????


>
> But the bottom line,to which we both agree, is that traditional Judaism
holds that Creation, regardless of our issue about zeman, was not a natural
process.

Zvi Lampel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20181122/c93c7100/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ???? ???? ??????.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 162531 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20181122/c93c7100/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.)