[Avodah] Rambam on Metaphors

[Michael Makovi]

> What the Rambam has to say about metaphors I don't know, I'm sorry that I
> have gone quite far away from the subject line, but then we always do, here
> in Avodah-land.  I just think that the /pshaht/ of ayin tachas ayin is
> restoration, not revenge.
>
>
> --Toby Katz

I'm inclined to agree with you. I don't remember exactly, but I think
that Hazal, in discussing ayin tahat ayin, besides giving the famous
"what if someone blinded a one-eyed man...?" proof, also gave a
grammatical proof, based on Scriptural use of the word "tahat"
elsewhere. Nechama Leibowitz notes that Benno Jacob and Rav Hirsch
give this same grammatical proof. Based on this, ayin tahat ayin
indeed means monetary compensation even on the p'shat level.

But let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that ayin tahat ayin
literally meant removing someone's eye, and that we rather take it
allegorically to mean monetary. And since we're discussing Rambam's
view, we don't want to know what the correct view of ayin tahat ayin
is, but rather, we want to know what Rambam's view is. (R' Saul
Lieberman noted that there are two kinds of correct girsa'ot,
depending on what you want: if you want the absolute best text of the
Gemara, then you want the oldest most reliable manuscripts, etc. But
if you want to know how Rashi interpreted the Gemara, then you do NOT
want the most reliable text of the Gemara. Rather, you want Rashi's
text of the Gemara, no matter how accurate or inaccurate that text may
be!) As far as I know, most of the rishonim, including Rambam,
believed that ayin tahat ayin had this dual literal-allegorical
layering. So if Rambam held like this, then everything I said about
literal and allegorical interpretation would apply.

If ayin tahat ayin really means money even literally, then this is
fine for us, but this wasn't Rambam's opinion, so we cannot bring it
regarding Rambam's use of allegorical interpretation of the mikra.

Michael Makovi