[Avodah] Rishonim and Chazal (was One Opinion)

[Micha Berger]

On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 06:52:00PM -0400, R Zvi Lampel wrote on Ramban
and rainbows:
> I have written an essay challenging this. The fact is, the Ramban (as
> well as the Ibn Ezra before, and Rav Saadia Gaon even previously) has a
> Midrashic source for his position. Please follow this link.
> file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/BOBBY/My%20Documents/The%20Ramban,%20Chazal%20and%20The%20Rainbow.htm

That link won't work, unless you happen to have such a file on your
Windows computer's "My Documents" folder. Try this:
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/The%20Ramban,%20Chazal%20and%20The%20Rainbow.htm>
(reduced to <http://bit.ly/9qDOEq>)

The file he refers to in the "Ramban and Chazal - Bilaam" post is at
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/Ramban%20on%20Bilaam.doc

On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 10:17:12PM -0400, Zvi Lampel wrote:
>
>
> Ramban and Chazal---Bilaam
>
> The Ramban (B'Midbar 22:20) quotes the Ibn Ezra's commentary explaining  
> Hashem's original instruction to Bilaam not to go to Balak, and His  
> subsequent reversal, telling him to go. The Ibn Ezra says it is akin to  
> Hashem's acquiescence when the Bnei Yisroel asked to have men spy the  
> Land of Canaan, despite the fact Hashem has already guaranteed their  
> success in conquering it. The Ibn Ezra explains that once one refuses to  
> follow Hashem's original instruction, Hashem instructs one to act in  
> accordance with his choice.
>
> In both cases---that of the spies and that of Bilaam---the Ramban denies  
> that the explanation could be "that G-d would reverse His word because  
> of a person's stubbornness." And he further objects to the idea that  
> Hashem would then punish anyone for following through with what He had  
> given him permission to do, as is what happened in both cases. The  
> Ramban says "/Challilah/" to this idea.
>
> *At this point, the Ramban inserts: And they say in a Midrash that in  
> the way a person wants to go, in it "/moleechin oso/." --which  
> apparently supports the Ibn Ezra's thesis: That once a person chooses a  
> certain path despite Hashem's disapproval, Hashem accomodates him to  
> follow that way.*
>
> * *
>
> *The Ramban, however, does not retract his position. In fact, he goes on  
> to expound his explanation opposing the Ibn Ezra's thesis---and  
> ostensibly opposing the Chazal he cited, offering no alternate one.*
>
> * *
>
> The apparent opposition alone is a problem, considering the Ramban's  
> usual use of Chazal as authoritative, both as support for himself and as  
> basis for fierce rejection of other views---repeatedly some of Ibn 
> Ezra's!
>
> But furthermore, Ramban's _placement_ of the Midrashic citation in his  
> presentation is incomprehensible. The sequence does not flow: One would  
> expect that citation of Chazal to appear either before or after the Ibn  
> Ezra's explanation, to show support; or after the Ramban concludes his  
> explanation, as a concession to the Ibn Ezra (which is indeed the way  
> commentators on the Ramban explain it---although they fail to explain  
> why the Ramban then continues to discredit the idea promulgated by the  
> Ibn Ezra and ostensibly the Chazal). Instead, after citing the Midrash,  
> the Ramban then goes on to expound upon his opposing explanation.
>
> (The Ramban explains that in the matter of the spies, the people's  
> innocent and valid intention was to plan the conquest strategy; and he  
> explains that Bilaam as well was acting quite appropriately, declaring  
> that nothing could absolve him from following G-d's orders, and seeking  
> G-d's advice as to how to respond to the second contingent Balak sent  
> him. And Hashem's instructions were consistent: From beginning to end,  
> He did not want Bilaam to curse the Israelites; but He absolutely did  
> want Bilaam to accompany the second contingent---if they would desist  
> from the demand that he curse the Israelites---to bless the Israelites.  
> Bilaam's sin was that when he reported G-d's message to Balak's men, he  
> suppressed the qualification G-d gave him, and created the false  
> impression that G-d acquiesced to cursing the Israelites, and the  
> blasphemous idea that G-d changes His mind and decides one day to keep  
> the Israelites from being cursed, and decides the next to allow it.)
>
> Now, often the Ramban holds that the /peshat/ of a passage does not  
> follow the Chazal, and that the Chazal knew this, but were merely using  
> this passage as a literary device upon which to peg their teaching---the  
> teaching with which the Ramban of course agrees. But here, the Ramban  
> has strongly objected to the teaching itself---without offering an  
> alternate Chazal in his support!
>
> By my use of the words "apparently" and "ostensibly," you may already  
> have an idea where I'm heading.
>
> *The reason we see a disconnect between the /Chazal/ and the Ramban's  
> placement of it in his commentary, is that---influenced by Rashi and  
> popular usage---we think the /Chazal/ is saying what the Ibn Ezra  
> holds*. But the Ramban, I propose, does not understand the /Chazal /that  
> way. He understands it the way the Meiri (/Makkos/ 10b) does: simply  
> that G-d grants us free will. The fact that G-d did not simply make  
> Bilaam unable to get up in the morning, but gave him instructions---to  
> refrain from cursing Israel, and to commit to blessing Israel---shows  
> that G-d allows people even with the worst of intentions to exercise  
> their free will. "/molichin oso/" should not be translated, "they lead  
> him," but "they give him the ability to go."
>
> The Ramban's citation of the Chazal is not a support of the Ibn Ezra,  
> but an introduction to his own explanation. One can entertain the  
> possibility that the Ramban introduced it knowing that the Ibn Ezra took  
> it the way he did. But regardless, he cites it as a support for his own  
> opposing understanding based, he believes, on a more reasonable  
> theology. In effect, he is saying, "Now, there is a Chazal that sheds  
> light on how to understand these passages. Do not take it as the Ibn  
> Ezra does; the correct understanding of it is as follows..."
>
>
> Zvi Lampel


: _______________________________________________
: Avodah mailing list
: Avodah at lists.aishdas.org
: http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It's nice to be smart,
micha at aishdas.org        but it's smarter to be nice.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - R' Lazer Brody
Fax: (270) 514-1507