[Avodah] : Re:Re: Consumer alert:minhog scams on the rise!

[Meir Shinnar]

REMT
> Â  Â  When the Rambam criticizes those for whom "na'asu etzlam kol hanimna'os mechuyavei >ham'tzius," he does _not_ rule out all incidents which go against nature. Â He criticizes them > for believing "she_kol_ hanimna'os" -- _all_ "impossible" incidents -- Â must be true. Â This is > not the same as saying all are not true. Â Certainly he held neis Chanuka to be literal. Â Why > should "chometz v'yadlik" be any more unbelievable? Â Furthermore, the g'mara derives a > > > halacha from the incident of R. Pinchas b. Yair's donkey, stating that we must interpret an > > act of R. Meir's as proving something muttar for eating, because it certainly couldn't have > > been an oversight on his part: if even a tzaddik's animal is prevented by Hashem from eating > b'issur, kal vachomer for a tzaddik himself. Â It's difficult to see how the kal vachomer works if > the story is only a m'litza.

While the issue of the Rambam's approach to miracles (and what his
"real" view) is a matter of debate, his approach to these stories are
not.

He is explicit in Ma'amar techiyat hametim (Kustha edition n in Hebrewbooks.org)

va'anachu nishtadel lekabetetz ben hatora vehamuskal al seder tivi
efshar bechol  ze ela ma shehitbaer bo shehu mofet VELO YITACHEN
lefaresh klal az nitztarech lomar shehu derech mofet...
(and we try to join between tora and reason according to natural order
as far as possible inall of this except when it has been made clear
that it is miraculous and it is impossible to explain it - then we
have to say that it is miraculous

and
veamnam yit'e kol me sheyit'e mimi shekadam o yitachar lihyotam bilti
mavidlim ben hainyanim hanohagim minhag hamofet veem asher lo ya'amdu
klal velo yitkayemu veamnam hayu mipne hatzorech o leamet nevua uven
hainyanim hativiyim

- and therefor will err all who will err - from the early to the late
- that they don't separate between matters that act according to the
manner of miracle - and these are things that don't last  or remain -
but are for the sake of need or to make a prophecy true  - and natural
matters.

Furthermore, he says explicitly that he is not relying on a tradition
that these things were a parable - but uses these rational criteria to
determine what is a parable.


Therefore, the fact that something is not a greater miracle than nes
hanukka does NOT mean that it occured - indeed, that criteria is
irrelevant - the issue is not how far the laws of nature were
suspended - but the basis for believing that they were suspended at
all.  if at all possible to interprete it allegorically, we are
obligated to do so.

WRT the story of Rav Pinchas ben Yair,
1)  The rambam does not include the use of a story in a halachic
context as proof of its validity - as the question then is whether
the story isactually being used as an asmachta rather than real proof
(and if there is debate about drashot and asmachta, here too)

2) The melitza understanding actually does work - because the melitza
suggests that we are supposed to assume unless proven otherwise that a
tzaddik didn't err..


Meir Shinnar