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

[Micha Berger]

On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 04:27:43PM +0000, Elazar M. Teitz wrote:
:> Look at the Rambam's words. He says that divrei chakhamim are melitzah,
:> and intepreting them literally is wrong. That part doesn't require
:> disbelieving that they aren't also potentially historical -- just that
:> there is no actual historical claim being made. Chazal do not repeat
:> a story any more because it's history than if it weren't. But then he
:> talks about people who "...vena'asu etzlam kol hanimna'os mechuyevei
:> hamtzei'us." The Rambam rules out such stories that defy nature.

: 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. He criticizes them for believing "she_kol_ hanimna'os" --
: _all_ "impossible" incidents -- must be true. This is not the same as
: saying all are not true. Certainly he held neis Chanuka to be literal.

Chanukah is an interesting instance which gives me pause. More on it,
below.

However, you repeat what I feel is the wrong half of the Rambam's phrase,
yes it's "sheKOL hanimna'os", but the Rambam continues "mechuyavei
hametzi'us". What are the "necessities of existence" if not the laws of
nature? He doesn't speak of paradoxes and laws of logic...

On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 03:28:30PM -0400, Meir Shinnar wrote:
: 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.

But the reason why REMT's mentioning Chanukah gave me pause is that the
neis of the pach shemen isn't recorded before Chazal. It itself is an
instance of an aggadic miracle story.

Particulatly since, as R' Dr Shinnar continues:
: 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)

Last, to return to what I feel is the more essential point because it's
more popular among rishonim than his stance on miracle stories:

: 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..

I think the whole focus on which stories were historical and which are
melitzos is a distraction. Chazal didn't care, and our trying to derive
the science of history from quotes made within a worldview that predates
it means focusing on something they didn't consider important.

The "melitzah understanding" has to work because the statement was made
without regard to historiocity. The story is repeated because the lesson
is valid; with no concern for whether or not it really occured. Even
historical stories are only repeated if they have a mussar haskeil or
a nimshal to take away. The understanding has to be the same whether
historical or not.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             In the days of our sages, man didn't sin unless
micha at aishdas.org        he was overcome with a spirit of foolishness.
http://www.aishdas.org   Today, we don't do a mitzvah unless we receive
Fax: (270) 514-1507      a spirit of purity.      - Rav Yisrael Salanter