[Avodah] AN INSTANCE OF THE 7th KIND OF CONTRADICTION IN THE MOREH NEVUCHIM

[Micha Berger]

On Sun, Jul 01, 2018 at 04:25:09PM -0400, H Lampel via Avodah wrote:
: 1. The Rambam ascribes this kind of contradiction to the Midrashim and
: Aggados (but not the halachic Talmud) as well. Would the Strausian
: school claim he thought the Aggados and Midrashim were "likewise"
: secretly promulgating heretical ideas?

The Rambam of Strauss doesn't see himself as a heretic. Rather, as the
continuation of existing tradition, if an esoteric one the masses can't
handle. So, why wouldn't he think that Chazal believed similarly to
he did and also hid their truth in contradition? Especially since they
(unlike the Yad or the Moreh) already contain metaphor and parable?

: (a) Any scriptural passage describing a physical being having a physical
: perception of or physical interaction with an angel must be understood as
: a vision of things in the spiritual world, and not the material world, and

Which is another (in addition to what RZL said in a segment I didn't quote)
difference between the Rambam and the Ramban, according to the Abarbanel.

The Rambam understands nev'uah as an experience of actual, if
metaphysical, things. Which the koach hadimyon then wraps in the familiar,
so they seem similar to the sights and sourds of physical things. And
thus mal'akhim seen in nevu'ah are really there, and can really save Lot.
And the Man in the Throne at the end of Mishpatim is a created entity,
because lo yir'ani adam vachai.

The Ramban understands nevu'ah as being a message from G-d. Which is why
he can't accept the Rambam's take that much of parashas Va'eira is nevu'ah;
it would mean that the mal'akhim didn't really come, Lot had no way to be
saved, the cities of the plain had no one destroying them, etc...

And, according to the Rambam, the mal'akh the donkey saw could really be
there. Although how the donkey could reach the level of knowledge the
Rambam would say would be necessary to experience a seikhel nivdal like
the mal'akh is beyond me. Leshitaso, was that the big neis?

: (b) the term "angel" sometimes refers to a natural force. And a support
: for the latter point can be found for those who subscribe to the Ramban's
: premise.

I think this is a distinction without a difference. An angel is an
intellect that imparts impetus to a physical object that then moves or
otherwise makes some potential, actual.

It is therefore both a thing of the spiritual world and a natural force.
Natural forces have their metaphysics, which are spiritual, and in
Aristo's metaphysics, intellects.


...
: Friedlander's inaccurate translation:
...
: Pines' translation is more accurate:

I do not know Medieval Judeo-Arabic well enough to compare the English
against the original and say which is more accurate.

What I am missing is what is material about the difference in translation.
How does Pines's or your version's better buttress your thesis?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
micha at aishdas.org        you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org   happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Dale Carnegie