<div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">RMB<br>But because of your reisha, I disagree with your seifa. Yes, the Torah<br>expressed some truths allegorically. However, there is no indication that the
<br>Rambam held this was possibly true even of statements for which we have no<br>mesorah indicating allegory. The Me'iri limits allegorization in this way, and<br>they way I took that pereq (a few phrases) in the MN, the Rambam agrees. But
<br>even without that text, there is no proof he is choleiq; it would be an<br>argument from silence.</blockquote><div><br>1. We seem to be reargue. The rambam is extremely explicit about not having a mesora (Eg, ma'amar techiyat hametim)
<br>Ma'amar techiyat hametim (Shilat edition)<br><br>know that these prophecies and similar matters that we say that they are <br>allegorical - our word in them is not a decree, that we did not receive a <br>prophecy from hashem that will tell us that it is an allegory, nor did we
<br>have a tradition for one of the sages from the prophets who will explain that <br>these details are allegorical.<br><br>Rather, what brought us to that is the our effort and the the effort of <br>every man of wisdom (of the few) - the reverse of the effort of the
<br>multitude. That the multitude of the the followers of torah, what is <br>beloved of them and tasty to their folly, that they will put torah and sechel <br>as two opposite poles, and will derive everything separate from the
<br>reasonable, and will say that it is a miracle, and will flee from thngs being <br>natural, not in what is told about what happened in the past, nor what he <br>will see now, nor what is said that will happen. And our efforts our to
<br>gather between the torah and the reasonable, and will manage all things <br>accroding to a possible natural order, except what is specifically explained <br>that it is a miracle (mofet) and it is impossible to explain it otherwise,
<br>then we will need to say that it is a miracle <br><br>See also hakdama to more nevuchim, (p 6 in Qafih edition)<br>vechalal ma'amar ze inyan acher, vehu beur inyan meshalim stumim meod shene'emru besifre haneviim velo nitparesh bahem mashal, ela yera'e lasachal velapeti shehem kipshatam
<br><br>the purpose is to show allegory where there is no inidication that it is an allegory (and no indication includes no indication in the mesora, as this is addressed to someone versed in the mesora...)<br><br>One simple proof- can you find any remez in the mesora that the beginning of parshat va'yera did not occur in reality but only in neuva.....(in R Lichtenstein's article, he uses this rambam as proof for the acceptability (not necessarily desirability..) of using allegory)
<br><br>(one could argue that the rambam may be limiting the use of allegories when there is an explicit accepted mesora that something is not allegorical - but that is a very different argument)<br><br>However, you are stating about the Meiri - my recollection of the Meiri is different (will, b"n, bring sources) - do you have a citation for this limitation?
<br>Remember that the Meiri defended chachme Provence, including the radical aristotelians with an aggressive allegorical approach, against the rashba - even if he didn't agree with the radical allegorization, he didn't write them out..
<br></div></div>Meir Shinnar<br>