<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
<meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 10">
<meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 10">
<link rel="File-List"
href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CBOBBY%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml">
<o:smarttagtype
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="date"></o:smarttagtype><o:smarttagtype
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="time"></o:smarttagtype><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object
classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id=ieooui></object>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-language:AR-SA;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
</style>
<![endif]--><span
style="color: black;">Re: Rishonim and Chazal (was One Opinion)<br>
<br>
I chose the five-year old subject line above because
this post relates directly to the topic discussed under it. The subject
is the extent of the Ramban's deference to Chazal, specifically
regarding the nature of the rainbow.<o:p></o:p></span>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="color: black;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="color: black;">The Ramban in
his Torah commentary constantly defers to Chazal and severely
criticizes others
when they do not. </span><span style="color: black;">(One must bear in
mind the issue of the Ramban identifying a Chazal as the result of a
drash rather than peshat, but for the purposes of this post, let's put
that aside.) One sometimes hears the claim that the Ramban himself
however, differed with Chazal based upon science, concerning Noach's
rainbow:<span style=""> </span>“We see from the mishnah in Ahvos (5:6)
that Chazal viewed the rainbow
as a miraculous phenomenon that came into existence after the Flood.
Ramban,
however, says that the scientists say that it is natural and we are
forced to
accept their words. Thus Ramban rejected the view of Chazal--all
because of
scientific data!"<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="color: black;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="color: black;">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. <br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="color: black;"><br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="color: black;"><a
href="cid:part1.07000904.09070607@gmail.com">file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/BOBBY/My%20Documents/The%20Ramban,%20Chazal%20and%20The%20Rainbow.htm</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="color: black;"><br>
What follows are some key points:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="color: black;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;">A. The </span><i>Radak
</i>cites a passage in <i>Breishis Rabbah </i>that says </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in;">(a) the rainbow
existed in
actuality (not just potentially) since Creation, and<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in;">(b) <u>the reason for
saying so is
that Hashem never changes nature after Creation.</u> As the Rambam
expounds in
his writings, while Hashem does indeed enact short-lived aberrations in
nature
(implanted in latent form at Creation), He does not create new entities
that
thereon remain in existence forever.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in;">Evidently, although
this <i>Breishis
Rabbah</i> passage is no longer extant, not only the Radak, but also
Rav Saadia
Gaon, the Ibn Ezra and the Ramban knew of this passage, and knew
therefore that:
Even if the Ramban understood the mishnah as the Rambam did (which is
not necessarily so), that the author of the <i>Ahvos mishnah</i> held
that the ten things in his
list were all miraculous phenomena that did not materialize until long
after
Creation ,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><br>
(a) Chazal did not have a single viewpoint on the matter, which left it
open to
analysis (between the viewpoints offered) for an original suggestion
or, better
yet, as the Rambam explains,<br>
<br>
(b) Chazal's principle that "the world follows its natural course<span
dir="RTL" style="" lang="HE"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span
dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>,"
based upon the <i>posuk, "</i><span dir="RTL" style="" lang="HE">There
is nothing new under the sun,"</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span
dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>
is so over-arching that it outweighs the opposing <i>shitta</i>
implied in the <i>Ahvos</i>
<i>mishnah</i>.<br style="">
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br style="">
<!--[endif]--><span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="">B<b>. </b>The authorities
before the Ramban base
their discussion on the intended tense of the word “Nassassi.” The
Ramban does
so as well, and also adds that the expression “My” rainbow indicates
that rainbows
existed before the Flood. It is simply untrue that the “<span
style="color: black;">Ramban rejected the view of Chazal--all because
of scientific data!”<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="color: black;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="color: black;">C. The
Ramban, like the Ibn Ezra, had
a skeptical view of Greek “proofs” that indicate ideas contrary to
those understood
through the mesorah. His remark, “we are forced to agree to the Greek
scholars
that the rainbow is caused by the sun’s effect on the air [and is
therefore a
natural phenomenon], must be taken in its context. It is a response to
the Ibn
Ezra’s remark: “If we were believers in the words of the Greek
scholars, that
rainbows are the natural result of the sun’s rays, one may say that
Hashem
strengthened the sun’s light after the Flood.” The Ramban is responding
that
although we normally do not give credence to the Greek’s “proofs,” his
own
observations of the sun’s effect on water in a glass, and the thorough
reading
of the entire posuk, forces him in this case to side with them. He is
not saying that science forced him to interpret the Torah differently
than Chazal took it.<br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><br>
Zvi Lampel<br>
<span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</body>
</html>