<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Re: [Avodah] Rishonim and Chazal (was One Opinion)<br>
<br>
On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 Micha Berger wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:mailman.8260.1280346609.18184.avodah-aishdas.org@lists.aishdas.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""><div class="moz-txt-sig">On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 06:52:00PM -0400, R Zvi Lampel wrote:
</div></pre>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<pre wrap=""><span class="moz-txt-citetags">> </span>(a) Chazal did not have a single viewpoint on the matter, which left it
<span class="moz-txt-citetags">> </span>open to analysis (between the viewpoints offered) for an original
<span class="moz-txt-citetags">> </span>suggestion or, better yet, as the Rambam explains,
<span class="moz-txt-citetags">></span>
<span class="moz-txt-citetags">> </span>(b) Chazal's principle that "the world follows its natural course,"
<span class="moz-txt-citetags">> </span>based upon the /posuk, "/There is nothing new under the sun," is so
<span class="moz-txt-citetags">> </span>over-arching that it outweighs the opposing <i
class="moz-txt-slash"><span class="moz-txt-tag">/</span>shitta<span
class="moz-txt-tag">/</span></i> implied in the
<span class="moz-txt-citetags">> </span><i class="moz-txt-slash"><span
class="moz-txt-tag">/</span>Ahvos<span class="moz-txt-tag">/</span></i> <i
class="moz-txt-slash"><span class="moz-txt-tag">/</span>mishnah<span
class="moz-txt-tag">/</span></i>.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">I suggested over a decade ago a broader version of (b). That new
approaches in aggadita and parshanut were valid if there was any
mesoretic basis, and only invalid if suggested for reasons other than
issures [issues?--ZL] raised internal to Torah.
</pre>
</blockquote>
I see what you say here as a restatement of (a), except for my
qualification (that the peshat is open to analysis "between the
viewpoints offered").<br>
<br>
I did not mention in (a) the possibility of proving that the peshat
moves a Chazal into the non-peshat intended realm (although I referred
to that earlier in the essay); nor did I discuss (or feel qualified at
this point to discuss thoroughly) the legitimacy of proving that peshat
produces an alternative to <u>any</u> peshat proferred by Chazal, at
least if it's a machlokess Chazal. The case in question does not
require these solutions because, as was my thesis, the Ramban under
investigation (as well as Rav Saadia Gaon, Ibn Ezra, Radak and the
Zohar, and I think others) does actually follow a Chazal.<br>
<br>
The same can be said about the Ramban on the Ark's rate of descent.
Regarding the Ramban, the only remaining explanation he gives in
apparent disagreement with the one-and-only known peshat given by
Chazal, is regarding the years of Egyptian exile. Given the chazaka
established thus far, I would be very cautious before suggesting that
there was no Chazal upon which he supported himself.<br>
<br>
Zvi Lampel<br>
</body>
</html>