<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<span style="font-size: 8pt;"><o:p></o:p></span><br>
<o:smarttagtype
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="date"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:ApplyBreakingRules/>
<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:HE;}
pre
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@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]-->
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops:45.8pt 91.6pt 137.4pt
183.2pt 229.0pt 274.8pt 320.6pt 366.4pt 412.2pt 458.0pt 503.8pt
549.6pt 595.4pt 641.2pt 687.0pt 732.8pt"><small><font
face="Courier New, Courier, monospace">On Sun, 23 Dec RMS
wrote (Re: [Avodah] Mesorah):<br>
<br>
</font></small><small><font face="Courier New, Courier,
monospace"> I had brought two sources.</font></small><br>
<small><font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace"><br>
One of them, is in the context of a discussion of a
particular issue<br>
<br>
‘’A particular issue.’’ To be more specific: Whether the
wolf and lamb prophecy is literally referring to a future
change in animal behavior, or is an allegorical reference to
gentiles and Jews.<br>
<br>
The Rambam says that assigning an exclusively allegorical
meaning to a posuk is valid when doing so is consistent
with, and called for by, Chazal and their principles (which
include specific approaches towards peshat, and reason and
logic accessible to the original readers and Chazal).<br>
<br>
- RZL argues it only applies to that issue,<br>
<br>
No. I argued that it applies to the general issue the Rambam
and we are discussing: the parameters of the license to
allegorize pesukim which, the Rambam says, include
non-disagreement with Chazal and proper understanding of
peshat (verses RMS’ extension to RE-intepreting pesukim as
allegorical when their peshat and Chazal indicate they are
not allegorical.<br>
<br>
So yes, only to that broad issue. ‘’The Rambam does not
address, and from all evidence did not think possible, the
notion that a newly introduced, exclusively allegorical
reading of pesukim could be compelled by new information
that had been inaccessible to the original readers of the
pesukim and/or Chazal. Presumably, he held that Hashem would
not have deceived generations of Jews since Moses in such a
way.)’’<br>
<br>
- RZL argues ...[that] that issue has general rabbinic
support, even if not for the details.<br>
<br>
RMS is once again misrepresenting the crux of that argument.
As I showed, and in a follow-up post to this
misrepresentation of my stand, emphasized IN BLOCK LETTERS,
it is THE RAMBAM HIMSELF, IN THIS PIECE, THAT EXPLICITLY
INVOKES THE GENERAL RABBINIC SUPPORT for that ‘’issue’’ (the
principle that the nature of animals will not permanently
change even in Moshiach’s time), and that he invokes
specific rabbinical principles in support for all instances
of allegorizing. The Rambam says that although he cannot
produce a source that explicitly allegorizes this prophecy,
he does have principles from Chazal that TAUGHT HIM that
this prophecy was meant allegorically. Why does RMS continue
to make it sound like it’s my clever discovery of a talmudic
source that happens to coincide with the Rambam’s shittah
that is actually based upon his personal dislike of the idea
of miracles?<br>
<br>
whether or not that is the correct reading, ...<br>
<br>
RMS needs to show how there can be any other reading.<br>
<br>
...how limiting that reading is, can be argued<br>
<br>
But for the argument to be respectable, it needs to be
backed by facts. This is in direct contrast to RMS
“argument” that is nothing but a plea to disregard, shrug
off, or play down what the Rambam actually says. You can
‘’prove’’ anything with such methodology.<br>
<br>
RMS claimed that it is clear that the Rambam expanded the
license for allegorization beyond the parameters he
explicitly said he invoked.<br>
<br>
RMS’ proof, however, assumes without basis the very thing he
is claiming to prove: that the Rambam expanded the license
for allegorization beyond the parameters he invoked.<br>
<br>
(And asserts, without basis, that the Rambam’s invocation of
talmudic sources is just something the Rambam ‘’likes to
do,’’ and has nothing to do with the standard scholastic
procedure and obligation to cite sources for ones stand—a
procedure the Rambam himself demands of all, especially his
opponents. <br>
<br>
This constitutes a clear proof?<br>
<br>
This, to put it kindly, is circular reasoning that is not a
very worthy “proof.”<br>
<br>
(in some sense, extending what RZL, as there is a
source for hazal for olam keminhago holech...<br>
<br>
Again, it is getting very frustrating to see RMS repeatedly
ignoring the fact, despite repeated reminders, IN BLOCK
LETTERS, no less, that it is the Rambam, not I, who
explicitly invokes this principle.<br>
<br>
The Rambam explains how the principle of ‘’Olom k’minhago
holeich’’ relates to miracles. It only relates to those
kinds of miracles that involve essential changes in things
(such as staves into snakes, or wolves into vegetarians),
and </font></small><small><font face="Courier New, Courier,
monospace">restricts their duration</font></small><small><font
face="Courier New, Courier, monospace">. ‘’Olom k’minhago
holeich’’ says that such changes can only be non-permanent,
and must soon revert to their original form and nature. This
is in contrast to the kinds of miracles that merely tweak
the normal intensity, timing or location of natural events
(such as the unusual intensity of locusts in Egypt at the
pronounced time), or the repeated tying of certain kinds of
events to others without a natural connection (such as the
rewards for righteous behaviors and punishments for evil
acts). These can last forever.<br>
<br>
RMS portrays an erroneous idea of the Rambam’s attitude
about biblical statements whose face value indicates they
are talking about miraculous events. He confuses: <br>
<br>
a) Concocting the presence of miracles in reports of events
when the peshat of the pesukim and/or Chazal does not
warrant it (or if it is at odds with accepted principles), <br>
<br>
with <br>
<br>
b) Recognizing where the peshat (and/or Chazal) indicates
miraculous events. <br>
<br>
Despite the ability to ‘’explain away’’ the miracles
reported in the latter category (see Rabbeynu Saadia Gaon in
Emunos V’dei’os for several examples) the Rambam upholds the
understanding that they were indeed miracles.<br>
<br>
The Torah’s depiction of the plagues of Egypt is an example
of the latter.<br>
<br>
So is the Mabul.<br>
<br>
As the Rambam states in Moreh Nevuchim (2:25), ‘’If we were
to accept ...that Nature does not change, and that there is
nothing supernatural, we should disbelieve all miracles and
signs, ... unless the miracles are also explained
figuratively. The Allegorists amongst the Mohammedans have
done this, and have thereby arrived at absurd conclusions.’’
<br>
<br>
The only requirement for accepting that a posuk is reporting
the occurrence of a miracle is the fact that it is indicated
by Chazal or the peshat of a posuk (unless this would be
overturning an accepted principle, such as the impossibility
that Hashem would enact through a prophet a miracle greater
than those He enacted through Moshe Rabbeynu). RMS is
baseless and contra the Rambam’s statements in his
indication that the Rambam demands any stronger support than
this before maintaining that a miracle took place. <br>
<br>
and that torah is true, ...<br>
<br>
By this RMS means that the Torah must be continuously
reinterpreted whenever it fails to fit the latest ‘’truths’’
accepted by current wisdom.<br>
<br>
there is now rabbinic support for radical allegorization
of everything that conflicts with those statements..., but I
doubt that is what he means...)<br>
</font></small></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops:45.8pt 91.6pt 137.4pt
183.2pt 229.0pt 274.8pt 320.6pt 366.4pt 412.2pt 458.0pt 503.8pt
549.6pt 595.4pt 641.2pt 687.0pt 732.8pt"><small><font
face="Courier New, Courier, monospace"><br>
It certainly is not what I mean, nor what the Rambam meant.<br>
<br>
The second source - where he describes his general
approach to miracles - has not been dealt with.<br>
<br>
Another frustration. I did deal with it (Avodah, Sun, 16 Dec
2012, Re: [Avodah] Mesora (was: Rambam's Shittah on
[Allegoriaing Pesukim]], paragraph beginning with: ’’And it
is already known that we run far away.’’<br>
<br>
It is very difficult to carry on a conversation with someone
who repeatedly both misconstrues, and is oblivious to, what
the other discussant says. But why should I expect to
receive more responsible and intellectually honest treatment
than the Rambam gets?<br>
<br>
Zvi Lampel<br>
<span style="font-size: 8pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></font></small></p>
<small><font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace">
</font></small>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops:45.8pt 91.6pt 137.4pt
183.2pt 229.0pt 274.8pt 320.6pt 366.4pt 412.2pt 458.0pt 503.8pt
549.6pt 595.4pt 641.2pt 687.0pt 732.8pt"><small><span
style="font-size: 8pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></small></p>
</o:smarttagtype>
</body>
</html>