<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace">Since my original
message with this subject line appeared with hard-to-read <br>
<br>
formatting, I'm attempting to send it again with more legible
formatting and <br>
<br>
some editing:<br>
<br>
<br>
1. RMS (Mon, 17 Dec 2012) claims regarding the Rambam's stand on
miracles:<br>
<br>
</font><br>
<blockquote><font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace">...what is
quite clear that this priniciple is extended /in dealing with
any </font><br>
<br>
<font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace">issue of a miracle -
one does one's best to explain it away - unless there </font><br>
<br>
<font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace">is such a clear and
irrevocable tradition that it is literal (not merely a </font><br>
<br>
<font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace">lack of a tradition
of allegory)./ (the case of the mabul would clearly be </font><br>
<br>
<font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace">here - with the
question of what is meant by specifically explained and </font><br>
<br>
<font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace">impossible to explain
it otherwise, as the mabul seems to violate olam </font><br>
<br>
<font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace">keminhago noheg...).</font><br>
</blockquote>
<font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace"><br>
I will deal with the passage RMS repeatedly cites to prove the
Rambam holds <br>
<br>
that ''in dealing with any issue of a miracle - one does one’s
best to <br>
<br>
explain it away...'' and will show it is based on an incorrect
translation. <br>
<br>
But we need only look a little further on in the Maamar Techias
HaMeisim <br>
<br>
(Sheilat p. 367, lines 9-18) to see very clearly that RMS' notion
is the <br>
<br>
exact opposite of the Rambam's stand. (It is also the contra the
Ibn Tibbon’s <br>
<br>
stand, as seen in the work RMS has called our attention to.) This
is what the <br>
<br>
Rambam says, speaking about miracles in general and the miracle of
techias <br>
<br>
ha-meisim in particular**:<br>
<br>
</font>
<blockquote><font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace">We have
already explained in Moreh Nevuchim, when speaking of the world
being </font><br>
<br>
<font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace">created [rather than
having an eternal past], that the belief in Creation </font><br>
<br>
<font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace">necessarily entails
the possibility of all miracles. The resurrection of the </font><br>
<br>
<font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace">dead will therefore
be possible as well. /And everything that is possible, </font><br>
<br>
<font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace">when a prophet
reports it--we will believe it, and we have no need to </font><br>
<br>
<font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace">interpret it, and we
do not take it out of peshuto./**</font><br>
</blockquote>
<font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace"><br>
Note:<br>
<br>
Any miracle reported by a prophet.<br>
<br>
We will believe it. (And it is not in violation of ''olom
k'minhago <br>
<br>
holeich'')<br>
<br>
There is no need to allegorize it.<br>
<br>
<br>
I think this leaves no doubt that the Rambam held the precise
opposite of the <br>
<br>
notion that ''in dealing with any issue of a miracle - one does
one's best <br>
<br>
to explain it away.'' But for the sake of savoring the Rambam’s
words, let’s <br>
<br>
go on:<br>
<br>
</font>
<blockquote><font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace">True, we
need to interpret something whose peshuto is an impossibility,
such </font><br>
<br>
<font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace">as [pesukim whose
literal meaning attributes] physicality to Hashem. But that </font><br>
<br>
<font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace">which is possible
stands as it is. ... </font><br>
</blockquote>
<font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace"><br>
This is why the Rambam absolutely does /not/ explain away
miracles, and <br>
<br>
accepts as factual,** on the basis of the peshat of the pesukim
alone (as <br>
<br>
long as it does not contradict fundamental principles), all the
miracles <br>
<br>
written about by Moses and all the other prophets, including the
miracles <br>
<br>
that proved to Israel and Pharoah that Moses was Hashem’s prophet,
the <br>
<br>
Egyptian plagues, the splitting of the sea, and so on.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
2. So, what of the paragraph RMS cites to prove that Rambam held
that ''/in <br>
<br>
dealing with any issue of a miracle - one does one's best to
explain it away <br>
<br>
- unless there is such a clear and irrevocable tradition that it
is literal <br>
<br>
(not merely a lack of a tradition of allegory)./'' Is the Rambam <br>
<br>
contradicting himself? Well, let’s investigate RMS’s translation:<br>
<br>
</font>
<blockquote><font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace">And our
efforts our to gather between the torah and the reasonable,</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace">and will manage all
things according to a possible natural order,</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace">except /what is
specifically explained that it is a miracle (mofet)/</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace">and it is impossible
to explain it otherwise, then we will need to say</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace">that it is a miracle</font><br>
</blockquote>
<font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace"><br>
The translation, ''except what is specifically explained that it
is a miracle <br>
<br>
(mofet)'' leads one to one wonder who it is that Rambam requires
to do the <br>
<br>
specific explaining? Does he indeed require that Chazal
specifically insist <br>
<br>
something was a miracle, and otherwise allow, and even demand,
allegorizing <br>
<br>
the miracle away?<br>
<br>
<br>
Well, the question is really irrelevant, because the translation
is wrong. <br>
<br>
The words RMS basis his proof on and translates as ''what is
/specifically <br>
<br>
explained/ that it is a miracle (mofet),'' are actually, ''ellah
mah /sheh-<br>
<br>
hiss-ba-er bo/ she-hu mofes.'' RMS' translation is a creative
translation <br>
<br>
based not on the Rambam's words, but on the epistomology RMS
believes in.<br>
<br>
''/Sheh-hiss-ba-er/ bo'' translates simply, ''What is itself
clear.'' I.e., <br>
<br>
the peshat of the posuk itself indicates it is depicting a
miracle. The <br>
<br>
criterion is just as Rambam says in the later paragraph I cited
above: ''not <br>
<br>
to take the posuk out of its peshitus.''<br>
<br>
<br>
And, consistent with what the Rambam says in that above-cited
paragraph, that <br>
<br>
itself is what ''makes it impossible to (legitimately) explain it
otherwise'' <br>
<br>
(''v’lo yi-tachen l’faresh klall'').<br>
<br>
<br>
The Rambam’s objection is to inventing the occurrence of miracles
where the <br>
<br>
pesukim’s peshat, or Chazal,*** do not warrant it (or accepting
the literal <br>
<br>
meaning of something that is a logical--versus
natural--impossibility, such <br>
<br>
as with anthropomorphisms).<br>
<br>
<br>
Recognizing this also eliminates objections that one would
otherwise raise:<br>
<br>
(a) If the impossibility of allegorizing the miracles depends upon
some <br>
<br>
statements by Chazal that explicitly identify particular pesukim
as really, <br>
<br>
really talking about miracles, why does the Rambam explicitly
accept miracles <br>
<br>
recorded in pesukim that enjoy no such special treatment? What
plainly-stated <br>
<br>
miracles are there that enjoy less sponsorship than others by
Chazal, and <br>
<br>
whose factuality the Rambam thereupon discounts?<br>
<br>
<br>
(b) It is never absolutely impossible to invent an allegorical
meaning for <br>
<br>
any posuk. Such can and has been done with virtually all pesukim
by <br>
<br>
Allegorists for centuries.<br>
<br>
<br>
So, in response to RMS’s accusation that,<br>
<br>
</font>
<blockquote><font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace">RZL;s
position has far more to do with current haredi sensibilities
than with </font><br>
<br>
<font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace">the rambam (one
remembers the rambam's parable of the palace and the role of </font><br>
<br>
<font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace">talmudic scholars)</font><br>
</blockquote>
<font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace"><br>
I will point out that it is RMS who is approaching the Rambam's
words with a <br>
<br>
bias; and that the Rambam’s parable does not license distorting
his words and <br>
<br>
reading into them notions that he explicitly disparages. The fact
that some <br>
<br>
people interpreted the Rambam to mean the opposite of what he
held, is a <br>
<br>
phenomenon the Rambam himself suffered from and complained about
in the very <br>
<br>
Ma’amar Techias HaMeisim under discussion. Unfortunately, this
phenomenon <br>
<br>
haunts us to this day.<br>
<br>
<br>
Zvi Lampel<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
**See (Shiat p. 366, lines 9-20):<br>
<br>
There is no difference between it saying, ''If a man dies, shall
he live?!'' <br>
<br>
and ''Shall we bring out water from the rock?!''for this would be
not <br>
<br>
natural, but impossible; yet the waters did indeed go out of the
rock through <br>
<br>
a miracle! ...And there is no difference between it saying,
‘’Shall a Cushite <br>
<br>
change his skin?!'' and it saying, ‘’Shall the dead perform a
wonder?!’’—yet <br>
<br>
the hand [of Moses] did indeed turn a [leprous] white in color! So
if someone <br>
<br>
would say it is impossible for a lifeless object to propel itself
in <br>
<br>
movement, he would be saying the truth according to what is in
[the realm of] <br>
<br>
nature; but this statement would not be denying the changing of
ther staff to <br>
<br>
a serpent, since that was a miracle. It is likewise with all the
pesukim you <br>
<br>
may find in Tanach that treat as far-fetched the notion of the
dead returning <br>
<br>
to life. That is speaking in the realm of what is in nature. But
that does <br>
<br>
not contradict their return to life when Hashem so wills it....You
need not <br>
<br>
interpret any of those pesukim with those despicable
interpretations, too <br>
<br>
far-fetched to accept, which one who denies the Resurrection uses
to buttress <br>
<br>
his stand.<br>
<br>
***An example of where the Rambam accepts a miracle reported by
Chazal even <br>
<br>
though it does not necessarily follow from the posuk's peshat, is
the miracle <br>
<br>
done for Avraham Avinu in Ur Kasdim, which is embraced by the
Rambam in <br>
<br>
Hilchos Avodas Kochavim 1:3--''kivan sheh-gavar aleihem
b'rai'osov, bikesh <br>
<br>
ha-melech l'horgo, /v'na'a'sah neis/ v'yatzah l'Charan''. And I
don't see <br>
<br>
that Chazal are any more insistent about that miracle than any
others.<br>
<br>
Zvi Lampel<br>
<br>
</font><br>
</body>
</html>