<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Under the heading, Re: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew?,<br>
</p>
Tue, 19 Dec 2017 From: Micha Berger <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:micha@aishdas.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"><micha@aishdas.org></a>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:mailman.2855.1514073518.31490.avodah-aishdas.org@lists.aishdas.org">
<pre wrap=""> Mandel, Seth via Avodah wrote:
: There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. Chazal say that dibb'ra Torah
: bilshon b'nei odom...
RMB: Well.... R' Yishmael says it [the dictum ''dibb'ra Torah
bilshon b'nei odom.''] And it appears to be an argument for his
rules of derashah, which do not include looking for magic words like
"akh" (mi'ut), "raq" (mi'ut), "kol" (ribui) or even "es", but darshens
the meaning of terms, whether ribui or mi'ut....And besides, R' Aqiva disagrees!</pre>
</blockquote>
RSRH (Collected Writings Vol. V, p. 170), citing 30 cases, points
out that, ''R. Ishmael, no less than R. Akiba (and......all of R.
Akiva's predecessors...)...considered particles [including of
''akh,'' ''raq'' and ''ess'] and superfluities ..in the Biblical
text...subject to interpretations.''<br>
<br>
He explains (p. 177) that ''R. Ishmael disagrees with R. Akiba only
with regard to one very specific form of redundancy, namely,
repetitions of the same expression; e.g.,...yidor nedder,...hasheiv
heishiv, or the repetition of the same noun (ish ish). However, R.
Ishmael interprets other redundancies in exactly the same manner as
does R. Akiba.''<br>
<br>
This leads me to propose an explanation for the phenomenon described
by RMB as that...<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:mailman.2855.1514073518.31490.avodah-aishdas.org@lists.aishdas.org">
<pre wrap="">The Rambam really sloganeers (like the CS's "chadash assur min haTorah")
when he uses it to explain that anthropomorphic descriptions of HQBH
are idioms, not to be taken overly literally.</pre>
</blockquote>
Rambam was not the first (and of course not the last*) to understand
that Chazal intended by ''dibrah Torah kil-shon bnei adam'' a wider
meaning than the one in dispute between R. Akiva and R.Yishmael, and
even wider than the one RSRH shows both agreed to.<br>
<br>
<blockquote>Rav Hai Gaon (Teshuvas HaGaonim #98), too, used it to
explain anthropomorphisms ("all the words of our Sages that have <br>
anthropomorphic descriptions ... are not to be understood
literally but are metaphors or allegory. ... the Torah speaks in
the language of <br>
man.)''<br>
<br>
So did Chovos Halevavos (Shaar HaYichud 1:1:10).<br>
<br>
And Sefer HaKuzari (5:27) used it to explain what the Torah means
when it says that blowing the chatzotzros will result in ''v-hayu
lachem l-zikaron lifnei H','' which seems to imply that H'
requires reminders.<br>
<br>
Raavad (Sefer HaEmunah 1:7) applied the dictum to explain why the
rewards and punishments the Torah' explicitly references are only
those in this world, and not the next. He explained that speaking
of spiritual rewards would confuse the common people, ''v'al zeh
ne'emar dibrah Torah b-lashon bnei adam.'' (Semi-off topic: In
Maamar Techiyyas HaMeisim, Rambam gives a similar, if not
identical reason for no explicit reference to techiyyas hameisim,
without invoking the dictum.)<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
So I propose that the Geonim and rishonim understood that the intent
of Chazal's dictum ''dibrah Torah kil-ashon bnei adam'' was a wide
one, which includes the Torah's use of anthropomorphism. And that R.
Yishmael, contra R. Akiva, /extended/ it even to repetitions of
the same expression; e.g.,...yidor nedder,...hasheiv heishiv, or the
repetition of the same noun (ish ish). But nobody, including R.
Yishmael, extended it even further, to other apparently extra words
or particles such as"akh", "raq", "kol" and "ess". Those are meant
for interpretation according to all.<br>
<br>
This would explain why even though the rule is that we follow R.
Akiva when he argues with R. Yishmael, , the rishonim embraced the
dictum of "dibrah Torah kil-shon bnei adam." Because they embraced
it in the sense that all Chazal agreed to. And this applies to
anthropomorphisms. It is only regarding whether to extended the
dictum's application to certain types of expressions that R.
Yishmael and R. Akiva argue.<br>
<br>
*Ibn Ezra--numerous times, such as on Breishis 6:6)<br>
Radak (numerous times, such as on Breishis 9:15<br>
Ramban (Breishis 6:6)<br>
Hizkuni (Devarim 5:26)<br>
Rabbeynu Bechaye (numerous times, such as on Breishis 1:26)<br>
Ralbag (Shoftim 10:16)<br>
Akeidas Yitzchak numerous times, such as on Vayeria Shaar 19 sv
Va'ani ain)<br>
<br>
Zvi Lampel<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>