<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<tt><br>
</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>On 12/26/2017 11:06 AM, Micha Berger wrote:</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>> On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 11:41:54PM -0500, H Lampel
wrote:</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>> : The historical mentions the Rambam's makes, treating
the plausible</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>> : Midrashim as history without making any
qualifications, indicates</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>> : otherwise.</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>></tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>> It indicates that some medrashim which both didn't
defy evidence or</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>> his philosophy that the Rambam felt had a</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>> literal point worth making. Not that plausible
medrashim should be</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>> assumed to be literal history.</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt><br>
You are saying that Rambam repeated in a historic context the
Talmud's plausible reports of events principally for ''a literal
point worth making,'' and not because he assumed them to be actual
historical events? But surely you agree that the Rambam recorded
Chazal's reports of the Chanuka victory and oil miracle (Hilchos
Chanuka 1-3), for example, as actual history (see
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.torahmusings.com/2017/01/avraham-finding-hashem-spreading-word/">https://www.torahmusings.com/2017/01/avraham-finding-hashem-spreading-word/</a>
for more examples), and not only for a point whose literal (but
possibly historically false meaning) was worth mentioning! <br>
<br>
</tt><tt><tt>And I refer you again to my point</tt><tt> (posted Tue,
26 Dec 201, Message 10) </tt><tt> about the Rambam's felt need
to identify which aggadic reports were really reports of dreams
and which were not. Historical veracity is important.<br>
<br>
But you are going even further than saying the Rambam did /not
say/ </tt></tt><tt><tt><tt>that plausible medrashim should be</tt><tt>
assumed to be literal history. You go on to imply that he
indicates </tt></tt></tt><tt><tt><tt>the principal intent in
all historical reports is for their deepest truths, and </tt></tt></tt><tt><tt><tt>that
the historical veracity of even plausible medrashim is
irrelevant.</tt><tt><br>
</tt>
</tt></tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>> He spends so much time telling you they're all
statements of the deepest</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>> truths, and quoting Shelomo, that chakhamim conduct
such discussions</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>> via mashal and melitzah.</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>></tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>> The fact that some deepest truths has historical
impact doesn't give us</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>> license to ignore paragraphs of writing.</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt> </tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>But the paragraphs of writing do not say what you attribute
to them. Your take hinges on the sentence (in commentary on Perek
Cheilek) which, after invoking Mishlei, reads,</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt> l'fi shedivrei hachachamim kulam /bedevarim ha-elyonim
she-heim hatachlis/ amnam heim chiddah umashal.</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>You apparently treat </tt><tt><tt>/bedevarim ha-elyonim
she-heim hatachlis/</tt> as the predicate of the sentence, and
you translate it:</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt> ''for /all the words of the sages/ are about lofty
matters, which form the ultimate concern, but they are [all
expressed through] chiddah and mashal.''</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>But I treat</tt><tt><tt> </tt><tt><tt>/bedevarim
ha-elyonim she-heim hatachlis/</tt></tt></tt><tt><tt> as part
of the subject, modifying and restricting /divrei hachachamim
kulam/. </tt></tt><tt><tt>So the passage translates:</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt> </tt><tt><br>
</tt> </tt>
<blockquote><tt>for the words of all the wise men /concerning the
lofty matters, which form the ultimate concern,/ are truly
[expressed in] chiddah and mashal.</tt></blockquote>
<tt><br>
Which did the Rambam mean? <br>
<br>
Fortunately, there is a parallel passage in the Rambam's Hakdama
L'Payrush HaMishna that eliminates the mistake that he means that
/all the words of the sages/ are really intended only to convey
lofty matters. There he phrases the thought:</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt><br>
</tt>
<blockquote><tt>V-al inyan zo ramaz Shlomo b-amro (Mishlei 1:6)
''lehavin mashal umelitza, divrei chachamim vechidasam.''
Umachmas seebos eilu kav-u haChachamim a''h /ess divreihem
be-inyanim elokiyim/ beramazim.</tt><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><tt>And to this idea Shlomo hinted/indicated by saying
(Mishlei1:6) "to understand mashal and melitza, the words of
wise men and their chiddos." And for these reasons (to hide
lofty teachings from the undeserving, and to provide material
for children and women to develop as their minds mature) the
sages, a"h, established their words /concerning inyanim
elokiyyim/ [not ''all their words''--ZL] through remazim. </tt><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote> </blockquote>
<tt><br>
</tt><tt>What kind of remazim? The Rambam there elaborates and
explains further: /Lofty concepts/ are too precious to be shared
with everyone. If baser people heard them straight out, even if
they would not dismiss or ridicule these truths, they would not
appreciate them as much as they should. So Chazal would purposely
use the device of framing specifically and exclusively these
/lofty concepts/ in a code language whose surface meaning is
implausible, to keep the lofty concept secret. It is better that
the baser people think the sages believed in the face value of the
code language and ridicule the sages for saying ridiculous things,
then that they should under-appreciate the lofty concepts. (An
amazing preference, but that's what he says!)<br>
<br>
This device</tt><tt><tt> was specifically needed and reserved for
the class of lofty teachings that must be disguised</tt>. It was
not necessary and not utilized for less profound lessons, which
are </tt><tt>not to be confused with all other teachings, which
certainly possess valuable lessons, plausibly nistar as well as
nigleh, but are nevertheless not in the unique category of the
profound matters that demand hidden expression through such
devices. Surely the Rambam put in this latter category, for
example, Chazal's reports of the Chanuka victory and oil miracle,
and did not consider it to be an aggadita hiding Devarim
haElyonim, as he plainly refers to both as a historical events
(Hilchos Chanuka 1-3).</tt><tt><br>
<br>
So the passage in Cheilek cannot be presented as evidence that the
Rambam considered the historical veracity of historic-sounding
reports irrelevant. <br>
</tt><br>
<tt><tt>Besides, taking Rambam's ''all the words of the sages''
without qualification is necessarily overkill. Not all of
Chazal's words, certainly not the words in their halachic
pronouncements and not even all the words in their non-halachic
comments, disguise inyanim elokiyyim/elyonim. The Rambam takes
as literal history the narratives in the Talmud about who was
whose rebbi, and their times and locations, and indeed invokes
these facts in the Mishneh Torah introduction to support the
legitimacy of the mesorah. (Much as does Iggeress Rav Saadia
Gaon.) Historical veracity is important.<br>
</tt><tt> </tt></tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>Moreover, when the Rambam presents the third, correct
approach to Chazal's statements, he distinguishes between those
maamarim expressed in implausible ways and can therefore have
/only/ a nistar meaning, and the others which are to be understood
both on their nistar /and </tt><tt>nigleh/ </tt><tt>levels. He
writes that those who follow this approach know that</tt><tt>,<br>
</tt><tt><br>
</tt>
<blockquote><tt>einam medabrim hitoolim, v'nis'ameis lahem
shedivreihem yeish lo nigleh v'nistar, v'ki heim b'chol mah
she-omrim /min hadevarim ha-nimna-im dabru bahem b'derech
chiddah umashal/...chiddah hu ha-davar she-hamekviun b'nistar
/v'lo b'niglah mimenu/. </tt><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote> <tt>[Chazal] do not speak nonsense, and they [the
people of this category] are confident that [Chazal's] words
have nigleh /and/ nistar [NOTE: Rambam may mean some statements
are intended completely for their nigleh and others completely
for their nistar, or he may mean that all statements contain
both nigleh and nistar. I'll operate with the latter--ZL]; and
that they, /in all of their statements containing
impossibilities,/ spoke in way of chiddah umashal...chiddah is a
statement whose intent is /only in nistar/, and /not in any
nigleh/ from it. </tt><br>
</blockquote>
<tt><br>
</tt><tt>--Two types of statements. a. Those which are at face value
implausible, have /no intent/ in their nigleh, and which are
intended /only/ for the nistar, which must be hidden from the
common people; and b. Those which are intended for both their
nistar /and/ their nigleh meanings, both of which can be safely
revealed among the masses. Again, Chazal used the device of
chiddah and mashal /only/ with maamarim whose /only/ intent is
(nistaric? ;) inyanei elokiyyim/devarim ha-elyonim.</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt> </tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>So it may well be that Rambam holds that every maamar
Chazal has a (non-inyanei elokiyyim) nistar lesson to it. But he
also holds that, like the meshalim of Mishlei, they all also have
a lesson intended by the nigleh that the masses comprehend, the
only exceptions being those maamarei Chazal that are expressed in
implausible terms. Those implausible ones, and only those, were
not intended for their nigleh at all.</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>Thus, in this very work, Rambam cites the Chazal ''gevuros
geshamim la-tsadikim u-l-reshaim , u-techiyyas ha-meisim
la-tzadikkim bilvad'' for its nigleh face value (that although the
wicked share the benefit of rainfall with the righteous, they will
not experience techiass haMeisim), without claiming that it is
really only intended as a mashal v’chidah for some other concept
that must be disguised from the masses. Many other such examples
can be found.</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>Going through Avraham ben HaRambam's classes of maasiyos in
the Talmud and his descriptions thereof, one sees that he considers
much of Chazal's reports of events to be meant factually, and
considers it important to know when Chazal's reports of events
were factual.</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>When one is told an event occurred, the normal initial way
to understand it is that the speaker means to say that the event
occurred as described. Only if other factors legitimately negate
its possibility, does one say otherwise.</tt><tt> Thus, again,
Rambam's intent to identify which of Chazal's reports were really
reports of dreams. Historical veracity is important.<br>
<br>
</tt><tt> </tt><tt>> ZL: Regarding the Midrashic reports that
Adam and the Avos spoke</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>> : Ivris/Lashon Hakadosh, which I assume you agree the
Kuzari accepts</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>> : as historical fact (which of course teaches in its
historicity an</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>> : important thing to know)... Is your default position
that the Rambam</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>> : doesn't care whether it's historically so?</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>></tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>>RMB: That's the default. Perhaps the Rambam agrees with
the Rihal that</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>> the history of Ivris is a significant statement, and
would be meant</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>> literally even under his view. Perhaps not. I can't
guess, and am</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>> willing to entertain anything.</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>></tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>> But there are also reports that they spoke Aramaic, or
even</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>> that Adam spoke all 70 leshonos. See the sources I
gave in</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol35/v35n141.shtml#11"><http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol35/v35n141.shtml#11></a>
as well as</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>> Sanhedrin 38b (R Yehudah amar Rav: Adam haRishon spoke
Aramaic). Not to</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>> mention historical evidence.</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>None of us are saying that Chazal necessarily held that
Adam and the Avos spoke only Hebrew. And even if one maintains
it's a two- or three-way machlokess, two opinions attributing only
one language to Adam, no one says this maamar Chazal (not being
implausible) was intended only as mashal and chiddah and not
historically. To maintain that the Rambam would entertain taking
the report as a chiddah umashal, despite its being quite plausible
at face value, requires proof. And as I maintain I've shown (using
the parallel passage in HLPH, among other arguments) he only
ascribes chiddah umashal disguising inyanei elyonim/elokiyyim to
maamaerei Chazal that are implausible on their surface.</tt><tt>
And that's all he's talking about in all those paragraphs of
writing. Not maamarei Chazal reporting plausible events. <br>
<br>
If there exists some indication the Rambam is noncommittal to the
historical factuality of plausible events reported by Chazal, it
does not come from these paragraphs of writing.<br>
<br>
</tt><tt>> ...</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>></tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>> To complete repeating myself, my own instinct is to
say that Adam</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>> spoke some proto-Semitic, and therefore spoke a
language which could be</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>> considered both ancient Hebrew AND ancient Aramaic, or
proto-everything</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>> and thus an ancestor to all 70 languages. And this
would explain the</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>> medrashim as well as allow us to identify Adam's
speech with Leshon</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>> haQodesh.</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>That is one among several approaches to harmonize the
statements. But again, all the approaches (including yours, which
is at odds with what you attribute to the Rambam and with what you
have been advocating) assume that this maamar Chazal (which is not
implausible) is meant historically and is not meant only for
metaphor, and certainly not a mashal and chiddah for some other
inyanim elyonim/elokiyyim that must be hidden from the masses.</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>Zvi Lampel </tt><tt><br>
</tt>
</body>
</html>