<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:mailman.4414.1515008750.31485.avodah-aishdas.org@lists.aishdas.org">
<pre wrap="">Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 RSM wrote concerning my translation of a passage in Rambam's Hakdama to Perek Chelek:
I don't know why he divides your and his translation into stanzas.The Rambam does not divide it in the original...</pre>
</blockquote>
<tt>At first I was bewildered by this remark. How in the world does
one see I divided the Rambam into stanzas?! Then I figured it out.
Those slashes are not meant to mark stanzas. They are attempts to
indicate italics. Not that I meant to convey that the Rambam wrote
in italics, either, but to high-lite the words I wanted to focus
on.</tt><tt><br>
<br>
Regarding the argument RMB and I have concerning whether Chazal,
when mentioning events, were interested in their historic
veracity, or just the message they saw in the alleged events, RSM
comments: <br>
</tt>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:mailman.4414.1515008750.31485.avodah-aishdas.org@lists.aishdas.org">
<pre wrap="">
... If the arguments are about
whether the Rambam is claiming that no aggadta is historically accurate,
it is the flow of the arguments that answers that question conclusively,
</pre>
</blockquote>
<tt>Neither of us maintained such a thing.</tt><tt><br>
</tt>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:mailman.4414.1515008750.31485.avodah-aishdas.org@lists.aishdas.org">
<pre wrap="">...the context and the line of arguments of the Rambam makes it clear
that anyone who takes aggadta just as historical fact ....</pre>
</blockquote>
<tt>...an entirely different claim, and another one which neither of
us maintained.</tt><tt><br>
</tt>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:mailman.4414.1515008750.31485.avodah-aishdas.org@lists.aishdas.org">
<pre wrap="">...is a fool because
everything in Aggadta is meant to teach a lesson. I believe that the
Rambam would say it is unimportant if it really happened, because Chazal
are not interested in telling historical facts.</pre>
</blockquote>
<tt>RSM and RMB share this belief, but it has no basis in the
Rambam's words or context. (And the reasoning is circular. The
reason RSM believes Rambam would say the veracity of a reported is
unimportant is because Chazal are not interested. Well, that's
begging the question! Who said Chazal were uninterested in the
historical veracity of events they reported? Again, all agree that
the purpose of reporting the event was to convey a lesson they
teach. But that tells you /nothing/ about whether Chazal or Rambam
were interested in whether the report is true.) So the rest of the
remarks are really irrelevant.</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt><br>
</tt>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:mailman.4414.1515008750.31485.avodah-aishdas.org@lists.aishdas.org">
<pre wrap="">Chazal are not interested in teaching history.
However, the Geonim had a tradition </pre>
</blockquote>
<tt>
Source?</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>
</tt>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:mailman.4414.1515008750.31485.avodah-aishdas.org@lists.aishdas.org">
<pre wrap="">that some things that Chazal say are
historical, and these are the things that the Rambam quotes, such as
the story of Chanukka.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<tt>
So Chazal were not interested in whether an event actually
occurred, but the Geonim were, but the Rambam again was not? And
from whom did the Geonim get the tradition telling them which
events Chazal reported were historically true, if Chazal
themselves were not interested in this matter?</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>
</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>
</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>
</tt>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:mailman.4414.1515008750.31485.avodah-aishdas.org@lists.aishdas.org">
<pre wrap=""> He does not quote the allegories unless he is
using them for his purposes. </pre>
</blockquote>
<tt>
He doesn't quote anything unless he is using it for his purposes.
</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>
</tt>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:mailman.4414.1515008750.31485.avodah-aishdas.org@lists.aishdas.org">
<pre wrap="">He also states things that he believes
are historical, such as how AZ developed at the beginnings of Hilkhot
AZ. </pre>
</blockquote>
<tt>
All the above about Chanuka and AZ sounds to me like special
pleading. </tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>And how do you know the Rambam meant each of these as
history, or that he thought that this Midrash meant it as history?</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>On what basis did the Rambam decide that these reports were
historical and not just to teach us lessons?</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>And why did it matter to him if the Midrash's report of the
development of AZ was historically true? Let him just state the
lesson it teaches, the halachos, and that no rationale permits
praying to heavenly objects.</tt><br>
<tt>Why did it matter to him if the Chanuka neis actually occurred?</tt><tt>
Maybe Chazal were using metaphor to teach a lesson. Let him just
tell us the halachos of lighting the licht, which symbolizes the
lessons of the metaphor (or. as Josephus puts it, ''the freedom to
worship had been concealed in darkness and is now brought to
light.'') <br>
</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt><br>
</tt>
<pre wrap="">What the Rambam says about the three kattim and Chazal's policy of using allegory tells us /nothing/ about whether Chazal or he considered it important that their reports of events were true. Unless one gets the impression that the Rambam held they did, based upon his praise of Chazal's integrity.
Me, I think that if the Rambam held that Chazal, in conveying lessons through reported plausible events, did so without regard to their truth, he would have said so. Because when a sage says something plausible happened (/especially/ if that alleged event teaches a lesson), a normal person thinks the sage means it really happened. And I think rightly so. And the Rambam's concern about whether an event was reported as a report of a dream, reinforces the notion that it mattered to him, and that he was not unconcerned about, whether it really took place (and conveyed the lesson it taught).</pre>
<tt>
</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>***</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>Some remarks on RSM's translation of the Arabic as it
relates to the translations of the Hebrew offered by RMB and me
of,</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt><br>
: l'fi shedivrei hachachamim kulam /bedevarim ha-elyonim
she-heim <br>
: hatachlis/ amnam heim chiddah umashal.<br>
</tt>
<pre wrap="">RSM's translation of the Arabic:
"because what all the scholars (or: those with wisdom) say concerning
these elevated (or: sublime) matters, which is the ultimate goal,
is indeed metaphor and allegory."
RBM's take was:
: "for <i class="moz-txt-slash"><span class="moz-txt-tag">/</span>all the words of the sages<span class="moz-txt-tag">/</span></i> are about lofty matters, which
: form the ultimate concern, but they are [all expressed through] chiddah
: and mashal."
My take was:
: for the words of all the wise men <i>/concerning the lofty matters,
: which form the ultimate concern,/ </i>are truly [expressed in] chiddah
: and mashal.
Upon which RBM asked: Hachakhamim kulam = all the wise men? Wouldn't that need a "kol", as in
"kol hachakhamim", or for emphasis, "kol hachakhamim kulam"?
But RSM too takes it as "all the scholars (or: those with wisdom)." Not that I wouldn't accept RMB's ''all the words of the sages." I can take it either way. Similar to ''eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Hayyim hein'' (whoops, I just stumbled into another machlokess RMB and I engage in perennially!...). Is it "the words of the living G-d," or "the living words of G-d"?
RMM also asked,
> And what do you do with the prepositional "be-" in "be'inyanim ha'elyonim"
if it isn't "kulam be'inyanim ha'elyanim" -- there is no noun afterward
either.
I had translated the ''be,'' which means ''in,'' as ''concerning," so that the clause reads not as RMB has it, ''"for <i class="moz-txt-slash"><span class="moz-txt-tag"></span>all the words of the sages</i> are about lofty matters,'' but ''for the words of all the wise men concerning the lofty matters...'' RSM's take agrees with mine: ''because what all the scholars (or: those with wisdom) say concerning these elevated (or: sublime) matters...''
And thirdly, RMB critiqued my translation:
> And "amnam" is not "are truly" but "but they are".
Yet RSM too, translated it, "indeed."
(Before I wrote my original post, I checked out this amnam with /my/ Arabic go-to man, and he wrote:
The word amnam is a precise translation of the Arabic anma, and it carries
the ambiguity of “but” and “indeed,” but in this case, I think it means “but.”)
By the way, one can get to the Arabic and Hebrew on facing pages by going here:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/קובץ:Rambam-Helek-Holzer-HB33111.pdf">https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/קובץ:Rambam-Helek-Holzer-HB33111.pdf</a>
So again I maintain that the Rambam is telling us that Chazal presented only the inyanim elokiyyim/elyonim lessons in implausible reports. Less lofty, albeit valuable, lessons were taught in plain language, whose surface meanings of their statements were intended, but which perhaps additionally had some hidden meanings (of the non-lofty kind).
But he is not addressing here whether Chazal were concerned about the historical veracity of the reports upon which they built or illustrated their lessons.
Zvi Lampel
</pre>
<tt><br>
</tt>
</body>
</html>