Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 051

Sunday, November 10 2002

• RE: Shittas ho'Rambam
• RE: Shittas ho'Rambam
• RE: Shittas ho'Rambam
• RE: Shittas ho'Rambam
• Re: Chazal
• Re: Astrology inquiry by a still boggling mind
• Re: Astrology inquiry by a still boggling mind
• Re: Astrology inquiry by a still boggling mind
• RE: Avodah V10 #49
• Name of Eisav's Third Wife
• Re: Kaddish is in Aramaic
• RE: Astrology inquiry by a still boggling mind
• RE: Astrology inquiry by a still boggling mind
• RE: Astrology inquiry by a still boggling mind

B"H I see things are winding down, so we may return to brevity:

At 09:47 AM 11/8/02 -0500, Shinnar, Meir wrote:
>(sigh)
>The issue is not whether some held that this was the rambam's pshat in the
>gmara - something that in some way, I agree to.  The issue is that he came
>to this pshat based on extra gmara sources - that based on reason, he
>concluded that astrology was false, and then understood the gmara in light
>of that understanding.

(major groan)
We all bring reason to bear when we learn Gemara. We attempt with our
reason to understand what Chazal are telling us. I have not seen a whit
of evidence to suggest the Rambam did otherwise.

>The fact that many may have held as you is not the issue - Rav Eidensohn has
>documented that many rishonim and acharonim have rejected your basic
>assumptions about how rishonim approach maamre hazal, and viewed that the
>rambam did, indeed, go aainst your assumption that as you said earlier

He hasn't documented one... Guess you didn't read my response to
him... Nor looked at the Rambam inside...

>while the gra writes

>The Rambam had such a view because he was influenced by philosophy.
>Therefore he
>writes that witchcraft, use of Divine names, incantations, demons, and
>charms are all false. His view is completely erroneous since we see many
>descriptions in the gemora of these things.

>I am glad to be with the gra's school of understanding what the rambam
>meant.  If that means that our theologies are completely different...

(even more major groan, followed by deep sigh)
As I noted, the Gr"a & you and RDE ain't anywhere near the same page.

I would like to add to the mix a stress on the Meiri on zugos I mentioned
earlier, as it is very enlightening. We all know that the Meiri was an
arch-rationalist and staunch adherent of the Maimonidean school who could
very readily have, if he held like RMS, RMF, RDE et al, dismissed Chazal
out of hand (something, BTW, we have not seen ANYWHERE to date. The R'
Shmuel ha'Nagid, Ramban, R' Avraham ben ho'Rambam etc. about Agados in
Shas refer to stories and sermons, not to statements that purport to be
factual). But the Meiri does not say that. He says Chazal had to give
in a little to prevalent superstition, even though they themselves knew
and evince elsewhere that all this is nonsense.

You know why he says that? Don't worry, I will tell you why! He says it
because he believes it, and his vast knowledge of Shas and Chazal and
the shitta of the Rambam led him to that conclusion.

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

RYGB
We all bring reason to bear when we learn Gemara. We attempt with our
reason to understand what Chazal are telling us. I have not seen a whit
of evidence to suggest the Rambam did otherwise.

me
There are two separate issues. One is what we learn from hazal, the other
is how we learn what hazal must have meant, given what we otherwise know.
If we find a statement in hazal contradicts what we think is the truth,
we have essentially three options

1) Assume that hazal were wrong

2) Assume that we misunderstand the simple pshat in hazal, and that
hazal actually means something that does not contradict the simple truth.

3) Assume that we must be wrong.

The rambam held somewhere between 1 and 2 - he is not as casually
dismissive of aggadot hazal as rav hai gaon, but did hold of the
possibility of error.

(by the way, the distinction that you make between aggadot and statements
that purport to be factual is made up, without a shred of evidence to
support that the rambam or rav Hai gaon held this way - and much in the
rambam that holds otherwise)

However, the fact that we can interprete hazal so that it is in consonance
with our understanding of the truth does not mean that we derive our
understanding of the truth from hazal - the issue in question.

RYGB
He hasn't documented one... Guess you didn't read my response to
him... Nor looked at the Rambam inside...

Me
your notion of documentation is the issue. Clearly, as the rambam
couldn't have meant what he said, any statement that says that he did
doesn't mean it, as no one could hold that way (basic assumptions....)

I looked at the rambam (don't have a frankel at work). It is strikingly
irrelevant to the issue - it holds, that hazal, as chachamim, must
clearly have held that astrology is nonsense, but there is no attempt to
base that on the text . of course, this doesn't prove anything, as the
relationship of the rambam to his sources is on principle undocumented.
One can only infer that the rambam held that way, not that he derived
it from the gmara in question, even if can "learn" the gmara that way.

Lastly, I think that you completely misread the Meiri. The Meiri holds
like the rambam. The problem that he is facing is that hazal's positions
on astrology (and witchcraft, etc) not only are not controversial
or in machloket, they seem to be exquisitely clear in support of its
truth value. Unlike other cases, where one can argue that there are
other positions in hazal, or that hazal are unclear and can be easily
reread, it seems to the meiri (and the gra and ....) that hazal do
have an explicit position in favor of the truth behind astrology,
witch craft, etc. The Meiri, following the rambam, but unlike the gra,
viewed these positions not only to be wrong, but to be positions that
no intelligent human being could possibly uphold.

Therefore, merely dismissing all of drashot hazal on astrology here
is impossible, because it would imply that hazal were not merely wrong
about the metziut - something the rambam and rav hai gaon were willing
to acknowledge - but held positions that severely undermines their claims
to intellectual authority.

Therefore, the meiri is saying that hazal here didn't really mean
it - all those statements were made out of necessity, as the amcha
wouldn't understand the truth, and there is fear of ignorant backlash.
That reason was why it was necessary to conceal the truth. The truth,
however, is not immanent within divre hazal - it requires our reason to
realize that this is nonsense, and therefore realize what hazal were
truly saying. This is simple pshat for anyone not totally wedded to
basic assumptions. (and this is why those not wedded to the power of
reason as an independent authority, but basing themselves strictly on
maamre hazal, mostly come to opposite conclusions, such as the gra)

Again, almost everyone (except RYGB, with perhaps some few others of
a RW bent (and here, intellectually, you are being very RW)) seems to
agree that the rambam's understanding of astrology was determined by his
reason and philosophical inclinations rather than driven by his textual
understandings and mesora - some are doresh lishvach, some lignai, but
this conclusion is zil kare be rav. This is what the rambam himself says,
as well as the gra.

Meir Shinnar

My dear Reb Meir,

You have stated your position with such force, precision, clarity,
lucidity and eloquence that anyone with the least shred of Emunas
Chachamim; understanding of Mesorah, and experience with the writings
of the Rishonim - not to mention the sources that you have either
misconstrued or not examined - must reject the position out of hand as
inimical to Orthodox Jewish theology.

I would like to query, at this point, our chaverim or erstwhile chaverim
(please forward if you have their e-mail addresses) who are putatively
MO leaders, including Rabbi Saul Berman, Rabbi Yosef Blau, Rabbi Michael
Broyde, Rabbi Shalom Carmy and Rabbi J. J. Schachter (some I cc'd myself):
Do you agree with RMS's characterization of my position as RW and his
position as that of "almost everyone"?

KT, Good Shabbos/Good Voch,
YGB

RYGB
My dear Reb Meir,

You have stated your position with such force, precision, clarity,
lucidity and eloquence that anyone with the least shred of Emunas
Chachamim; understanding of Mesorah, and experience with the writings
of the Rishonim - not to mention the sources that you have either
misconstrued or not examined - must reject the position out of hand as
inimical to Orthodox Jewish theology.

Me
We end, as usual, with force of assertion that these positions are
inimical to your (and therefore all) Orthodox Jewish theology. I think
that it is clear that the rambam's positions are inimical to much of
current Orthodox Jewish theology, especially RW, and it was rejected by
many (the frequently cited gra).

What was particularly strange about this exchange that while many reject
that position, I can not (and after all this still do not) understand how
any one with a shred of intellectual honesty can reject the fact that this
was the rambam's position, even though it is with great variance to their
own. Many disagreed with him, as RDE documented - but the rejection
of the rambam's position on several of these issues such as shedim by
the gra and others was precisely that they rejected his position on the
use of reason to understand hazal, not that they denied that he held it...

Meir Shinnar

kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
> Can someone teach me what the start and endpoints are for "Chazal"?

Anshei Knesseth HaGedolah to Hathimath HaTalmud.  Admittedly, both ends are a
bit blurry, but it renders most usages quite clear.

David Riceman

In an currently-unpublished article I suggest the posibility of a
machlokes among the talmidim of R' Akiva over the idea of pre-destination,
including astrology, that is manifested in a machlokes over whether names
are indicative of a person's future (two other possibilites are suggested
to explain the machlokes). The article is available to individuals on
private request.

Gil Student

At this point Rabbi Bechhofer asserts
1) that there is a position of Chazal that rejects astrology even though
none can be found
2) His evidence is the fact that the Rambam rejects the validity of
astrology and the Rambam would never make assertion which he didn't
think was that of Chazal
3) The statement of the Gra and Ran to the contrary merely indicate that
they felt that the Rambam was mistaken in his understanding of Chazal
not that the Rambam rejected the view of Chazal.

I have asserted that the Rambam
1) did not in fact have any sources from chazal but rejected astrology
because it was nonsense.
2) Furthermore that the Gra and the Ran rejected the Rambam because his
position was against Chazal.

In sum the differences between the positions hinges on whether the Rambam
thought he had a source in chazal for rejecting astrology

A careful rereading of the Rambam's letter on Chazal provides a
reconcilation of these two positions.

"I know of course that it is possible to search and find isolated opinions
of some sages in the Talmud and Midrashim whose views contradict [what
I have said.]... These statements should not trouble you because one
doesn't simply discard a clearly established halacha and revert back
to the initial analysis. Similarly it is not appropriate to discard a
well-validated principle and simply rely on a minority opinion of the
sages instead. That is because the sage [is not infallible and] might
have erred by overlooking some important facts or hints when he stated
his views. Alternatively he might have stated his view only concerning
a unique situation that had been presented to him and he had not meant
to state a general principle. This caution is illustrated by the fact
that many verses of the Torah are not meant to be taken literally - as
has been clearly established by impeccable proofs. Therefore they are
explained in a way that makes sense rather than literally. The general
rule is that a person should never easily toss aside his well-considered
views.. His eyes should look unflinchingly forward and not backwards.."

This establishes 1) that the Rambam did not have any statement of
chazal that he understood as rejecting astrology 2) he was well aware
of statments in chazal supporting astrology 3) He rejected those as
spurious or not to be taken literally 4) He knew that astrology was
wrong entirely because it violated commonsense and not because he had
a source in chazal 5) he must have assumed that the silent majority of
chazal rejected astrology because only idiots accepted astrology and
chazal were not idiots.

The rejection of the Gra and the Ran were based on 1) the fact that they
assumed that the consistent support of astrology found in chazal was
representative of the views of chazal and not spurious or not to be taken
literally 2) they didn't start with the view that astrology is nonsense

In sum - there is not a single source to support the idea that chazal
rejected astrology. The Rambam assumed that the silent majority view
of Chazal followed commonsense or that Chazal's views on astrology were
not binding.

Moreh Nevuchim (3:14) "Do not ask me to justify everything that [Chazal]
have said concerning astronomical matters conforms to the way things
really are. For at that time science was imperfect. They did not speak in
this way becaue they had a tradition from the prophets, but rather because
in they were experts in this knowledge of their days or because they had
heard this information from experts who lived in those times. However
despite this I will not say with regard to dicta of theirs, which, as we
find, corresponds to the truth, that they are incorrect or were accurate
merely by chance. For whenever it is possible to interpret the words of
an individual in such a manner that they conform to proven reality is
preferable and the correct thing for the superior person and tzadik."

I am very sorry that RDE continues to sustain a position that is
untenable, aside from its inherent contradiction to the very idea
of mesorah.

Responses follow: 

"Daniel Eidensohn" <yadmoshe@012.net.il> writes on Sun, 10 Nov 2002 01:02:39 
+0200: 
> At this point Rabbi Bechhofer asserts 
> 1) that there is a position of Chazal that rejects astrology even though 
> none can be found 

The Rambam found it. 

> 2) His evidence is the fact that the Rambam rejects the validity of 
> astrology and the Rambam would never make assertion which he didn't think 
> was that of Chazal 

I agree with the first part of the statement, but not the second part
thereof. More on this later.

> 3) The statement of the Gra and Ran to the contrary merely indicate that 
> they felt that the  Rambam was mistaken in his understanding of Chazal not 
> that the Rambam rejected the view of Chazal. 


Correct. 

...
> A careful rereading of the Rambam's letter on Chazal provides a 
> reconcilation of these two positions. 

> "I know of course that it is possible to search and find isolated opinions 
> of some sages in the Talmud and Midrashim whose views contradict [what I 
> have said.]... These statements should not trouble you because one doesn't 
> simply discard a clearly established halacha and revert back to the initial 
> analysis.  Similarly it is not appropriate to discard a well-validated 
> principle and simply rely on a minority opinion of the sages instead. That 
> is because the sage [is not infallible and] might have erred by overlooking 
> some important facts or hints when he stated his views. Alternatively he 
> might have stated his view only concerning a unique situation that had been 
> presented to him and he had not meant to state a general principle. This 
> caution is illustrated by the fact that many verses of the Torah are not 
> meant to be taken literally - as has been clearly established by impeccable 
> proofs. Therefore they are explained in a way that makes sense rather than 
> literally. The general rule is that a person should never easily toss aside 
> his well-considered views.. His eyes should look unflinchingly forward and 
> not backwards.." 

> This establishes 1) that the Rambam did not have any statement of chazal 
> that he understood as rejecting astrology 2) he was well aware of statments 
> in chazal supporting astrology 3) He rejected those as spurious or not to be 
> taken literally 4) He knew that astrology was wrong entirely because it 
> violated commonsense and not because he had a source in chazal 5) he must 
> have assumed that the silent majority of chazal rejected astrology because 
> only idiots accepted astrology and chazal were not idiots. 

My Igros ho'Rambam is buried somewhere in some box, so for now I can only
go by what you quote and respond in utter amazement to yout assertion. It
is clear from this passage that the Rambam held that the majority of
Chazal held that astrology is bogus. Silent majority?! You think the
Rambam was Richard Nixon?! He was a Ba'al Mesorah me'Beis Medrasho
shel ho'Rach v'ho'Rif and he KNEW by mesorah and by his own analysis
of Chazal as well that they reject astrology. Again, there is no other
way to learn Hil. AZ Chap. 11.

(deleted) 

> Moreh Nevuchim (3:14) "Do not ask me to justify everything that  [Chazal] 
> have said concerning astronomical matters conforms to the way things really 
> are. For at that time science was imperfect. They did not speak in this way 
> becaue they had a tradition from the prophets, but rather because in they 
> were experts in this knowledge of their days or because they had heard this 
> information from experts who lived in those times. However despite this I 
> will not say with regard to dicta of theirs, which, as we find, corresponds 
> to the truth, that they are incorrect or were accurate merely by chance. For 
> whenever it is possible to interpret the words of an individual in such a 
> manner that they conform to proven reality is preferable and the correct 
> thing for the superior  person  and tzadik." 

A Moreh I have accessible. This passage is TOTALLY irrelevant. It
refers not to astrology, but to astronomy, specifically issues of
scientific knowledge. It states that Chazal's knowledge of science was
not necessarily complete. This relates to an issue we have discussed here
in the past, the lice on Shabbos issue (perhaps) but not at all to the
discussion at hand. Astrology is not science, and science cannot refute
it. Ergo, for the Rambam to refute astrology, he needed to understand
that Chazal did so. As he did.

KT, GV, 
YGB 

RYBG writes:
> That the first source, and the second source, according to R' Akiva,
> forbid behavior that relies on astrology as antithetical to Judaism,
> certainly is logically construed as pronouncing that these pursuits
> are false.

How false? The Ibn Ezra (who is a Rishon in parshanut haMikra) extensively
incorporated astrological principles into his interpretative work, and
wrote technical articles on astrology and mathematics.  In this regard, see
the fascinating Hebrew work by Prof. Shlomo Sela, Astrologia UParshanut
HaMikra B'Haguto shel R' Avraham Ibn Ezra (Hotzaat Universitat Bar-Ilan).

Tania

I heard a good chap this morning from our ba'al korei.

When he got to the end of the parsha he read the name of Eisav's third
wife as "Machalas" (with three patach's). But when he read it in Maftir
he read it "Mochalas" (komatz and two patach's). I went up to him and
asked if this was like "zeicher" and "zecher." He showed me a Maharil
Diskin (last one at the end of the parsha), who attributes the two
girsaos to a machlokes in the Medrash as to whether "nimchalu avonosov"
(Mochalas) or "hosifa choli al cholyo" because of "al nashav lo l'isha"
(Machalas). The Maharil Diskin says that you're yotzei reading it either
way because of the machlokes, and then suggests reading it both ways to
be yotzei l'chol ha'deos.

I thought reading it "Machalas" first was a nice touch :-)

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 10:21:07PM +1100, SBA wrote:
:> Bepashtus the entire Kaddish is in Aramaic. Oseh Shalom is not.

: What about the words 'yisgadal veyiskadash'?

"Yisgadal veyisqadash" is valid Hebrew or Aramaic. "Yisgadeil viyisqadeish"
is bedavka Hebrew. In any case, I'm missing your point: Are you saying that
if one could be a Hebrew paraphrase of a pasuq that existed in the original,
why not the other?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When we long for life without difficulties,
micha@aishdas.org            remind us that oaks grow strong in contrary
http://www.aishdas.org       winds, and diamonds are made under pressure.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                            - Peter Marshall

> A Moreh I have accessible. This passage is TOTALLY irrelevant. It
> refers not to astrology, but to astronomy, specifically issues of
> scientific knowledge. 

At the time of the RaMbaM, Astrology and Astronomy were synonymous.

Akiva

RYGB: <<It is not difficult to identify the barely hidden agenda of our
two esteemed chaverim who so often work hand in hand for the furtherance
of their common agenda :-)>>

Not that I'm the sensitive type, but since I am rarely accused in any
kind of forum of pursuing a "barely hidden agenda" (though I am vain
enough to believe that, had I had one, and wished to keep it hidden,
there it would successfully lurk, none of this incompetent "barely"
stuff) I am a bit non-plussed by the personal vector introduced to the
discourse by RYGB. His remark, where he has also presumed to divine my
theological stand : <<...Your theological stance on this issue will not
allow you to concede no matter what...>> is particularly ill conceived
since as far back as I can remember writing stuff for this list, RYGB's
preconceptions have proved impervious to my powers of persuasion (an
alliterative trifecta, that) about any topic whatsoever, despite citing
directly contradictory source citations -- indeed mar'in loa b'etzboh
so to speak, (kinda like being called ugly by a frog :-). Thus I have,
qal v'chomer, no hope of convincing him to the contrary with a simple,
unfootnoted declaration. But faced with a direct accusation I feel called
upon to make it anyway for the record. So here goes: I am not conspiring
with RMS. Indeed I do not know RMS and wouldn't recognize him if we were
passing each other RYGB's latest JO article to snigger over together at a
left wing hashqofic rally. Nor have I, to the best of my knowledge, ever
communicated with the defendant. Thus we are not working "hand in hand"
as RYGB's metaphorical excess might have it. though I naturally impute
to RMS, as I do to all our self-selected avodah subscribers, natural
qualities of intelligence, moral character, sincerity, etc. it is only
in the ability to coherently wield the power of logical inference that
I have had increasing doubts of the uniform excellence of all our "high
level" cadre. And not knowing RMS I could hardly speak to his agenda
as can RYGB who must be as familiar with him as I am not, and I cannot
evaluate whether I would like to sign on with RMS in this "common agenda"
perceived by RYGB. Though I am not much of a joiner so its not a strong
possibility. I do hope that clears up any misconceptions. :-)

I shall defer some other personal remarks for which the record may
need straightening until later and meanwhile address the additional
substantive points adduced by RYGB. These should be considered as
additions to the first four citations offered by RYGB to bolster his
position in a previous post.

1. RYGB cites the rambam in H. A.Z. 11:9. RYGB: <<Lookit, RMS (and RMF),
you fellas might disagree with the Rambam (Hil. AZ 11:9) -- l'shitaschem,
why not?). BUT HE HOLDS THAT THE GEMARA IN SANHEDRIN SAYS THAT ASTROLOGY
IS BOGUS! Thus, unless you would like to say that the Rambam was being
nefarious and putting his own agenda into the Gemara, HE HELD CHAZAL
DECLARED ASTROLOGY TO BE INVALID.>>

He says absolutely nothing of the sort. Not even when you shout. the
only thing the rambam says here is that M'onein is not just osur but also
shtus, i.e. a nothing. But this is indeed the rambam's opinion which no
one disputes. It is not the opinion of chazal. To assume that the rambam
could not have said this if it were not also the opinion of the g'moroh
-- unless I misunderstand him (possible) I think that is the chain of
"proof' offered by RYGB here, as though we can not even conceive of
rambam straying from chazal, is mufroch miney uvey, and touches on the
nature of chidush, torah she'b'al peh etc. the sheer audaciousness of
such novel construct as proposed by RYGB is impressive, but it is the
ultimate da'as yochid. His own.

2. RYGB cites Aruch Laneir. But this source too says absolutely nothing
about chazal's, or even the rambam's understanding of chazal. (He
has a completely different concern -- why the rambam only mentions
one lav of m'onein when two different lavs reflecting the different
p'suqim in vayiqroh and d'vorim might apply. He resolves things with
a taxonomy which identifies two kinds of m'onein, one of which is a
true chokmoh but covered by something else, and a different m'onenin
which is shtus. In any event, no comfort here, or even any relevance,
to the issue of chazal's position). And of course, as I indicated with
some other "proofs' offered by RYGB, even if none of this were true,
AL is yet another late acharon, not amember of chazal.

3. Kuzari, RYGB: << BTW, the Kuzari interprets HKB"H's remark to Avraham
Avinu "Tzei mei'Itztagninus shelcha" as a negation of astrology -- not
just its relevance to AA -- as well. Not proof, of course, right? ;-) >>
yup. No proof. check out Kuzari 4:9 where it is clear that R. yehudoh
Hallevi believes heavenly bodies influence stuff downstairs and that
the chazal's positive remarks about astrology were solidly based on
true tradition.

The dismissal of these latest citations offered by RYGB should thus be
added to the similar irrelevance of his first four citations, detailed
in the previous note, and thus one is left with precisely, NO source
which learns matters the way RYGB would have it.

RYGB: <<l'shitaschem>>
What is a bit frustrating is the cavalier dismissal of this general
-- indeed before I became aware of RYGB perspective I would have
said universal- understanding of shittas chazal in this matter with a
"l'shitaschem" as though I (in cahoots perhaps with RMS) were advancing
some amusing personal revisionist insight, possibly hatched during some
quickie intersession at the last edah or perhaps JOFA conference. To
make such a claim can only stem from a lack of familiarity with the
overwhelmingly numerous sources, along with the universal (except for
RYGB?) interpretive tradition of those sources. I believe RDE has already
quoted the Gr"a to you so I shall not bother repeating. We could take up
much space providing similar quotes from sources with wide temporal and
hashkqofic origins. So I will offer just a very few: (my own translations)
A. Meiri: discussing "..prayer and charity may overcome mazal..." (i.e.
astrology works but can be circumvented) and BTW, so much for RYGB's
citation of Meiri.
B. R. Avraham B, Chiyya Hanosi" "..since it seems to me from the words of
our sages of blessed memory, that they do not dismiss this (astrological)
wisdom, nor do they find it false..."
C. R. Hai Gaon: responding to a question how mazal can be reconciled
with free will and s'char v'onesh, answers that when "... r chaninoh
himself who says mazal machkim also says everything is in heaven's hand
besides yiras shomayim" it is because R. chaninoh believes "...these
(the mazal's influence) only induce tendencies which man may overcome"..
D. Prof. E.E Auerbach ".. This belief (astrology) was the intellectual
inheritance of both Tanaim and Amoroim" (Emunot V'de'ot Chazal, P. 246).

RYGB: <<I think back to the days when I started baistefila and made sure
to include RMF and RMS so as to have a broad variety of viewpoints. My
fondest hopes, of course, have been fulfilled ;-). >>

I am happy to contribute to RYGB's satisfaction (One is reminded of
that sholom aleichem story of bonshe shveig...if this is his fondest
hope he may want to consider getting a life : --). And while I seem to
be executing my appointed task in RYGB's electronic universe, a source
of personal satisfaction to be sure, I must caution him that if he were
looking for an authentic MO representative to kind of hold down the left
side of the aisle I may not be optimal. I never purport to represent
anyone but myself, and do not label myself as MO, or CO let alone one
of those new fangled taxonomical discoveries by our anthropological
brethren. for that matter I do not much like being labeled anything, even
O -- though I'll concede that others may, after observation, so label me.

RYGB: <<I find my good friend RMF's refutations below amusing. He will not
accept anything other than a statement phrased the way he pleases, which,
he knew in advance, does not exist, to whit: "Astrology is false.">>
Au contraire. You have lost sight of the ball again.. It was my claim
that there exists NO sources to the contrary demonstrating that ANY
member of chazal believed astrology is merely shtus. A matter which was
your burden to demonstrate, not mine. I might point out the plethora
of sources without a single dissenting opinion (MK28a, Shabbos 156a,b,
B'rochos 64a, etc etc etc), indicating "Astrology is true" which naturally
leads to the quite reasonable generalization that all chazal felt that
way. But in any event you have just been modeh to that non-existence of
counter examples. Case closed.

As for the refutations you find amusing, while I'm always ready to spread
a ray of sunshine, the salient fact for readership to focus on is that,
outside of the amusement you really have offered no answer (a wise choice)
to any of them. Case closed again..

There are at least two new interesting issues of substance which arise
from this interaction which might merit further discussion. Since this
note has already dragged on far too long, I will only touch on them. One
speaks to our understanding of how chazal could believe in astrology
(and to include RYGB in this, he will perhaps modeh that some chazal
believed in it) and simultaneously reconcile that with a belief in s'char
v'onesh. A whole series of responses have been provided by rishonim
(only works for goyim, a z'chus godole exempts from mazal, a tzaddiq
is exempt from mazal, mazal is only a tendency which can be overcome,
t'filoh trumps mazal, etc.- demonstrating BTW that the rishonim not
only thought chazal took astrology seriously but also did so themselves)
though none of them is very satisfying. The other issue stems from RYGBs
remarks about mesorah itself, the degree to which independent thought
is part of the tradition etc. I believe RYGB's remarks here <<The
conclusion is utterly false and counteracts basic assumptions about
the chain of mesorah and the qualities of the Rishonim.>> are well off
the mark and misconstrue the true breadth of mesorah. I prefer the Dor
Rivii's observation that the Torah She'Bi'Al Peh was never originally
meant to be written down at all, in order to preserve the freedom of
each new generation of talmidei chachomim to adjust tradition to the
new knowledge and circumstances of the day.

Finally a general word about astrology, in which RYGB seems to have such
a hard time believing that Chazal could have placed real credence. But
I have no particular problems with this as astrology back then was
simply science. It certainly included what we today separate out as
astronomy. It did however include some bad science -- from today's
retrospective. At the time it probably all seemed reasonable and
consonant with the facts of the physical world as they were perceived,
and thus not unreasonable. Chazal –as R. Hai Gaon famously remarked in
conjunction with medical science -- were not scientists, they were but
cognizant of the advanced intellectual achievements of the outside world
in science, medicine etc but did not innovate any of this stuff. None of
this is really controversial and we should not be surprised, nor should
opprobrium be placed, if, per R. Hai, they placed credence in the best
science of the day. So there is no particular need to rush to their
"defense' on this issue.

Mechy Frankel			W: (703) 845-2357
michael.frankel@osd.mil		H: (301) 593-3949
mfrankel@empc.org
michaeljfrankel@hotmail.com

As usual, RMF is entertaining. I am sorry that he continues to sustain
the position that I attribute to him. Although his first paragraph
(deleted) makes a big to-do denying it, his last two paragraphs clarify
that he does, indeed, hold (and somehow attributes this position to the
DR, who would never have held this way in a million years) that we can
ascertain which Chazals were right and which were wrong, v'ho'ra'ayah
the Rambam did so and so can we. (I addressed the science issue in my
last repartee with RDE).

RMF makes much in those last paragraphs of mazal as an indication that
Chazal were all astrologer. But the Tif. Yis. that I cited - plus droves
and droves of other sources - are perfectly happy interpreting mazal as
"flow." without relevance to astrology, and I see no reason to believe
these terms indicate inherent belief in astrology. This pertains to the
Meiri and other sources he cited below (deleted) directly. I will try
and find direct references if needed, but it highly improbable that the
Meiri disagreed with the Rambam on a theological issue.

At 12:16 AM 11/10/02 -0500, Michael Frankel wrote:
>He says absolutely nothing of the sort.  Not even when you shout .  the 
>only thing the rambam says here is that M’onein is not just osur but also 
>shtus, i.e. a nothing.  But this is indeed the rambam’s opinion  which no 
>one disputes.  It is not the opinion of chazal.  To assume that the rambam 
>could not have said this if it were not also the opinion of the g’moroh ­ 
>unless I misunderstand him (possible) I think that is the chain of “proof’ 
>offered by RYGB here, as though we can not even conceive of rambam 
>straying from chazal, is mufroch miney uvey, and touches on the nature of 
>chidush,  torah she’b’al peh etc.  the sheer audaciousness of such novel 
>construct as proposed by RYGB is impressive, but it is the ultimate da’as 
>yochid. His own.

Sorry, RMF. You disputed, earlier, my characterization of Me'onen as an
Astrologer. This the Rambam does in 11:8-9. Again, you might not like
this, but that is what he says. The Rambam then says that the Torah
forbade this because it is kazav. In 11:16 he says explicitly: "And
and anyone who believes in these matters etc. and gves them credence in
his heart, thinking them true and words of wisdom, but that nonetheless
the Torah forbade them, is but one of the fools, bereft of wisdom... But
those who possess knowledge and are complete in wisdom know with clearcut
evidence that all these matters that the Torah forbade are not words of
wisdom but emptiness and frivolity... and that is what the Torah says
when it forbade all these frivolities: Tomim tiheyeh im Hashem Elokecha."

Now, I'm a broad-minded liberal kind of scholar, so I take no sides here.
As Ms. Tolcin noted in her post, we know the Ibn Ezra and many fine
Rishonim and Acharonim, and perhaps even card-carrying Chazal gave
credence to Astrology. So I don't know, maybe astrology works. But the
Rambam is clear:

1. The two sources I cited forbade - in the Rambam's understanding -
astrology.
2. The Torah forbids a. because it is nonsense.
3. Anyone who would think otherwise is a fool.

>2. RYGB cites Aruch Laneir. But this source too says absolutely nothing
>about chazal's, or even the rambam's understanding of chazal. (He has a
>completely different concern ­ why the rambam only mentions one lav of
>m'onein when two different lavs reflecting the different p'suqim in
>vayiqroh and d'vorim might apply. He resolves things with a taxonomy
>which identifies two kinds of m'onein, one of which is a true chokmoh but
>covered by something else, and a different m'onenin which is shtus. In
>any event, no comfort here, or even any relevance, to the issue of
>chazal's position).

The ALN notes, it seems with some basis from the Sifri, that the Rambam
had a girsa "Kochavim" explicit in Sanhedrin 66a. Check it out.

>3. Kuzari, RYGB: << BTW, the Kuzari interprets HKB"H's remark to Avraham
>Avinu "Tzei mei'Itztagninus shelcha" as a negation of astrology -- not just
>its relevance to AA -- as well. Not proof, of course, right? ;-) >>
>yup. No proof. check out Kuzari 4:9 where it is clear that R. yehudoh
>Hallevi believes heavenly bodies influence stuff downstairs and that the
>chazal's positive remarks about astrology were solidly based on true tradition.

Heavenly bodies is not astrology, which the Kuzari rejects. Indeed,
even our hero the Rambam in Yesodei ha'Torah 3:9 gives heavenly bodies
souls and knowledge etc., yet still states that astrology is hevel.

I addressed the rest of RMF's post already en passant.

As always,
Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

*********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]