Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 064

Sunday, November 24 2002

• corpeality of G-d
• Re: astrology
• RE: Astrology
• 3s In VaYishlach
• Fw: david and batsheva
• tosafot
• Re: ve'eid ya'aleh min ha'arez
• Re: ve'eid ya'aleh min ha'arez
• Asher malach beterem kol
• RE: astrology
• the ikkar of astrology
• Re: Astrology
• When science and mesorah collide
• Re: Corporeality of G-d

<I disagree. The Ra'avad argues that the Rambam's position is not
an ikkar. But he agress that it /is/ emes, and /is/ based on
mesorah. While the Rambam may suggest his own nimshalim for things 
like "yad Hashem", he didn't introduce the idea that the pesuqim were 
idiomatic. >

While Raavad probably agrees with Rambam about the fact I don't see 
where he or Rambam state that it is based on Mesorah. The fact that 
it is not an ikkar according to Raavad is based on the fact that 
Chazal in fact do not claim it to be true.

The places that I looked in the Moreh defend the non-corpeality of 
G-d based on logic. In fact Rambam has to defend it against the 
pesukim on the grounds of dibrah Torah beloshan bnei Adam. So on the 
contrary the obvious peshat of the pesukim support the corpeality of 
G-d and Rambam insists that only fools accept the simple pshat.

I see nothing to disprove the claim that Rambam based his claim on 
the incorpeality of G-d on logic only. He felt that the proofs were 
so strong that it was not an option to disagree. It would be the 
equivalent of needing a makor in chazal that 2+2=4. It is an ikkar 
because it is so basic to his view of Judaism (which 2+2=4 is not).

We always talk about the 13 middot of the Torah (according to R. 
Ishmael). However, in the gemara there is a 14th middah - sevara 
(logic). Remember that only gezera shava (possibly hekesh see recent 
rashi in daf yomi) needs a masorah. Hence, many other derashot were 
based on the chazal's sevara. In other places Chazal explicitly state 
it is logic.

A fundamental law of the Talmud is that one cannot violate 3 mitzvot 
even if one's life is at stake. One of the three is murder based on 
logic not pesukim. Minchat Chinukh has a discussion what applied to 
nonJews. It would seem that even a nonJew cannot murder if his life 
is at stake since the reason is based on logic and not pesukim.

Hence, I don't see any fundamental problem with the concept that some 
of the Rambam's ikkarim are based on logic rather than explicit 
statements in the Talmud

--
 Eli Turkel, turkel@math.tau.ac.il on 11/24/2002

[This post might quote emails that were dropped before I got around
to approving them. I again urge the authors to resubmit those emails.
However, RAA replies to a portion of this email in the next post, so
holding on to my reply any longer is also causing difficulties. -mi]

On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 10:45:47AM +0200, S Goldstein wrote:
:> You're quoting a saying about TSBK; I'm speaking of all of Torah,
:> including TSBP. Therefore this and all your other comments about
:> peshat being outside science are misplaced.

: Please see the hakdama of Ramchal to Midrash Raba that certainly aggada
: can be allegory.

Of course! Not to mention R' Saadia, the Rambam, the Maharsha, Maharal,
Gra....

But that's not the topic at hand either. The question is whether we can
assume something is allegory without some mesorah that it's allegory.
Or taken any other new approach to an inyan in limud Torah for reasons
other than TT. The TSBK is written belashon benei adam, but (I'm arguing)
it's TSBP tells us when that means that something can be taken as idiom
or as metaphor, and when it's literal.

Earlier, Jon Baker quoted Friedlander's translation:
: WE do not reject the Eternity of the Universe, because certain
: passages in Scripture confirm the Creation; for such passages are
: not more numerous than those in which God is represented as a
: corporeal being; nor is it impossible or difficult to find for them a
: suitable interpretation.

The Rambam is saying that a pasuq need not be taken literally. Not that
we're at liberty to choose which are, and which aren't. In fact, the
parallel to anthropomorphications would imply that just as the Rambam
knew he was far from the first to say these are idiomatic, he would
also be far from the first to say Bereishis 1 isn't literal.

Or in our case, if the Torah were to make astrological statements, can
we -- or the Rambam -- say they're metaphor solely because science now
rejects astrology? Or would we need some indication within TT, either
a statement in mesorah or the grounds within mesorah for making it
ourselves?

: I'm not sure where you disagree with RAA.  Clearly the Rambam wrote Moreh to
: answer the challenge of philosophy to Torah.  See his intro.  Your "perhaps"
: is to agree with RYGB in the current debate.
...
:>        I'm objecting to the belief that the Rambam would be mechadeish
:> to answer a she'eilah from natural philosophy with no need or maqor from
: So now it is no longer "perhaps" and you join RYGB.

Don't read too much into the word "perhaps". I tend to throw it in when I
make a statement based on anything but specific ra'ayah. In the latter case
I thought the "I'm objecting" served a close enough.

: RMB:
:> See also  Moreh chelek B pereq 15. The Rambam rules out using natural
:> philosophy to trump what we know from nevu'ah and mesorah.

: Rambam does not make your statement there.  See previous quotes from later
: in Moreh.

: This seems to me "super"-logic. 1. The Rambam cannot develop an idea
: [astrology is bunk]without an explicit source in Chazal. 2. Question:
: We cannot find any such statement in Chazal to support the Rambam. 3.
: RYGB asserts we MUST believe that such a source, though unfound, exists.
: 4. RMB posits the Rambam himself is this missing source.

I object to your 3 and 4. As RYGB pointed out, it's the Aruch laNeir
("and many other fine Jews") who notes the Rambam assumes his position
is Chazal's.

Aside from that, what I actually said was that the Rambam insists a
source exists -- not that he is the source. Aside from trusting that the
Rambam didn't make this claim up or err, that there must be some source
of which we're unaware, the truth of the Rambam's claim isn't relevent.
In answering "does the Rambam think such reinterpretation can be done
based on philosophy alone, without a maqor", if /he believed/ there was
a maqor, he'd reinterpret whether or not there actually is one!

RAA:
:: (Tying it into astrology -- if the above Rambam is correct, then the
:: Rambam would hold that, given hard evidence that astrology doesn't
:: work, we would have to assume that the Torah's (apparent) acceptance of
:: astrology is a result of our incorrect learning, and we would have to
:: re-learn those sections of Torah in such a way that they don't conflict.)

RMB:
:> Why? How do you know it's not the evidence or the theory explaining it
:> that isn't flawed?

: Meaning that astrology does not work--this is the Rambam....

Meaning "how do you know?" The question isn't the given that it doesn't
work, but how do you know which system to give credance to.

:> I'm curious to know how others avoid the slippery slope from astrology or
:> ma'aseh bereishis (for which one has meqoros within TT), to the mabul,
:> to migdal bavel, to ma'amad har Sinai. Each of us have some point at
:> which they hold bowing to scientific theory is okay, and some point at
:> which it isn't. I gave you my criterion.

: Which is always reject science.  Is this what you mean?

If this were true, we'd be using talmudic rather than modern medicine.
I don't think anyone here *always* rejects science.

My criterion is to use science only when there are Torah meqoros saying
that things aren't at face value. Or, when Torah itself is silent. Even
when Chazal use science to explain something as opposed to finding a
scientific implication in something from the Torah (TSBK or TSBP).

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 I slept and dreamt that life was joy.
micha@aishdas.org            I awoke and found that life was duty.
http://www.aishdas.org       I worked and, behold -- duty is joy.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                            -  Rabinranath Tagore

>: I wouldn't -- because the Torah speaks in loshon bnei adam.

> You're quoting a saying about TSBK; I'm speaking of all of Torah,
> including TSBP. Therefore this and all your other comments about
> peshat being outside science are misplaced.

TSBP, even more so, speaks in loshon bnei adam -- and the science of TSBP
reflects the time of the speaker.

> I am willing take it that way. Not because it contradicts contemporary
> theory. There must be some /internal/ ra'ayah that that's
> what the Torah meant, and not simply megaleh panim baTorah.

Are you using theory in it's scientific sense (something provably True),
or do you mean "hypothesis"?

>: So we have to ask if TYmA had a mesorah for his opinion, or
>: was it a chiddush.
>: If he had a direct mesorah, why only him, and why so late?

> What about indirect mesorah -- he was given material from which he
> deduced the age he gives. Or (or should I say "such as") it was
> proposed as a means to resolve what would otherwise be a setirah.

By this rule *anything* goes -- as long as you can manipulate the source
material convincingly.

> I disagree. I think the current trend toward such belief is a
> re-action.

But the dating system (5763 years from the creation of the world) is firmly
established in mesorah -- with NO indication that it's meant allegorically.

> But that's irrelevent. This isn't halachah, there is no "azlinan basar
> ruba". I'm objecting to the belief that the Rambam would be mechadeish
> to answer a she'eilah from natural philosophy with no need or
> maqor from
> within Torah. A da'as yachid addressing a she'eilah about Torah itself
> qualifies as a maqor from within.

IOW, if we can't find it in Torah it's wrong?

> Why? How do you know it's not the evidence or the theory explaining it
> that isn't flawed?

I said "hard evidence" -- the kind that elevates a hypothesis to a Theory.

> Do you reject the literal occurance of ma'amad har
> Sinai based on current archeological theory? Of course not!

Archeology is not a hard science.

However (as a thought experiment) -- if we had a working time machine and
actually visited the era, finding no evidence for ma'amad har Sinai -- what
would our reaction be?

> To put it another way: if belief in astrology is a flawed understanding
> of Torah, we'd be able to find those flaws when learning Torah.

Would we? Why wouldn't "Yeridas HaDoros" limit our ability?

> Otherwise, I have more confidence in mesorah than in the idea that we
> have final and complete theories on how the world works.

No one claims a "final and complete" theory.

> I'm curious to know how others avoid the slippery slope from astrology or
> ma'aseh bereishis (for which one has meqoros within TT), to the mabul,
> to migdal bavel, to ma'amad har Sinai. Each of us have some point at
> which they hold bowing to scientific theory is okay, and some point at
> which it isn't. I gave you my criterion. How do /you/ define the line?

One major factor is, to quote Sagan, "Absence of evidence is not evidence
of absence".

Another -- on how "hard" the scientific evidence is.

And are we talking about "hypothesis" or "Theory".

Akiva

In VaYishlach there is a parsha pesucha that starts in perek 35 pasuk 9
and ends in the middle of pasuk 22. Within this parsha I believe there is
an unusual number of things that are mentioned 3 times within 1-3 pasukim.

verses 9-10 Yaakov (in the process of renaming him to Yisroel mentioned
twice)
verses 9-11 the shem e-lokim
verse 12 the verb tain
verses 13-15 makom (this word is also used 3 times in perek 28 pasuk 11)
verses 19-20 Kever
verses 21-22 Yisroel

Additionally but with problems:

verses 14-15 Mazaiva ( the first is really the verb vayatzev so it may
not count)
verses 16-17 vateled (the word miyaledes is included so there may be 4)
verses 17-18 Ben ( if you are willing to include Binyomin)
verse 20 Mazaiva ( the first is really the verb vayatzev so it may
not count)

If anyone has any thoughts on this topic I would be interested.

Kol Tov
Ezriel

From: "Daniel Eidensohn" <yadmoshe@012.net.il>
> For reasons I don't understand Chazal in general try to identify many
> different people in Nach as being the same person even though there
> is no obvious reason to do so. In many places this is not universally
> agreed. Thus, though every knows the Rashi that Hagar and Ketura are
> the same in the medrash there are other opinions.

Rav Tzadok  (Resisei Layla 44] states that the opinion that Bilam lived for
hundreds of years is not meant literally. It just means the manifestation of
evil of this type was described as Bilam - even though it wasn't the same
person who advised Pharoh and tried to curse Klall Yisroel.

                                                            Daniel Eidensohn

From: Eli Turkel <turkel@math.tau.ac.il>
 
> <You could make a claim that any STAM Tosafos - almost like a Stam Mishna
>  - represents a consensus.>
 
> On what grounds do you say this? The tosafot that appear on any daf were
> written by some specific person and represent his personal opinion. They
> were chosen to appear on the daf by what manuscripts were available to
> the publisher and not on any historical or halachic grounds.
 
> In numerous cases we know that tosafot haRosh disagree with tosafot
> on the daf. More importantly a disagreement bewteen tosafot in

Yes.  I was told that the only reason we have "our Tosafot" is because
the people who put them together were related to the Soncinos, who
issued some of the earliest gemara printings.  But Tos. Harosh is 
generally a "better" text - if we don't understand our Tosafot, we
should look in the Tos. Harosh.

   - jon baker    jjbaker@panix.com     <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker> -

On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 06:21:50PM +0000, Gershon Dubin wrote:
: I need to explain this pasuk, whether it is part of the rain cycle,
: if not what it is, without recourse to midrashim such as those brought
: by Rashi, for an unaffiliated person.

How bedrech hateva was life in gan eiden altogether?
Perhaps it refers to an effect local to GE.

-mi

RCS wrote:
> On 18 Nov 2002 at 18:21, Gershon Dubin wrote:
>> I need to explain this pasuk, whether it is part of the rain cycle, if
>> not what it is, without recourse to midrashim such as those brought by
>> Rashi, for an unaffiliated person.

> I always understood the simple pshat to be that a spring is coming up
> from the ground, a natural phenomenon that we see every day. And it
> wouldn't be at all unusual for a garden to grow alongside a spring.

Problem: ... vehishkah et hagan, umisham yipared vehayah learb'ah
rashim. Shem hae'had ... (citing from memory) The problem is that the
four rivers do not have a common source, if by that you mean a spring.

Arie
-- 
It is absurd to seek to give an account of the matter to a man 
who cannot himself give an account of anything; for insofar as
he is already like this, such a man is no better than a vegetable.
           -- Book IV of Aristotle's Metaphysics

We open "Adon olam" by speaking of how H' was Melech before He created
anything, and will be Melech even after everything is completed.

How is this possible, doesn't it contradict "ein melech belo am"?

-mi

> Meaning "how do you know?" The question isn't the given that it doesn't
> work, but how do you know which system to give credance to.

The one with the best evidence?

Akiva

RYGB:
> We perceive the Rishonim as Baalei Mesorah. The Rambam asserts it
> as pshat in Chazal. If I understand your current position correctly,
> you now agree that he asserted that, but with no basis in any mesorah,
> as, in your opinion, there is no such Chazal.

YES

> So, did the Rambam create Judaism?

No! The Borei created Judaism. Judaism, HE based on people who have
a sechel plus Divine Revelation. Therefore, an ikkar is the "correct"
pshat in maaseh breishis. This pshat is determined by a blend of sechel
with Mesorah. Moreh points out that this "correctness" is not 100% logic
nor 100% muchrach mesorah. This position is similar to the intro of the
Ramban on the Rif that HALACHA is also an art and not an exact science
and all proofs are not meant as 100% convincing even though they are 100%
halachically binding.

Shlomo Goldstein

Hi, I joined Areivim/Avodah several weeks ago, and at the personal
invitation of my friend R' Akiva Atwood, I'd like to contribute my two
cents' worth!

On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 20:47:21 +0000, Micha Berger wrote:
> So if we have a mesorah telling us -- directly or by providing material
> from which one can be mechadeish -- that the statement is meant idiomatic,
> I am willing take it that way. Not because it contradicts contemporary
> theory. There must be some /internal/ ra'ayah that that's what the Torah
> meant, and not simply megaleh panim baTorah.

Isn't the acceptance of the earth as moving around the sun an example
of how we reinterpreted Torah based on external evidence rather than any
internal reason within Torah? After all, when Copernicus first came out
with his heliocentric model, it was rejected as heresy by Jews too.

> This is also why I don't find that ra'ayah from the Moreh very
> convincing. He is discussing whether to take Bereishis 1 literally,
> for which there is plenty reason WITHIN Torah to say no. (Actually,
> looking at meqoros that predate the scientific challenge, there are
> more who assume ma'aseh bereishis isn't literal than is.) So, his
> theoretical willingness to be meyasheiv it with philosophy had it
> been necessary doesn't parallel. Perhaps it's only because there is
> validation within Torah for that possibility.

Perhaps. But I don't see proof for that. Based on his tone, it seems
more likely that he bases himself on how solid the philosophical proof is.

> See also  Moreh chelek B pereq 15. The Rambam rules out using natural
> philosophy to trump what we know from nevu'ah and mesorah.

He mentions nevu'ah, but I didn't see any mention of mesorah. There's
a world of difference.

> ...if belief in astrology is a flawed understanding
> of Torah, we'd be able to find those flaws when learning Torah. And many
> rishonim, who lived without external forces pushing for its rejection,
> did see reasons within TT to reject astrology.

Why didn't chazal/rishonim know that the earth goes around the sun,
and it is not the physical center of the universe?

Now comes the main point:
> I'm curious to know how others avoid the slippery slope from astrology or
> ma'aseh bereishis (for which one has meqoros within TT), to the mabul,
> to migdal bavel, to ma'amad har Sinai. Each of us have some point at
> which they hold bowing to scientific theory is okay, and some point at
> which it isn't. I gave you my criterion. How do /you/ define the line?

First of all, the fact that something is a slippery slope is not reason
to avoid stepping on it at all; it is merely reason to do so with extreme
care. If there is very good reason for doing something, that can justify
entering into a slippery-slope risk of leading to other things. So there
doesn't HAVE to be a clear principle for drawing the dividing line.

Second, there are two issues to consider when moving from a traditional
understanding of Torah to a new interpretation. One is how good the
reasons are for doing so. Another is the potential ramifications of
doing so - extraordinary ramifications of reinterpretations require
extraordinarily strong reasons for reinterpreting.

If we look at your list, we see a HUGE difference between the first
examples and ma'amad har Sinai. The reasons for reinterpreting both maase
Bereishis and the mabul are overwelming amounts of evidence that most
people with a scientific training simply find impossible to ignore. On
the other hand, the objections to the Exodus and Har Sinai are weak and
highly debated, usually coming from the sort of lefties who can't even
correctly interpret the present-day reality.

Then, to deal with the ramifications - the results of allegorizing
maase Bereishis and the Mabul are negligible compared with the results
of allegorizing the Exodus and Har Sinai. Our service of Hashem and our
fulfillment of mitzvos is fudamentally based on the latter.

There now, I've written my first posting. Maybe one day I'll even figure
out these acronyms that you all use, WTHOTHOBBHKOTUMHRF ;-)

kol tuv,
Natan Slifkin

On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 02:53:09PM +0000, Eli Turkel wrote:
: While Raavad probably agrees with Rambam about the fact I don't see 
: where he or Rambam state that it is based on Mesorah. The fact that 
: it is not an ikkar according to Raavad is based on the fact that 
: Chazal in fact do not claim it to be true....

You're right, I got carried away. I'm arguing against contradicting
mesorah to make the philosophy or science work. Not about voicing
an opinion where mesorah is silent or speaks with multiple voices.

On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 06:36:34PM +0200, Akiva Atwood wrote:
:> Meaning "how do you know?" The question isn't the given that it doesn't
:> work, but how do you know which system to give credance to.

: The one with the best evidence?

Apples and oranges. How does one compare the means for establishing first
principles used in talmud Torah with that used in science?

The only common ground is the topic of seifer hahigayon. Logic must hold
for both -- although the Torah isn't even bound to any particular logic
system. (We've discussed the existance of values between true and false
in halachic logic.)

But "sevara" doesn't include physical evidence.

On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 08:11:03PM +0200, Nosson Slifkin wrote:
: Hi, I joined Areivim/Avodah several weeks ago...

Baruch haba!

: Isn't the acceptance of the earth as moving around the sun an example
: of how we reinterpreted Torah based on external evidence rather than any
: internal reason within Torah? After all, when Copernicus first came out
: with his heliocentric model, it was rejected as heresy by Jews too.

(FWIW, geocentrism is no less true than heliocentrism. The universe
spinning one way is no less true than the earth spinning the other. It
simply makes for more complicated math. But that's tangential.)

We can trace the introduction of Ptolmeic astronomy into chazal's thought,
and it consistantly is tied with or slightly trailing contemporary
scientific opinion. Those who screamed qefirah mistakenly thought the
idea originated in Torah. It didn't -- it was Greek science used to
explain a pasuq.

Not every statement made by ba'alei mesorah is necessarily TSBP.

...
:> See also  Moreh chelek B pereq 15. The Rambam rules out using natural
:> philosophy to trump what we know from nevu'ah and mesorah.

: He mentions nevu'ah, but I didn't see any mention of mesorah. There's
: a world of difference.

 From context we find that the nevu'ah in discussion was the nevu'ah
recieved in Sinai - TSBK and TSBP.

: Why didn't chazal/rishonim know that the earth goes around the sun,
: and it is not the physical center of the universe?

It's unnecessary. The Torah is there to teach one lehisheleich lefanav
velehiyos tamim. For that, one needs to speak in terms of human
experience, not in terms of theoretical accuracy.

:> I'm curious to know how others avoid the slippery slope from astrology or
:> ma'aseh bereishis (for which one has meqoros within TT), to the mabul,
:> to migdal bavel, to ma'amad har Sinai...

: First of all, the fact that something is a slippery slope is not reason
: to avoid stepping on it at all; it is merely reason to do so with extreme
: care...

Agreed. Which is why I asked where along the spectrum people draw
the line.

I gave mine: I hold points that all shitos agree is TSBP I hold in
greater trust than how we understand evidence.

: If we look at your list, we see a HUGE difference between the first
: examples and ma'amad har Sinai. The reasons for reinterpreting both maase
: Bereishis and the mabul are overwelming amounts of evidence that most
: people with a scientific training simply find impossible to ignore. On
: the other hand, the objections to the Exodus and Har Sinai are weak and
: highly debated, usually coming from the sort of lefties who can't even
: correctly interpret the present-day reality....

WADR, I am not sure I am capable of making that judgement. After all,
one questions an ikkar emunah, of course I would view that set of
evidence with a more critical eye.

In all those cases, BTW, one is using scientific arguments to disprove
a non-scientific event. The mabul, the haflagah, and yetzi'as Mitzrayim
are all clearly nissim. Is it fair for us to expect their aftereffects
to match those of natural events?

Astrology is different in kind, as it is a claim about the norm, not
an exception. As is heliocentrism. Here we actually have a possibility
of using science.

If I believed TSBP actually took a single position on either.

There are questions that I leave open because two systems of thought
that I have confidence in produce conflicting answers. Not just issues
of Torah vs science, even between scientific theories: I believe in both
relativity and quantum mechanics (getting an MS in Engineering required
learning both) despite the problem of quantum gravity contradicting
general relativistic gravity. I can live with the question, since both
work well, and the contradiction doesn't touch the core domain --
and therefore the usefulness -- of either.

Why can't we live with the questions rather than creating a "Torah of
the gaps". I'm coining this term in parallel to the "God of the gaps",
a philosophical position which ascribes anything not understood (gaps
in our understanding) to Divine intervention. The problem is that as
science advances, religion retreats.

: Then, to deal with the ramifications - the results of allegorizing
: maase Bereishis and the Mabul are negligible compared with the results
: of allegorizing the Exodus and Har Sinai. Our service of Hashem and our
: fulfillment of mitzvos is fudamentally based on the latter.

And they are built on emunas chachamim. If we allow non-Torah argument
trump the ba'alei mesorah at whim, we are also risking real damage to
shemiras hamitzvos.

For example, there is a famous Brisker concept about not using scientific
argument to determine halachah. (Search the archives for R' Chaim's
reason(s) for rejecting Radziner techeiles. It wasn't that the evidence
wasn't muchrach.)

: There now, I've written my first posting. Maybe one day I'll even figure
: out these acronyms that you all use, WTHOTHOBBHKOTUMHRF ;-)

See http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.html

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember;
micha@aishdas.org            I do, then I understand." - Confucious
http://www.aishdas.org       "One can't compare hearing to seeing." - Mechilta
Fax: (413) 403-9905          "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites

At 02:53 PM 11/24/02 +0000, Eli Turkel wrote:
>While Raavad probably agrees with Rambam about the fact I don't see
>where he or Rambam state that it is based on Mesorah. The fact that
>it is not an ikkar according to Raavad is based on the fact that
>Chazal in fact do not claim it to be true.

We are obviously not reading the same Raavad - do you have a manuscript
with a different version?!

The Raavad says many people went in this derech that the Rambam condemns
because they saw sources "ha'meshabshos es ha'da'as."

The Raavad held it was a shibush, same as the Rambam. As R' Chaim Brisker
said, he held "nebech a apikores iz nisha a apikores" while the Rambam
held "nebech a apikores is oich a apikores.:

That is the sum total of the machlokes, there is no other pshat. R"L that
the Raavad held that Chazal held that Hashem has a guf or demus ha'guf.

>The places that I looked in the Moreh defend the non-corpeality of
>G-d based on logic. In fact Rambam has to defend it against the
>pesukim on the grounds of dibrah Torah beloshan bnei Adam. So on the
>contrary the obvious peshat of the pesukim support the corpeality of
>G-d and Rambam insists that only fools accept the simple pshat.

>I see nothing to disprove the claim that Rambam based his claim on
>the incorpeality of G-d on logic only. He felt that the proofs were
>so strong that it was not an option to disagree. It would be the
>equivalent of needing a makor in chazal that 2+2=4. It is an ikkar
>because it is so basic to his view of Judaism (which 2+2=4 is not).

You don't even need Chazals! There are pesukim. And the Rambam does cite
them! In the Hakdama to Chelek - the ikkar source of the 13 Ikkarim! Where
he clarifies all his sources!

(BTW, R' Meir Shinnar claimed anti-kadmus is not in the Yad - it is
there in Teshuva 3:7.)

This whole conversation borders on the surreal. How can the Rambam.,
l'shitaschem, make up an ikkar and then consign those who do not accept
his ikkar to "ein lahem chelek l'Olam ha'Bo?!"

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         ]