Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 032

Monday, October 27 2003

• RE: Rambam and Creation
• Re: Naked and Cunning
• Re: Help wanted on Moreh Nevukhim III-38
• Re: Nusach Ari
• The Ari, mashal and nimshal
• RE: Basics for Philosophical discussions
• RE: Basics for Philisophical discussions
• RE: Basics for Philosophical discussions
• RE: Basics for Philisophical discussions
• Re: literalism and allegory - the Mabul
• RE: rishonim
• Re: Emanation and Panentheism
• Re: Emanation and Panentheism
• Re: Creation as an Ikkar
• Re: Creation as an Ikkar
• Re: Help wanted on Moreh Nevukhim III-38
• RE: literalism and allegory - the Mabul
• RE: rishonim
• RE: Basics for Philosophical discussions
• RE: Basics for Philisophical discussions
• leaf falling
• Re: Emanation and Panentheism
• Re: Emanation and Panentheism
• RE: literalism and allegory - the Mabul
• RE: Basics for Philosophical discussions
• Re: Hashkofa and Authority

RMS
>> (and the rambam's own statement that he would be willing to
>> allegorize all of ma'ase breshit is not related by him to any mesora or
>> license - nor does he ever suggest that he requires license for any of
>> his allegorizations)

RSB 
> I apologize for not following this discussion from it's start, but
> could someone give me the source where the Rambam states that he would
> be willing to allegorize all of ma'ase breshit?

More Nevuchim 2:25

Kenneth G Miller <kennethgmiller@juno.com> wrote:
> In yesterday's parsha, we are told (2:25-3:1): "And the man and his wife
> were both arum and were not ashamed. And the nachash was more arum than
> all the other animals..."

> I find it striking...

What I find even more amazing is the Rashi on Pasuk 23 chapter 2. on
the words Zos HaPam. Rashi there states that Adam had relations with all
animals and wild beasts but could not find satisfaction until Eve. When he
had Eve "This time..." he found satisfatcion. This all took place before
Adam ate from the Eitz HaDaas. The Torah does not call his actions an
abomination at all. Apparrently one should be able to deduce from this
that acts even as vile as bestiality are not considered intrisically so
if there is no concept on then part of Man of good and evil. Without such
Daas the Torah simply reports (as interpreted through Rashi) these events
matter of factly. This raises many questions in my mind (warpped though
it may be). Is there a concept of innate or natural immorality? Do we
need the Torah to tell us so. Or did the Etz Hadass do this. In pre Eitz
HaDaas times, is it possible to say that not only was Adam not capable
of sinning but even sin itself did not exist and that all acts would
have been permissible except from eating from those two trees.

If this is true what about sins Bein Adam L'Chavero? Was the law of the
jungle... survival of the fitttest the only law extant?

HM

From: "Arie Folger" <afolger@aishdas.org>
> I was learning some MN today (actually, trying to figure out his position
> on certain issues tangentially related to hashga'hah) and was completely
> lost when reading the first paragraph of MN III-38.

Are you sure you mean III:38? It's only one paragraph long. What he
means is that certain mitzvoth, including those discussed in H. Deoth,
act to inculcate proper dispositions. He expands this concept at some
length in Shmonah Perakim chapters 4-5 and concisely in H. Deoth 3:1.

David Riceman

R Davidovich wrote:
> Rather, what the Chabad siddur does is apply the Arizal's kabalistic
> emendations to Nusach Ashkenaz. Those aspects of the Ari's siddur
> that were based on sefardic custom were not incorporated into the
> Baal Hatanya's siddur.

R' BZ Metzger (an authorized translator for RMMS into English)
explained it to me once. I could only have been between the ages of 10
and 12 when I heard it, those were the only years I was in his son's
class. So the following is almost certainly an oversimplification.

The Maggid of Mezritch noted that all that accumulated in the siddur
ended up producing contradictions. Both procedurally, and more
importantly, in the meaning of the words. The Maggid therefore charged
the Ba'al haTanya (niqra al sheim ha'asid) with removing setiros from
the siddur while preserving the kavanos ha'Ari.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org        you don't chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org   You light a candle.
Fax: (413) 403-9905        - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

RMLevin wrote:
> 1. Ramchal, and according to some Gro: ari's writings are all a
> moshol. The problem with that is that he writes about right and left
> and etc and often it only makes sense if taken literally.

Not really, if one suggests 1b, the opinion attributed to RSRH by Dayan
Grunfeld in the intro to Horeb. (Itself long enough to be considered a
sefer machshavah worth learning.)

1b- Kabbalah outlines the symbol system HQBH used in communicating truths
to Benei Yisrael. This is why RSRH's "symbols" so often parallel the
meanings found in sifrei qaballah. (I've noticed strong parallels to
the Maharal, myself.)

Therefore, while it's all metaphoric, the metaphor itself underlies
chuqim and ediyos. (Might even be a Jungian symbol system, inherent to
the way man views the universe. Dayan Grunfeld doesn't say.)

On a totally differen thread, the same could be said of "yom". HQBH
used the concept of "day" as a symbol in communicating creation to
us. The literal day is thereby embued with symbolic meaning. It makes
no difference whether this communication is historical, ie in how He
chose to create, or "only" textual, in how He chose to write an allegory.

 -mi

 - 
Micha Berger             When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org        you don't chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org   You light a candle.
Fax: (413) 403-9905        - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

"Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:

> At 12:50 PM 10/26/03, Harry Maryles wrote:
Original HM:
>>Is it not possible that new
>>information that comes our way in our time that Rishonim were not
>>aware of requires of us to interperet the Torah through this new
>>prism? If we may not do this do we not paint ourselves into a corner?

RYGB:
> The Baal Shem Tov put it that all the great mechabrim until the Maharasho
> were blessed with ruach ha'kodesh. We can be more "rational" about it,
> but the reality is that they were holier and greater than we are, by far,
> and that is why they are called Rishonim. I know of no "corners" in which
> one becomes painted by following Chazal, Rishonim and Gedolei HoAcharonim.

But this doesn't address how we assess new information not available
to the Rishonim. Isn't it possible that they may have interpreted
things differently if they had this data?

Original HM:
>>What if a piece of information comes along that totally contradicts a
>>Torah narrative and proves that an incident could not have happened?
> Can we rely on a belief that such "proof" >CANNOT exist?

RYGB:
> This is a hypothetical. No such pieces of information exist, mei'heichei 
> teisei that they will exist?

Are you saying that in essense we can rely on a belief that such
contradictions will never occur and if they did we can just forget
about Judaism?

RYGB:
>>> it is, indeed,
>>> deeply troubling to me that Rabbi Lichtenstein may have made such
>>> an assertion. If that is the case, then the RW's rejection of Rabbi
>>> Lichtenstein, something I have never fully understood, is eminently
>>> reasonable and entirely justified.

Original HM:
>>I would not be so quick to reject what R. Lichtenstein said. Are you
>>saying he is me'ketanei amanah? 

RYGB:
> Yes, if the quote is accurately interpreted by Dr. Shinnar, what more
> can one say?

That he (RAL) is simply asserting the permissibility of legitimate
alternative interpretations to expalin data that was not avilable to
Chazal and synthesize it with Mesorah... and that perhaps the
Rishonim themselves would have made these same alternate explanations
if they had this new data.

Original HM:
>> To interpret the Torah through its many prisms is
>>a legitimate enterprise. In fact it was RAS who said at the Hespid
>>Shloshim of his brother (RYBS) that this was the primary purpose of
>>his brother's study and teaching of philosophy. 

RYGB:
> You missed a key word in the quote from RAL - "substance." I was at
> that Hesped (transcribed it for MJ, where you can find it). There is a
> difference between refraction of the light and altering its
> substance.

I assume you meant RAS not RAL. In any case I did not intend to omit the
word substance. No one is altering substance. But I do not believe that
viewing an event mentioned in the Torah through the prism of allegory
necessarily changes the substance of the narrative.

For example the six days of creation were allegorical days, not 24 hour
days. Maybe in a similiar vein of iterpretation we can say that the
"world" of the Mabul was not literally the entire world but a smaller
world not including every inch of land. Maybe Bnei Noach simply means
mankind and the Torah simply refers to them that way because that was
known civilized world of their day. ...Or maybe for some reason all of
mankind except Noach and his family were contained in a small area than
the entire world and the flood was over a much smaller area. I don't know.

I realize that the first Parsha in Chumash lends itself more to
allegorization than does the Mabul or subsequent events and have myself
argued against treading on this "slippery slope" and the possible
consequences. But the questions remain.

I must admit I am conflicted on this issue.

HM

>The Rambam explicitly says that he allegorizes something that chazal didn't,
>and that it wasn't based on mesora - but purely on rational considerations.

What was that?

YGB 

At 01:18 PM 10/27/2003, Harry Maryles wrote:
>But this doesn't address how we assess new information not available
>to the Rishonim. Isn't it possible that they may have interpreted
>things differently if they had this data?

What data?

>Are you saying that in essense we can rely on a belief that such
>contradictions will never occur and if they did we can just forget
>about Judaism?

Yes.

>That he (RAL) is simply asserting the permissibility of legitimate
>alternative interpretations to expalin data that was not avilable to
>Chazal and synthesize it with Mesorah... and that perhaps the
>Rishonim themselves would have made these same alternate explanations
>if they had this new data.

Then Judaism is not transmitted as a mesorah but created anew every 
generation. So why can't the Conservatives, Reforms et al create their own 
too? They changed the substance of Judaism because of data as well...

>I assume you meant RAS not RAL. In any case I did not intend to omit
>the word substance. No one is altering substance. But I  do not
>believe that viewing an event mentioned in the Torah through the
>prism of allegory necessarily changes the substance of the narrative.

No, I meant RAL.

YGB 

> There is a mistake that is common here in Avodah-land, to
> understand derashos Chazal as allegorizations. This is, of course,
> incorrect.

There's no "of course" involved here. You made a claim -- defend it.

How do you define "allegory" and how does it differ from "derashos"?

Akiva

At 12:46 PM 10/27/2003, Arie Folger wrote:
>Furthermore, there are numerous difficulties with the popular account of the
>flood. Thus, one wonders how come that there is continuity of culture before
>and after the flood (i.e., the pottery and other art that is from 20 years
>before the Mabul resembles exactly the same as that from 20 years after, in
>many places. To deny this, you'd have to maintain that all archaeologists are
>entirely wrong about their dating techniques. So wrong, that even adjacent
>periods are not properly dated.), there is the difficulty of understanding
>how water could rise so quickly and disappear so quickly, and there is the
>difficulty of fitting so many animals into the little ark, there is the
>difficulty of the genetic diversity of any specie that could hardly have
>developed in 4000 years. I am sure that we can find many more issues.

Let us focus on this paragraph from one of our allegorizers. Leaving aside
the issue that any archaeologist who can tell you from which twenty year
period 4000 years ago a pot came is a liar and others.

"there is the difficulty of fitting so many animals into the little ark"

I find this rationale extremely problematic and its presentation in a
vacuum, as if RAF and other bold 21st thinkers are the first to truly
come to grips with it, a display of ignorance at best.

There is a fundamental Ramban on this very issue. Somehow the Ramban
managed to find a very good answer to the question without resorting
to recasting the text as an allegory. I strongly suggest that our
allegorizers learn the Ramban "up good" and get back to us (6:19).

YGB 

>> what happened 5764 years ago that began this cycle?

> Is this a trick question? Chazal say he destroyed the previous world
> "mipnei ro'ah malaleihem" - the Torah Sheleimah in the back of vol. 1
> brings several ma'amarei Chazal to that effect. No allegorization of
> Chazal. Efener zachin.

Quit avoiding the question.

What happened 5764 years ago? What existed 1 second before the "previous
world" was destroyed? What existed 1 second after this world was created?

Akiva

At 11:05 AM 10/27/2003, you wrote:
>Then what do you do with the begining of the Sha'ar haEmunah
>vehaBitachon that I cited? Or, for that matter, numerous other
>examples from the first 7 or 8 chapters?

The text of Sha'ar Ha'Yichud v'Ha'Emunah is online at:
<http://www.chabad.org/library/archive/LibraryArchive2.asp?AID=6240>

where is the panentheistic passage, please?

YGB 

On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 01:40:19PM -0500, Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
: The text of Sha'ar Ha'Yichud v'Ha'Emunah is online at:
: <http://www.chabad.org/library/archive/LibraryArchive2.asp?AID=6240>

: where is the panentheistic passage, please?

Let's look at the opening words of ch 1, where he darshens "ein od"
do mean that there is actually *nothing* but Him.

In ch 2 the Tanya explains that H's constant presence within creation
is a critical part of yeish mei'ayin. (Yeish meiyeish can be formed and
then left alone.)

And by ch 3 he gets to the lack of G-dliness is the bgeri'ah is an illusion.
"Im kein, efes mibal'ado, be'emes". Furthered by the mashal to the sun.

I'll stop here, as to really answer your question I would end up summarizing
the entire seifer.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org        you don't chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org   You light a candle.
Fax: (413) 403-9905        - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

I believe the Ralbag explicitly writes that he is somewhere between
Plato and the Rambam, i.e. he did not adopt Plato's view.

Gil Student

On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 01:17:45PM -0600, gil@aishdas.org wrote:
: I believe the Ralbag explicitly writes that he is somewhere between
: Plato and the Rambam, i.e. he did not adopt Plato's view.

As is muchrach from my description. Plato's position is one of emanation,
the Ralbag's of formation from a geshem bilti shome temunaso. The GBST
itself might be pre-existance, crerated, or emanated. But even the
lattermost is different than Plato's idea that a horse is a shadow on
the cave wall of the Ideal Horse.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org        you don't chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org   You light a candle.
Fax: (413) 403-9905        - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

Arie Folger wrote:
> I was learning some MN today (actually, trying to figure out his position
> on certain issues tangentially related to hashga'hah) and was completely
> lost when reading the first paragraph of MN III-38.
> I am using the Kafi'h edition. Anybody can help here?

As a note for an online source I'll point out that R' Gidon Rothstein has
some excellent class summaries on Moreh Nevuchim at his shul's website.
This particular chapter is at http://www.rjconline.org/mn3738.html

The class archives are listed on AishDas' Torahnet at
http://www.aishdas.org/torahnet/cgi-bin/jump.cgi?ID=609

Gil Student

> Let us focus on this paragraph from one of our allegorizers. Leaving aside
> the issue that any archaeologist who can tell you from which twenty year
> period 4000 years ago a pot came is a liar and others.

Maybe you should learn a bit more about archaeology before saying this.

Chinese pottery, for example, *can* quite often be dated with that kind
of accuracy.

Akiva

>What happened 5764 years ago? What existed 1 second before the "previous
>world" was destroyed? What existed 1 second after this world was created?

We do not know the extent of civilization "1 second" before the previous
world was destroyed. We *do* know that it was populated by some form of
human beings. We also know that "1 second" after the current world was
created there was Ohr.

YGB 

> Then Judaism is not transmitted as a mesorah but created anew every 
> generation. 

The mesorah tells us *how* to "create it anew".

Akiva

At 02:01 PM 10/27/2003, you wrote:
>> There is a mistake that is common here in Avodah-land, to
>> understand derashos Chazal as allegorizations. This is, of course,
>> incorrect.

>There's no "of course" involved here. You made a claim -- defend it.

>How do you define "allegory" and how does it differ from "derashos"?

Rebbitzin Boublil did this quite well earlier today, ayain sham.

YGB 

> <To me, this sounds like arguing whether *I* put the food in my mouth,
> or <whether my *fork* put the food in my mouth. Is this what the
> discussion <is about, or am I missing something?

> The difference is that if G-d is using a non-bechira tool called "Teva"
> that works with certain laws, then we do not postulate that there was a
> specific reason why each time one leaf falls as opposed to another

WADR, I don't follow that line of reasoning. Or perhaps I don't understand
what you mean by "Teva" (I took it to mean: general nature/laws of
physics/etc.).

(For the purposes of being able to think of an analogy, let me pretend
that you stated your statement this way: "we do not postulate that there
was a specific reason why each time one leaf falls if falls over here
rather than over there." If you insist, I might be able to think of an
analogy corresponding to your original statement).

Suppose I need a particular ant to survive the hot sun. Further suppose
that I had a supercomputer, and super-measurements, such that I could
figure out how to drop a deck of cars from the top of a building where
one card would land gently to cover the ant from the hot sun.

It seems to me that I am using a non-bechira tool and laws of nature in
order to accomplish my specific goal, to get a card to land exactly at
location x.

My point is that I believe that a non-bechira tool and laws of nature
can _still_ yield a particular result with a specific leaf and a specific
location of landing, etc.

Now -- perhaps I am missing the entire discussion -- but:

I don't see it as HaShem _intervening_ to get leaf-x landing at
location-y. I see it more as HaShem setting up initial conditions because
HaShem knew that an essential part of "the Plan" is for left-x to land
at location-y. A big difference.

I hope I have made a tiny bit of sense.

-- Sholom

>Let's look at the opening words of ch 1, where he darshens "ein od"
>do mean that there is actually *nothing* but Him.

Chap. 1 is almost identical to the Nefesh HaChayim's discussion of "Ein Od 
Melvado" - it says that the osios and shemos sustain everything, including 
domem. That is very far from "G-d stuff."

>In ch 2 the Tanya explains that H's constant presence within creation
>is a critical part of yeish mei'ayin. (Yeish meiyeish can be formed and
>then left alone.)

See above. From the website's comments:

Chapter 2

In his opening chapter the Alter Rebbe explained that the Divine life-force 
which brings all creatures into existence must constantly be present within 
them, in order to recreate and revivify them on an ongoing basis. Were this 
life-force to forsake any created being for even one brief moment, it would 
revert to a state of utter nothingness, as before the creation of the universe.

 From the foregoing, the answer to the heretics [may be deduced],

[As the Hebrew didn't come out in this email, I'll refer readers to the
web page <http://www.chabad.org/library/archive/LibraryArchive2.asp?AID=7988>
-mi]

We thus see that not only is the analogy of the heretics false, for one
cannot meaningfully compare G d's creation and the works of man, but even
according to their view, a situation which requires radical change in a
created being necessitates the constant input of the animating force.

Me again: This is panentheism?

YGB

On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 03:11:02PM -0500, Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
: >Let's look at the opening words of ch 1, where he darshens "ein od"
: >do mean that there is actually *nothing* but Him.

: Chap. 1 is almost identical to the Nefesh HaChayim's discussion of "Ein Od 
: Melvado" - it says that the osios and shemos sustain everything, including 
: domem. That is very far from "G-d stuff."

Except that the NhC's approach is one of atzilus. To him, tzimtzum is real,
and then beri'ah is ne'etzal into the vacuum. The Tanya's approach is not.

The NhC would never have to ask and answer, as does the Tanya
(SHV ch 3), "Velama einum beteilim bemetzi'us liMeqoram?" In
fact, in the very shiushiur you point to, the intro to ch 4 reads
<http://www.chabad.org/library/archive/LibraryArchive2.asp?AID=7990>:
> Since the Divine activating force responsible for the existence
> of created things must continuously be present within them, they are
> completely nullified in their source. This means, as the Alter Rebbe
> explained in the previous chapter, that in reality they do not "exist".

> Why, then, do we nevertheless perceive created beings as enjoying a
> tangible "existence"? -- Only because we are unable to see or comprehend
> the Divine utterance that is contained within each created thing and
> that calls it into being.

This is panentheism in black-and-white.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org        you don't chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org   You light a candle.
Fax: (413) 403-9905        - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

>> Let us focus on this paragraph from one of our allegorizers. Leaving aside
>> the issue that any archaeologist who can tell you from which twenty year
>> period 4000 years ago a pot came is a liar and others.

>Maybe you should learn a bit more about archaeology before saying this.

>Chinese pottery, for example, *can* quite often be dated with that kind
>of accuracy.

Sure, if a civilization has a dating system that has remained in continuous 
use. This is not the case with the Mesopotamian peoples.

YGB 

>> Then Judaism is not transmitted as a mesorah but created anew every
>> generation.

>The mesorah tells us *how* to "create it anew".

But the mesorah itself can be reassessed and its substance altered 
according to RAL?

YGB 

Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
>> I looked through R' Tzuriels Beis Yechezkel,his 3 volume Otzros Gedolei
>> Yisroel and his latest work 2 volumes Otzros HaMusar. There is no
>> mention of the Beshht's view of H...

> In Beis Yechezkel/Otzaros HaMussar he does not deal with Hashgocho. Look,
> however, at Shaar HaBitachon and you will see a broad discussion of all
> the shittos.

A broad discussion of shittos about what? There is no mention of the Besht
nor his shitta of HP. If you are saying that he has a broad discussion
of bitachon - that is irrelevant to our discussion. There is nothing
that he cites that a good litvak wouldn't be comfortable with. He does
not provide in any of his works a discussion of HP which includes the
views of the Besht. Yet you asserted that if I do such a thing I will
be intellectually dishonest. Why isn't it acceptable for me to do what
he has done?

>> Thus you have only a single work - that of R' Shaul Yisraeli which
>> receives your approval. The work of R' Tzuriel, Michtav MEliayahu,
>> Sifsei Chaim, R' Aryeh Kaplan's 2 volume handbook of Jewish Through, R'
>> Levi violate your principle....

> I see you still don't get it. Rabbi Levi did NOT violate the RYGBHP. He
> brought down both sides. It was the hachro'oh that bothered the reviewer. 

I would suggest your review your postings on the subject. You have stated
a number of things that have bothered you.

> As to the other works you cite, MME was not written by REED so it is
> not the same type of work. 

I assume you mean that Rav Dessler would have included a discussion of
the Besht if he had written the sefer. This would also imply that when
he talked about HP he must have also talked about the Besht and that
these views were censored out when the Michtav M'Eliyahu was compiled. I
think it is more likely that there is no mention of the Besht because
he didn't feel it necessary to talk about it.

> R' Tzuriel does present all sides. 

He doesn't. Please cite the location in his writings where he presents
the Besht's view of HP

>> RYGB asserts that "no one except Chazal has the right to decree
>> allegorizations." I assume that he means to also include the Rishonim? But
>> what is his source for this declaration? (I checked the previous discussion
>> on this in the archives, and all that I could find offered is his sevara.)
>> Who gave them the "right" to do this? Who denies us that "right"? You need
>> not accept someone's allegorical interpretation of something, but on what
>> grounds does he not have a "right" to interpret it that way? RYGB writes
>> that he is sure that present company is not qualified to do so. Not
>> qualified in whose opinion? RYGB's opinion? Hashem's opinion?

> I strongly urge you to read in the Otzaros HaMussar the section on the 
> status of Chazal and Emunas Chachomim. The right to declare something 
> allegory is only possessed by Ba'alei Mesorah. Some Rishonim (not all) 
> were Ba'alei Mesorah. Other than that, our mesorah counterindicates 
> any further allegorization.

Otzaros HaMussar does not deal with the status of Rishonim. Therefore
there is no mention that not all Rishonim were Ba'alei Mesorah. He
does have the following categories: Emuna in chazal concerning halacha,
exalted level of chazal, whatever was said by chazal was fitting that it
could have been said by G-d, disagreeing with chazal is like disagreeing
with Sanhedrin, difference in authority between tanaim and amoraim, 2000
years of Torah, yeridas hadoros, why later generations are prohibited
to disagree with amoraim..... Dealing with contradictions between the
Talmud and science, Chazal were not concerned with science, problem of
variant texts of the gemora, emunas chachomim and medrash...rishonim who
didn't ascribe the highest level of importance to medrashim, gedolim
who disagreed with the latter rishonim and ascribed the highest level
of importance to medrashim, understanding how the gaonim did not ascribe
the highest level to medrashim, achronim who lacked proper appreciation
of agada and took a rationalistic view because of lack of involvement
with kabala, Rashba's criticism of those who take a rationalistic view
of agada, pashut pshat in medrash, punishment of those who question
medrashim, greatness of chazal.

The most relevant discussion is that of the Rashba who protests the
allegorization of such things as tefilin, Avraham and Sara as Form and
Matter, Yaakov's sons represent the 12 constellations... He then adds that
in Rashba (1:9) the Rashba takes a more lenient attitude to allegorization
but says that allegorization can not over ride the mesora. He cites
the Meiri 55a who says mesora also overcomes the hashgofa found in the
gemora. He cites the Gra (EH 129:32) that mesora is more authoritative
about verses than in the gemora.

                Daniel Eidensohn

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


[ 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         ]