Avodah Mailing List

Volume 14 : Number 003

Wednesday, September 22 2004

• Re: Jewish calendar [was: Non-literal explanations/ Gan Eden]
• RE: Torah as allegory
• Re: Non-literal explanations/Gan Eden
• Re: Non-literal explanations/Gan Eden
• Re: Torah as Allegory
• Re: R' Aqiva and the rock
• Re: Non-literal explanations/ Gan Eden
• Re: Non-literal explanations/ Gan Eden
• Re: R' Aqiva and the rock
• RE: Torah as allegory
• Re: Reacting to the death of a rasha
• Re: halacha vs agada
• Subject: Re: R' Aqiva and the rock
• Re: Public expression by women
• RE: Torah as allegory
• RE: Torah as allegory
• Mesorah
• Re: Mesorah
• Re: Mesorah
• Re: Mesorah
• Chazal - as seen by rishonim and achronim

In  Avodah V14 #2 dated 9/21/2004 RAS writes:
> In 1500 a.d., I am sure that there were other theories that had
> "incontrovertible scientific evidence"
Let me be the first (I'm sure there will be many) to tell you  this:
We don't say a.d., we say C.E.  
Sender: owner-avodah@aishdas.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: avodah@aishdas.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8


GCT
 -Toby  Katz
=============

I wrote
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 02:09:24PM -0400, Shinnar, Meir wrote:
> : WRT the claim that allegory requires a specific makor in hazal, let
> : me cite ....

RMB

> This isn't my position, nor R' Eliyahu Gerstel's, who writes:
>> IIUC the Rambam's opinion is that there can not be an argument on any
> > principles of the mesorah and if there is a machloket among the baalei
> > meshorah such is a proof that those particulars of the issue under debate
> > are not part of the mesorah and are open to analysis. 
> Both the Ma'amar Techiyas haMeisim and the texts in dispute in the Moreh
> indicate that while the Rambam would allegorize in some situations where
> Chazal did not, he would not do so in contradiction to the mesorah.
I think that there have been so far several positions expressed, and I
am not sure what you are saying
1) Allegorization, or even nonliteral interpretation, is only permitted
if there is a specific makor in hazal

This is, I believe, RYGB's position.

2) Allegorization (non literal interpretation) is permitted only if
there is an internal reason within the mesora this seems to have been
RMB's position. to cite
>     Q6: What is your criterion for saying something is ahistorical
>     allegory, if ever?

> I'll only go with this answer if someone proposed it for reasons entirely
> within the Torah -- TSBK or TSBP. 

3) Allegorization is permitted if it does not contradict the mesora

4) Allegorization (or nonliteral intepretation)is permitted for everything
that contradicts reason unless the mesora is unequivocally clear that
we are dealing with a miracle - not merely that the simple pshat, and
the apparently widely, or even universally held opinion, seems to be
that it is a miracle - and furthermore, it is impossible to explain it
otherwise - quite stringent conditions - essentially direct quotes from
ma'amar techiyat hametim.

It seems clear that ma'amar techiyat hemetim rejects positions 1
(there are authorities who hold by these positions, but clearly not the
rambam). The simple pshat of ma'amar techiyat hametim is that nonliteral
interpretations are applied even to stories ((told about what happened in
the past..). WRT to position 2, the rambam would, I believe, argue that
a contradiction with "sechel" is a reason within the mesora - but clearly
rejects the notion that one requires some other reason within the mesora.

Positions 3 and 4 differ primarily in understanding what it means to
contradict the mesora - which reflects a fundamental disagreement over
which parts of the nonhalachic traditions carry the weight and authority
of mesora. RMB is arguing that anything that we don't have a history of
disagreement over, is inherently part of the mesora - while the rambam
seems to be arguing saying different - that for something to be a true
mesora it can't have been subject to argument, but the fact that we have
no record of such argument is not a proof that it is part of the mesora
(it is necessary but not sufficient).

Meir Shinnar

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> That's the Ramban's qushya on the Rambam, which is addressed by the
> Abarbanel. The issue has been discussed here, and the conclusions I
> reached during that discussion made it to MmD.

> Beqitzur:
> The Abarbanel understands the Rambam to hold that nevu'ah is a vision
> of things that happen on a higher plane of existance. It's not a "dream".
> RYGB invoked this idea to say that the Rambam's shitah is fundamentally
> different than allegorization.

I saw that MmD, but I don't see how it even addresses this question.
When I asked it last week (or was it 2 weeks ago?), I had already read
and understood your explanation of the difference between the Rambam and
Ramban on the nature of nevuah, and my question was based on that. Let
me ask it again: OK, Avraham's episode with the angels *must* have been
a vision; he starts with seeing Hashem, and that *has* to be a vision,
because we have an explicit pasuk that nevuah (as opposed to nevuat-moshe)
happens only in a dream. For the rest of the story to have been physical,
after the pasuk 'and he lifted up his eyes and there were three men'
we would have to insert '(and he awoke from his trance and lifted up his
eyes again, and they were still there)'. It's possible to insert these
words, but what in the pasuk makes us do so? So the simplest pshat is
that he remained in his trance, and the whole story happened in a vision,
exactly as the Rambam would have it. All that I understand.

My question is: what happened later? Lot is sitting at the gates of Sedom,
and he sees the angels. No vision of Hashem here, so there's no pasuk
forcing us to say that this is a vision, but the Rambam holds that angels
can also not be seen outside a vision, so he must say that Lot also fell
into a trance and saw the angels that way. So far so good. He invites
them into his house, and they come. Is this still in the vision? Is he
really still slumped in his chair at the gates? His wife and daughters
see the angels; is this still in his vision at the gates, or did he
wake up and go home, whereupon he, his wife and his daughters all fell
into another trance and saw them that way? Maybe, but I'm starting to
get uneasy. Now the people of Sedom learned that they were there (how,
if nobody saw them on the way?) and the entire male population riots
outside Lot's house. Did this happen physically? Are they all really
slumped over thinking that they're rioting, and are Lot and his family
on the floor at home also thinking that there's a riot outside? Lot
goes out to reason with them; still in a vision? His? Theirs? Then the
angels open the door, and STRIKE THE RIOTERS WITH A MASS HALLUCINATION;
is that also in their vision? What does it mean to hallucinate in a
vision? Somewhere along here, I'm losing my suspension of disbelief.

The scene the next morning I can completely buy was a vision again, and
in fact they never fled Sedom on foot, but were teleported by the angels
to their new location, where they woke up; but the riot as prophetic
vision seems difficult to swallow. Far simpler just to say that angels
can indeed be seen when they want to be, and all angel stories in Tanach
really happened in physical reality as we know it, except those few,
such as Avraham's meeting with the angels, that we have other reasons
to believe didn't.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 07:33:30PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: >The Abarbanel understands the Rambam to hold that nevu'ah is a vision
: >of things that happen on a higher plane of existance. It's not a "dream".
: >RYGB invoked this idea to say that the Rambam's shitah is fundamentally
: >different than allegorization.

: I saw that MmD, but I don't see how it even addresses this question.
...

So, go to the primary source -- the Abarbanel. It's not my peshat.

-mi

From: "MYG" <mslatfatf@access4less.net>
> R' David Riceman writes:
>> I am puzzled, however, why you need any arguments at all? Why not say
>> "What Hazal said is good enough for me," and avoid any argument rather
>> than adopt one you suspect of being erronous?

> That is a very good question. The answer is, that when I was young what
> Chazal said was not good enough for me. After reading R' AM's seforim, I
> was able to rely on Chazal, to the degree that I am now not bothered by
> the questions on R' AM's proofs.

I would like to know whether you knew that RAM's arguments were
tendentious in your youth. I suspect that you did, since your
characterization of his disciples is precisely that they suspect his
arguments are tendentious but accept them nonetheless.

If I am right then you are addressing a different problem than the one
discussed on our list. The people who are bothered here are people who
take both science and Hazal seriously, and are unwilling to countenance
a contradiction between them.

If you were willing to accept arguments you recognized as tendentious
then you could not have taken science very seriously even in your youth.
Perhaps you could describe in more detail how RAM's books managed to
resolve your problems, and we could then characterize more precisely
what the problems were.

David Riceman

>> I've  never seen any of this written up, but I'm sure I'm not the first
>> one to  see these -- transformative moment, at an even with a be'er,
>> from talmid  chacham to shepherd or vice versa, in order to marry Rachel,
>> by two men  with strikingly similar names.

> The parallels are interesting and would make a nice paper, but IIRC
> R' Akiva's rock was in a river, at the bottom of a waterfall--not at
> a be'er.

I understand the incident occured at a be'er in Lod according to the
version in Avot D'Rabbi Natan. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Anyway let's add a few more observations to the mix (courtesy of someone
who wishes to remain anonymous).
R' Akiva's father was Yosef, Ya'akov had a son called Yosef. The case
for R' Akiva being Ya'akov backwards is very strong.
Now here's where we add our 'ethical' material. 'En mayim ela torah!'
We need a be'er to access the Torah. That be'er might be seen as
gashmiut. (Water will take the shep of any vessel, therefore one is
needed to access it)
Avraham digs it. Over time it gets blocked up and Yitzchak has to work
hard to remove the dirt. Ya'akov merely has to work hard to roll off
the stone. Moshe has to draw from a well against opposition. Ya'akov has
a lot of Torah, and therefore he can 'open up' the gashmiut of others,
R' Akiva uses only a trickle of Torah to open up his own gashmiut.
At this point I'm way out of my depth. Perhaps someone of greater
stature can pick up these scattered ideas and weave them into whole cloth.
There is a lot more work to be done here. Like what is the be'er?
Be'er is related to exposition, sifting etc What does that indicate?

Jonathan

"Stein, Aryeh" <AStein@wtplaw.com> wrote:
> It is only when
> scientists claim to know, with any degree of certainty, about events
> that happened thousands of years ago - events that everyone on this list
> agrees were miraculous. Once we concede that miracles were involved, how
> can we then say that today's scientists can make scientific calculations
> about these events?!?)

Therer is nothing wrong with believing that the world was created to
look old. God can do anything... God can do that. God can make a virgin
conceive and give birth and still remain a virgin.

But as far I am concerned I refuse to accept that simplistic expalnation
for one simple reason. It is just too difficult for me to fathom any
possible rerason for God to fool us in that way.

The speed of light is constant. Mankind no knows how to measure distance
in terms of light years. The distance that light travels in one year
equals one light year. If, through radio telescope we can measure
distances of millions of light years it becomes incredible to me to
say that stars emmiting light from those distances did not exist more
than 5765 years ago. Your answer is that well the stars do not exist but
the light that we see imillion years laster was crreated 5765 years ago
in "midflight". If a star exploded one million years ago in a part of
the cosmos that is 1 million light years away, we are going to see it
now... in affect looking into the past of 1 million years ago

I simply cannot accept that.

HM

On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 05:27:56PM -0700, Harry Maryles wrote:
: The speed of light is constant...

Are you so sure? Dirac (one of the fathers of quantum mechanics important
enough to have a constant named for him) wasn't.

R' Eliezer (Dr. Leon) Ehrenpreis opined that the dating issue can be
explained with the reduction of a physical constant called alpha (now
roughly equal to 137, possibly exactly, no units of measure) that relates
the speed of light, the relative strength of gravity to the other forces
of nature, and quantum uncertainty.

If you assume that it didn't reach the current value until the midrashic
Yom haShishi, i.e. matan Torah (Sivan 6), then during the six days of
bereishis, physics was dominated by uncertainty, not law. As law ascerted
itself, things emerged.

He also showed that a simple hyperbolic progression would mean that the
spectrum created by water's diffraction would first become visible at
around year 1,700 -- just around the time of the flood.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org               The Torah is complex.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                                - R' Binyamin Hecht

In a message dated 9/21/2004 7:34:42 PM EDT, jcoh003@ec.auckland.ac.nz writes:
>> The parallels are interesting and would make a nice paper,  but IIRC
>> R' Akiva's rock was in a river, at the bottom of a  waterfall--not at
>> a be'er. [--old TK]

> I understand the incident occured at a be'er in Lod according to
> the version in Avot D'Rabbi Natan. Correct me if I'm wrong. [--R'
> Jonathan Cohen]

No apparently you are right, and I was wrong. The author of the original
Yakov=Akiva posting wrote to me himself to point that out.

GCT
 -Toby  Katz
=============

At 05:58 PM 9/21/2004, [R Meir Shinnar] wrote:
>1) Allegorization, or even nonliteral interpretation, is only permitted
>if there is a specific makor in hazal
>This is, I believe, RYGB's position.

Just to clarify RYGB's position, as he has explained it to me ;-) :

Allegorization and nonliteral interpretation are permitted far and wide
and Tanach when it come to the understanding of the content of nevu'os. It
is not permitted in regard to historical passages (without Chazalic
basis) except to a very limited extent concerning details in the story
which are manifestly metaphorical (to take an example cited by Chazal:
"arim gedolos u'betzuros ba'shamayim").

YGB

On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 06:35:27PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: As for your underlying idea, that our practise reflects in any way a lack
: of rejoicing over the demise of 'maasei yadai', I categorically reject
: any such notion, as contrary to an explicit gemara, and not supported
: by any other gemara or comparable source.....

I didn't know a medrash, ie tanna'im was uncomparable to the Bavli.

:> The Meshekh Chokhmah (Shemos 12:16) distinguishes this from Purim by
:> saying that Purim is a celebration of our survival, not their demise.

:> The Netziv argues that we were only allowed to say shirah at the yam
:> because of the chiyuv de'Oraisa that applies beshe'as ma'aseh. Chazal
:> would not be mesaqein hallel on future generations celebrating the
:> demise of resha'im.

: Once again, if this is indeed what they say, how do they explain the
: gemara in Megillah which explicitly rejects this? I'll take Mordechai
: Hatzadik and the gemara over these late meforshim.

Perhaps you should look at the meforeshim, who (I assume you'll agree)
knew Tanakh and the gemara better than you do.

This is the 2nd time today I'm asking you to consult sources rather
than reject an opion without bothering to learn it.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
micha@aishdas.org        you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org   happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Dale Carnegie

RDE:
>When the Meiri says that one of two positions found is chazal is correct
>and the other is to be rejected as mistaken - that doesn't mean he is
>rejecting Chazal but that- he is only rejecting certain views expressed
>by Chazal.

i don't know what this semantics says. you originally claimed that the
Meiri was rejecting the opinion of Amoraim because of his, the Meiri's,
personal, extra-Talmudic assumptions. I found this to be untrue and
insulting. I still think so. Have you retracted?

> This is the view of the Rambam, Ramban, R Hai Gaon, R' Sherira Gaon,
> R' Shmuel HaNagid, Chasam Sofer, R' Fischer.

This list, like most lists, is misleading to the point of being
meaningless. The Rambam says use your sechel when understanding agada.
Certainly not a point of disagreement between us. The Ramban in vikuach,
and you forgot a Shilte Gibborim, hold that agada is not binding on the
thoughts of an observant Jew (and therefore sophisticated interpretations
are not necessary.) I don't know if the Rambam and Meiri share this
viewpoint. Which CS do you mean? So, if the Ramban says one can reject
Chazal in agada certainly does not yield that you can push a Meiri on
Shas to be saying the same thing.

Shlomo Goldstein

Regarding the Rock and Yakov avinu:
A few years ago I had the pleasure of hosting Rav Yochana Zweig for
Shabbat in my home - I had mentioned to him what if felt was a incredible
connection between Moshe Rabbenu and Rabbi Akiva, wheas Moshe's life
ends due to hitting a rock instead of speaking to it, in order to bring
forth water, causing what the Torah calls a chllul Hashem, Rebbi Akiva's
career begins with seeing water penetrating a rock what I believe to
me a reversal of the process, ultimately Rebbi Akiva dies mikadesh shem
shamayim in the ultimate manner.
Rabbi Zweig accepted my explanation - and told me that he was always
struck by the comparison of Rebbi Akiva and Yakov Avinu, he mentioned
the well, that the names are really the same, the wives named Rachel and
the troublesome fathers -in law. I don't know if he ever developed this
into a shiur - perhaps someone from Miami would have heard him speak of
this idea.
In support of Rabbi Zweig see Shaar Gilgulim hakdama chapters
31,36, 38, Kihilos Yakov (maftach lichochmas hakabbala) on page
26 of letter ayin he connects Rebbi Akiva with Yakov, and on page
27 with Yakkov and Moshe. The connection between Moshe Rabbenu and
Rebbi Akiva is to my mind critical to the understanding of the Aggada
or Moshe entering the class of Rebbi Akiva and being mystified, and
then seeing the death of Akiva - which is a tikkun for the death of
Moshe. (a tape of a shiur I gave on this is available at aish.com
tape # KI 820 titled "Moses & Rabbi Akiva: Transmission of Oral Law"
http://www.aish.com/literacy/judaism123/Audio_-_Moses_and_Rabbi_Akiva_Transmission_of_the_Oral_Law.asp

Gmar Chasima tova
Ari

On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 06:22:58PM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote:
:>Judaism is not synagogue centric. We're teaching women 
:>otherwise. That is the true cost of feminism. If she 
:>realized the importance of her role, she wouldn't feel her 
:>kavod is slighted. 

: But what is her role? And where is it defined within yehadus?

That is the question. Not "How do we adjust the role to fit the new
lifestyle?" The question being addressed by the O feminist is premature.

I don't know the answer. Someone within the Frankfurt kehillah collected
RSRH's comments on the subject into a single booklet. But I don't know
of too many other attempts.

This is a field of study that needs to be explored. Perhaps if the woman
knew and understood her role, she wouldn't want to abandon it for another?
Or perhaps we'd learn that the feminist mission does fit within that
role. My complaint is that no one bothered to look, or even seem to think
there is anything beyond issur veheter or chiyuv ureshus to look for.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org        heart, your entire soul, and all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org   Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      It is two who look in the same direction.

> Allegorization and nonliteral interpretation are permitted far and wide
> and Tanach when it come to the understanding of the content of nevu'os. It
> is not permitted in regard to historical passages (without Chazalic
> basis) except to a very limited extent concerning details in the story
> which are manifestly metaphorical (to take an example cited by Chazal:
> "arim gedolos u'betzuros ba'shamayim").

So you keep saying -- without bringing a source to support your
limitations.

OTOH, there are sources which allow allegorization WITHOUT specifying
the limitations -- if they felt those limitations existed they would
have specified them.

R' Aryeh Kaplan (Handbook of Jewish Thought) brings the following:
> There are times when the Torah speaks in allegory and metaphor. There
> are four conditions under which there is a tradition that the Torah is
> not to be taken according to its literal meaning:
> 1) when the plain meaning is rejected by common experience;
> 2) where it is repudiated by obvious logic;
> 3) where it is contradicted by obvious scripture;
> 4) where it is opposed by clear Talmudic tradition

Akiva

--
"If you want to build a ship, then don't drum up men to gather wood, give
orders, and divide the work. Rather, teach them to yearn for the far and
endless sea." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery

At 01:39 AM 9/22/2004, [RAA] wrote:
>> Allegorization and nonliteral interpretation are permitted far and wide
>> and Tanach when it come to the understanding of the content of nevu'os. It
>> is not permitted in regard to historical passages (without Chazalic
>> basis) except to a very limited extent concerning details in the story
>> which are manifestly metaphorical (to take an example cited by Chazal:
>> "arim gedolos u'betzuros ba'shamayim").

>So you keep saying -- without bringing a source to support your
>limitations.

Huh? Alecha l'havi ra'ayah. Kol devarai heimah divrei Chazal l'lo chiddush 
u'l'lo shinui klal.

>OTOH, there are sources which allow allegorization WITHOUT specifying
>the limitations -- if they felt those limitations existed they would
>have specified them.

>R' Aryeh Kaplan (Handbook of Jewish Thought) brings the following:
>> There are times when the Torah speaks in allegory and metaphor. There
>> are four conditions under which there is a tradition that the Torah is
>> not to be taken according to its literal meaning:
>> 1) when the plain meaning is rejected by common experience;
>> 2) where it is repudiated by obvious logic;
>> 3) where it is contradicted by obvious scripture;
>> 4) where it is opposed by clear Talmudic tradition

I do not see what gap there is between RAK and my definition. It is you
are assuming (erroneously) that "obvious logic" means "current scientific
theory." Obvious logic is "dibru kesuvim b'lashon havai [guzmah]."

YGB 

In the dispute between R' Chaim Na'eh and the Chazon Ish regarding
measurements - one of the major concerns was violating the Mesorah.

R' Chaim Na'eh claimed that the clear Mesorah was not like the Nodah
BYehudah. The Chazon Ish replied that the Mesorah was in accord with
the Nodah B'Yehudah, Gra, Chasam Sofer etc and that the authoritative
Mesorah is not determined by the actions of the masses but is determined
by gedolim.

Does anyone know where this letter is published? Are there any other
discussion of the Mesorah of the masses versus gedolim?

Daniel Eidensohn

On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 01:36:10PM +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
:                                                  Are there any other
: discussion of the Mesorah of the masses versus gedolim?

As in R' Haym Soloveitchik's essay on mimeticism vs textualism
<http://www.lookstein.org/links/orthodoxy.htm> and subsequent replies
to Tradition, as well as numerous threads here?

Also, see R' Herschel Schachter's "On the Matter of Masorah"
<http://www.torahweb.org/torah/special/2003/rsch_masorah.html>, again,
discussed here in the past. There is also a little more at his "Mesorah
and Change" <http://www.torahweb.org/torah/1999/parsha/rsch_vayech.html>.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                    ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

In a message dated 9/22/2004 8:15:08 AM EDT, [R Daniel Eidensohn]
yadmoshe@012.net.il writes:
> Are there any other
> discussion of the Mesorah of the masses versus gedolim?

maybe not exactly on point but there are many examples of "minhagim" which
seemed against earlier "gedolim" without countervailing opinions; yet
the later "gedolim" assumed that the minhagim must have been sanctioned
by earlier "other gedolim" and thus tried to justify them.

GCT
Joel Rich

I'm sorry I didn't think of this before hitting "(S)end"...

Be'inyana deyoma: Kapparos. Compare the SA's attempt to do away with the
practice with the Ramaba's defense. It's all about the quantity of proof
needed that a minhag does not violate din.

-mi

With regard to the relationship of the Rishonim to Chazal in contrast to
our relationship, I would appreciate comments on the following explanation
of the Netziv.

It is a clear rejection not only of the Ramban's understanding but that
of other Rishonim such as the Radak and Baal HaTurim.
I think the Netziv's comments are also inconsistent with the explanation
of the Michtav M'Eliyahu (4:353) who wrote that when the Rishonim wrote
explanations which contradicted Chazal it was solely for the confused
people who couldn't accept the explanations of Chazal.

Netziv(Bereishis 16:6): And Sarai afflicted Hagar. The Ramban wrote that
our mother Sarah sinned by afflicting Hagar and so did Avraham. But this
is not the view of our Sages as expressed in Bereishis Rabbah (58:1)
that Sara was free of sin. Furthermore in Bereishis Rabbah(58:2) Rג€™
Yochanon states that she was like an unblemished calf. The commentaries
do not explain the significance of being like an unblemished calf. But
from the context of the medrash it informs us that even those tzadikim
who seem to have acted improperly are in fact perfectly righteous. Thus
Rג€™ Yochanon is telling us that even though Sarahג€™s actions were not
pleasant but they were not motivated by negative factors such as jealously
for honor ג€“ but only to serve Gג€‘d properly. Sarah understood that
the reason that Hagar was disrespectful to her ג€¦ was that there was a
lack of respect of Gג€‘d in Hagarג€™s heart. That is why she was angry as
we see in Taanis (4a): If a scholar gets angry it is because the Torah
inflames himג€¦However the gemora concludes that nevertheless the anger
is not appropriate and one should train himself to act with gentleness.
Consequently Sarahג€™s anger was not a sin since it was from the fire of
Torah and the fear of Heaven which was in her heart. This righteous anger
drove her beyond the bounds of civility and the manner that a honorable
woman should conduct herself with her maid servant i.e., with gentleness
and minmal strictness. That is why Sarah was compared to an unblemished
calfג€¦ Her actions ג€“ even though they caused damage ג€“ were not
damaging to Sarah spiritually since she did it for pure motivations
and Hagar deserved the treatmentג€¦.This that the Ramban wrote that
because of Sarahג€™s misconduct with Hagar the Arab descendants of Hagar
have afflicted the descendants of Avraham and Sarah with all manner of
affliction ג€“ I donג€™t know what he is talking about. Is it true that
the Arabs have distressed the Jews more than any other nation? The abuse
in one time period comes from the Arabs but it comes from other nations
in other time periods. Furthermore the Arabs donג€™t just abuse the Jews
but all those they conquer according to their whim.

---------------------
Ramban (Bereishis 16:6): And Sarai afflicted Hagar and she ran away. Our
mother Sarah sinned by this affliction. In addition Avraham also sinned
by allowing her to do it. Gג€‘d heard Hagarג€™s affliction and gave her a
wild son to afflict the descendants of Avraham and Sarah with all times
of abuse.

Radak(Bereishis 16:6): And Sarai afflicted Hagar ג€“ and conducted herself
with Hagar improperly by ruthlessly working her. It is possible that
Sarah hit her and cursed her. Hagar was not able to bear this treatment
and ran away from Sarah. Sarah did not behave ethically or piously in
this matter. Her conduct was unethical because even though Avraham did
not insist on his honor and told her ג€œDo with her whatever is good in
your eyesג€ ג€“ nevertheless she should have been concerned with her
husbandג€™s honor and not afflicted Hagar. Her conduct was not pious or
good because it is wrong for to do everything possible to subordinates.
This is what the wise man said: Forgiveness is beautiful when one is
able.ג€ Furthermore Gג€‘d was displeased with her conduct as we see
that the angel said to Hagar that Gג€‘d had heard her suffering and
gave her blessing in compensation for her pain. All these events were
included in the Torah so that a person would learn proper conduct from
it and avoid evil.

Ba'al HaTurim(Bereishis 21:10): Since Sarah drove Hagar from her house she
was punished that her descendants would be enslaved and sent into exile.

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


[ 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         ]