Avodah Mailing List

Volume 16 : Number 110

Tuesday, January 31 2006

• RE: Emunah, Perakim and the Mabul
• RE: Emunah, perakim andthe Mabul
• Re: Emunah, Perakim and the Mabul
• Re: Eternal Torment?
• Re: Maris Ayin of the BP
• Re: the Torah's response to sex offenders
• Re: enzymes in honey & cheese
• Re: women, mitzvot and sachar
• Re: basher who sham?

On January 26, 2006, Micha Berger wrote:
>: The Rashbo's comments about those who claim that Avraham and Sara were
>: chomer and tsurah and the 12 Shevatim represent 12 segments of the
>: Zodiac are well known. Extreme allegorizations seems to have been
>: rejected long ago and we need to find other answers for the problems
>: of archeological evidence.

> I didn't see the Rashba as questioning their historicity. Identifying
> a symbol doesn't mean the literary character is "only" symbolic, it
> can rather mean that the historical person's life stands as a symbol.
> Is that not peshat in "ma'aseh avos siman labanim"?

Rav Avigdor Miller says the same. 

The Rashba wasn't the only one who fought against pure allegorizing. Many
Rishonim were involved. They were addressing their arguments primarily
against Philo of Alexandria who allegorized personalities such as Avraham
and Sara. Rabbi Miller claims that the real truth is somewhere in the
middle; IOW, like RMB says above that Avraham was a real historical figure
and at the same time represented certain concepts in avodas Hashem. This
idea applies to the entire Torah, according to RAM.

> When I speak about mesorah vs science, I'm saying that any resolution
> of the two that I personally can find acceptable can not involve only
> scientific synthetic judgements. There must be some way to deduce the
> conclusion from mesoretic ideas.

Beautiful!

<snip>
> Had Ovadiah (just to randomly pick a navi) been a scientist, he would
> have found a different set of writings when looking at ancient history.

I agree with most of what RMB has stated thus far but I disagree with the
above. Ovadia would have found precisely the same "set of writings" but
would have interpreted it differently than one influenced by scientism. I
mention scientism because, as RMB points out, the Torah cannot contradict
the imperatives of the beriah. It is merely our lack of understanding
that causes apparent contradictions to surface.

>: Also See the discussion within the ramban (hardly a rationalist)about
>: how Greek physical science understanding of the rainbow affects our
>: understanding of the brit made with noah.

> Again, because there is a difference between chidush in the face of
> silence and shinui from explicitly transmitted statements.

I made the same argument but RDE called me on it. One of the things that
were created bein hashimashos was the rainbow. Thus, it would seem that
Chazal understood the phenomenon of the rainbow as being outside of the
parameters of normal physical laws.

Simcha Coffer

> Shinnar, Meir wrote:
>> There are allegorical interpretations of gan eden (IIRC abarbanel, and
>> different mefarshim of the rambam, and rav kook seems to endorse it as
>> well), although this is close to ma'aseh breishit.

RMB
> Rav Kook's approach is to look at the allegory of Gan Eden. He doesn't
> write whether the mashal was historical or ahistorical.

WADR, the letter of rav kook dealing with approaches to history
specifically says that it is not me'akev whether this reflects an actual
event - what is important is the lesson learned.

to cite (was previously on avodah 3:126
Letter 134
Addressed to Moshe Zeidel
Dated 1908

(my translation ג€" I apologize for the poor job, eespecially with
the idioms)

I enjoyed your precious words, which recently arrived. However, I have
not found the appropriate time to enjoy as well in replying, my friend,
words of peace and truth. Even now I am surrounded with worries and
distractions, however, I a suppressing these obstacles and will write
a little, b'ezrat hashem

In general, I see an obligation to arouse your pure spirit about the
opinions that come through the new research, that most of them contradict
the simple meaning of Torah. My opinion is, that all whose opinions are
straight should know, that even though there is no truth demonstrated
in all these new investigations, still we are under no obligation to
contradict them outright and to stand against them, because it is not
at all the main point of Torah (ikar shel Torah) to tell us simple
facts and events that happened. The main point is the core (hatoch),
the explanation of the inner part of these matters, and this will be
elevated even more in any place that is found an opposing force, that
encourages us to be stronger. The main points were already said by the
rishonim, and at their head in the Moreh Nevuchim (footnote to part I
chap 71, part II chapters 15,16, 25, and to look at part III chapter
3), and today we are willing to expand this even further (leharchiv et
hadevarim yoter). We have no concern (nafka mina) if in truth there was
ever in the real world (olam hameziut) a golden age, when man enjoyed
both physical and spiritual wealth, or whether existence started out in
actuality from the bottom to the top, from the bottom of the scale of
creation to its top, and it continues to rise. We only have to know that
there is a complete possibility (efsharut gemura), that man even if he
rises to a great height, and will be ready for all honor and pleasure,
if he shall destroy his ways he could lose all that he has, and cause
harm to himself and his descendants for many generation, and this we
learn from the occurrence (uvda), of man's existence in Gan Eden and
his sin and exile.

And the master of all souls knows how deeply this needs to be implanted
in the hearts of men to be careful from sin, and according to this depth
indeed came so many letters about this in the Torah of truth. And we come
to this level, we no longer need to fight specifically against the picture
that is publicized among the new researchers, and when we are no longer
concerned we can judge straight, and now we can annul their decisions
with ease with this measure that the truth shall show us her way.

The main glory of our lives is the truth, of the unity in its majesty
and eternal glory, and the eternal justice that goes with it without
separation,. This is the soul of the Torah (nishma d'oraita ג€" footnote
to zohar b'ha'alotcha 152) that especially through it can we glance
also on its body and clothing. And in general, the idea of gradual
evolution is also now in the beginning of its evolution, and there is
no doubt that it will change its form, and will yield visions that in
them we will also see leaps, that complete the vision of existence,
and then the light of Yisrael will be understood in its full brightness.

This is opposite of the gentile researchers, and those Jews who follow
them, who take the tanach according to the Christian interpretaion,
that through it the world becomes a prison. But the pure understanding
of the joy of life and their light that is in the Torah, is specifically
through the secure pledge of the past, when man was very happy, and only
a happening of sin made him lose his way. It is understood that and an
accidental stumbling block will surely be fixed, and man will return to
his high level forever, but the idea of evolution without help from the
past,, can frighten us forever lest we stand in the middle of the road,
or even retreat, as we have no sure place to say that it is manג€™s
fixed nature, and even more so to the physical man as he is of body
and spirit together. Therefore, only the existence of man in Gan Eden
sustains the world of light, and in general it is appropriate that it
should be a historical and cactual fact, even though it is not necessary
(meג€™akev) for us.

And in general, this is a great principle in the battle of opinions,
that any opinion that comes to contradict something from the Torah, we
have to in the beginning not to contradict it, but to build the palace
of Torah above it, and that way we are elevated by it, and through this
elevation the opinions are exposed, and later, when we are not pressed
by anything, we can with a full and confident heart to fight against
it as well. There are several examples that prove the point, but it
it is difficult for me to elaborate, and for a wise heart like you the
short form is suuficient, inorder to know how to worhip hashem (lidgol
bshem hashem) above all the winds that blow, and to use everything for
our true good, that is also the good of all.

The rest of the letter deals with other issues.

Notes relevant to our discussion.
1) The torah does not really care about historical events.
2) He advocates extending the use of allegory even above that of the
rishonim (no mention at all of hazal). Previous sanction is not required.
3) The motivation for the need for allegory is "opinions that come
through the new research, that most of them contradict the simple meaning
of Torah." - not a problem generated by an internal mesora problem.
4) It is not necessary for the secular opinion to be proved beyond all
reasonable doubt, and one may even have real doubts about what the truth
is ( no need for analytical proof..)

However, the use of allegory is justified as a possible explanation,
and once all possibilities are explored, eventually the truth will
be revealed.

Meir Shinnar 

On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 05:57:57PM -0500, S & R Coffer wrote:
: But the Rambam doesn't say this. He is quite clear in the Moreh (2:25)
: that unless there is incontrovertible evidence to the contrary (such as
: the Rambam's ten proofs that corporeality cannot apply to Hashem) we are
: to take the pesukim in Tanach literally. For some reason, the Rambam,
: of late, has been championed as a non-literalist. In view of the above
: mareh makom, I am perplexed as to how this attitude has gained a foothold.

I don't think the Rambam is dealing with literalism vs non. Rather, he
writes that Torah (written plus mesorah) can't contradict philosophy --
there is only one truth.

And if they seem to, it must be that either (1) the philosophy isn't
muchrach, or (2) the idea will not be found to be counter "all of our
nevi'im and chakhamim".

(RMS seems to think I invented the latter part; I don't know why. It's
there in RZL's edition too.)

Thus, the Rambam would only allow new peshatim when (1) compelled to by
incontravertable proof, and (2) it isn't against the clear statement of
the mesorah.

When you have the first without the second, it means that you have
a misunderstanding and don't yet know enough to resolve it. (Which
frustrates RHM, but doesn't empower us to give him an answer just to
make him happy.)

: On January 31, 2006, Lisa Liel wrote:
:> That presents many options. Eden might have been in the Mediterranean
:> basin. The legends of Atlantis might be based on a city-state in that
:> area (or not). But the Mabul was world-wide. That's what the Torah says.

: Where does the Torah say this? I have always understood the mabul as
: being a global phenomenon but a cursory reading of the mabul episode in
: the Torah reveals that the Torah never utilizes the term "kol haaretz",
: just "aretz"...

Bereishis 6:13 - Qeitz kol basar ba lefanai
6:17 - leshacheis kol-basar asher-bo ruach chaim mitachas hashamayim,
kol asher ba'aretz yigva
7:11 - nivqe'u kol ma'yenos tehom raba
7:19 - vaychassu kol-heharim haggevohim asher-tachas kol-hashamayim

I would think that 6:13 and 7:19 are pretty clearly encompassing at
least the entirety of civilization.


On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 12:45:19PM -0500, Shinnar, Meir wrote:
: Rather, the issue is the conflict between simple pshat in the mesora and
: our reason - and that allegory is the way out. The rambam is not the only
: source - see, eg, the hakdama of ibn ezra to the alternate perush on sefer
: breshit (there is also, I believe, a Meiri discussing the use of allegory)

However, the IE is clear it's about "alternate peirush", not that one
peirush happens to be allegory.

Besides, as you note, the Rambam isn't the only source -- but he is
MORE liberal on this issue than most others, and condemned for it by
the other rishonim, as well as the Gra, RSRH, etc...

: The fundamental position of the rambam is that torah, neviim and hazal
: speak in allegorical terms - and the real problem is to understand when
: - and therefore the fact that something seems to be clear pshat does
: not mean that it is....

And where does he say this? I'm in agreement with RSC on this one. (See
above.)

...
: eg, one can analytically conclude that saying that a black object is
: not black is false. However, if a word is used that may mean black or
: may mean merely not white, depending on context (let me invent brack),
: concluding that saying a particular object described as brack is black
: requires first a synthetic analysis of the meaning of brack in the
: context - and then one can apply analytic.

Thus we have a mesorah to define our terms. I fail to see why this is a
difficulty. If one is redefining the terms to fit something other than
mesorah, than one is engaging in shinui -- changing the Torah to fit.


On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 08:09:59PM -0500, Shinnar, Meir wrote:
: RMB
:> Rav Kook's approach is to look at the allegory of Gan Eden. He doesn't
:> write whether the mashal was historical or ahistorical.

: Notes relevant to our discussion.
: 1) The torah does not really care about historical events.

Not quite. Rather, he says the "ikar shel Torah" is otherwise. However,
that doesn't mean its statements about history are altogether ignorable.

: 2) He advocates extending the use of allegory even above that of the
: rishonim (no mention at all of hazal). Previous sanction is not required.

But a lack of contradiction is. As you translate:
: And in general, this is a great principle in the battle of opinions,
: that any opinion that comes to contradict something from the Torah, we
: have to in the beginning not to contradict it, but to build the palace
: of Torah above it, and that way we are elevated by it, and through this
: elevation the opinions are exposed, and later, when we are not pressed
: by anything, we can with a full and confident heart to fight against
: it as well....

This isn't shinui, it's chiddush. Constructing from what we have to
what the Torah was hithertofore thought to be silent. Building,
not whittling.

: 3) The motivation for the need for allegory is "opinions that come
: through the new research, that most of them contradict the simple meaning
: of Torah." - not a problem generated by an internal mesora problem.

When he speaks of not being concerned, RAYK addresses contradictions with
"the simple meaning of the Torah", not Torah in all its richness. It's
impossible to contradict the Torah in all its richness.

: 4) It is not necessary for the secular opinion to be proved beyond all
: reasonable doubt, and one may even have real doubts about what the truth
: is ( no need for analytical proof..)

I don't see this in your translation at all.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "The worst thing that can happen to a
micha@aishdas.org        person is to remain asleep and untamed."
http://www.aishdas.org          - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

>>The question is, whatever happened to Twelve Month Geihinom?

> The Gemara says that an apikores (i.e.- doesn't believe in Olam Haba,
> etc.) doesn't get Olam Haba. If that still doesn't mean he gets Geihinom,
> it does seem to imply that he'll get burned for 12 months (at least) and
> then go on forever suffering from the fact that he's not in Olam Haba -
> sounds like eternal torture to me.

On the contrary, I understand it to mean that he doesn't get into
Gehinnom. Gehinnom is not Hell, it's Purgatory. AFAIK, Judaism doesn't
believe in Hell. The purpose of Gehinnom is to be cleansed of ones
averot, so that one can enter Olam Haba. Someone who is never going to
get into OH has no need of cleansing, so there's no reason for Hashem
to make them suffer in Gehinnom. The idea that Hashem is lehavdil some
kind of sadist who makes people suffer eternally for no purpose is,
AFAIK, something the Xians took from their pagan ancestor religions,
not from Judaism.

Think of the story of Acher, who was originally not allowed into Gehinnom.
The chachamim prayed that he should be allowed into Gehinnom, so that he
would eventually get out, and their prayers were accepted. Smoke started
coming from his grave, and when it stopped several generations later
the chachamim knew that he had been accepted into Gan Eden.

So what happens to those who don't get into the system? I assume that
nothing happens to them, that they simply expire. In many case that's
exactly what they expected.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 01:16:58PM +1100, meir rabi wrote:
: In Y:D Siman 13 Taz 4, explaining why an animal that has set foot or
: walked on the ground (HifRis Al GuBey KarKa 2 opinions) requires Shechita,
: says that it is due to Maris Ayin as o/w people will confuse the BP with
: regular animals....

Mar'is ayin is the prohibition against giving people reason to think
one is sinning. "... Vehiyisem neqiyyim meiHashem umiYyisra'el"
(Bamidbar 32:22).

What you're describing is cheshash. That people may confuse the two
animals.

It's not exactly the same as the cheshash of shema yachteh begechalim,
since there we're afraid of people who act out of habit. Therefore, we
need to interrupt the habit. By the BP, we're afraid of error. Therefore,
it is logical to assume it's sufficient to inform.

: Now we may consider that wherever possible Chazal would impose the
: maximum device to avoid the risk, a blech for the stove and if such
: a parallel exists the same for almond milk...

Actually, there is a machloqes RAKotler and RMFeinstein about how to
translate a blech to stoves. Whether the ikkar is covering the gechalim,
in which case we should be covering the knobs of the stove, or the ikkar
could be preventing someone from inspecting the flame, in which case
the ikkar is covering the burners.

Neither *require* for maximalism, at least mei'ikar hadin.

: BTW I presume (correct me if I am mistaken) Reb Micha's distinction
: between Heqer and Maris Ayin is that Heqer applies to the one who
: is engaged in the activity and Maris Ayin applies to the outside
: observer. The Aruch HaShulchan however (13-6) ties those two notions
: together.

No, I'm saying one is a din de'Oraisa based on the above pasuq, the
other is the motivation for a derabbanan (more specifically, a seyag or
a geder).

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow
micha@aishdas.org        man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries
http://www.aishdas.org   about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rabbi Israel Salanter

On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 12:52:43PM -0500, Mlevinmd@aol.com wrote:
: There were surely people who carried out all kinds of unspeakable acts
: in antiquity but what their pathology, clinical or moral had been and
: whether they can be classified as "sexual predators" cannot ever be
: known. So you can't ask questions on situation which we don't understand;
: the presumption is that Torah had the best prescription of personal and
: societal illnesses current at  that time.

Are we to assume that a mitzvah ledoros is only rational at one time
in history?

Doesn't this raise the issues of the Rambam's sevarah for qorbanos,
and the Narvoni's question and reinterpretation thereon?

Or, are we to say, like chalitzah, that HQBH intentionally provided
an alternative path for eras where it's appropriate -- in this case,
refusing the marriage and throwing him to civil law.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             When a king dies, his power ends,
micha@aishdas.org        but when a prophet dies, his influence is just
http://www.aishdas.org   beginning.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                    - Soren Kierkegaard

On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 11:53:24PM +1100, meir rabi wrote:
: Now that we've figured out that honey is kosher in spite of its being a
: product created/converted only through an enzyme of a non-kosher species,
: we may wish to explore why cheese created/converted through an enzyme
: is different.

IOW: Why is there usually a kelal of davar hama'amid that doesn't apply
to bee enzyme?

The aforementioned gezeires hakasuv of "chalav udevash".

Cheese has no such pasuq.

-mi

On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 03:58:10PM -0000, Chana Luntz wrote:
: I think the question to which RSB is referring is a bit more complicated
: than this (and thereby I am not convinced your answer helps), as it is
: not really matter of schar at all.

Then someone switched the subject of this thread and didn't warn me. (See
the last word in the subject line.)

: In a nutshell, my question is, - isn't it odd that in a world (the
: halachic world) in which chiyuv is very much the driver, a woman has no
: chiyuv to get married and have children?

Is chiyuv the driver? Do chiyuvim exist to define one's essential
avodah? Or do they exist in response to one's areas for improvement? Are
the two identical -- one's essential avodah is to address one's areas
where sheleimus is lacking?

Getting married, piryah verivyah, and chinukh are made part of the
essential nature of mankind in Bereishis 1. The question isn't why Hashem
found giving such a chiyuv to women to be redundant, but why is the same
pasuq (the source of the idiom "piryah verivyah") cited as a chiyuv?

Something was lost in the existential nature of man that these chiyuvim
must make up. I am raising the questions of when and where, among
many others.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
micha@aishdas.org        It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org   and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (270) 514-1507         - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"

On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 12:45:54AM +1100, SBA wrote:
: OTOH, there are other mitzvos, for which  a person can receive continuing
: sechar - as time goes on - even well after his has passed on from this
: world.

If someone leaves a positive force in the world, then yes, his chessed is
accordingly larger than someone whose chessed is entirely in the moment.

: He gives a moshol of someone who welcomes an orphan into his home and
: gives him/her a chinuch of Torah and mitzvos and later this orphan
: himself establishes a bayis neeman beyisroel, the adoptive parents will
: then reap the rewards for the 2nd and further generations - even if they
: are no longer be'almo hodein.

And if the child doesn't produce those children? Isn't the fact that
they did everything possible to keep the potential of their existence
around the act for which they're getting sechar? Do you really see din
in their getting less olam haba for raising an infertile orphan?

IOW, I think you're being overly literal.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             The waste of time is the most extravagant
micha@aishdas.org        of all expense.
http://www.aishdas.org   			-Theophrastus
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

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


[ 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         ]