Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 209

Tue, 30 Nov 2010

• 1. Re: Local, Non-Global or Global Flood (Arie Folger)
• 2. Re: Local, Non-Global or Global Flood (Zvi Lampel)
• 3. Re: Local, Non-Global or Global Flood (Arie Folger)
• 4. Re: Local, Non-Global or Global Flood (Zvi Lampel)
• 5. Re: Local, Non-Global or Global Flood (Arie Folger)
• 6. Re: Just one Hashem in Heaven (Zvi Lampel)
• 7. Re: Just one Hashem in Heaven (Arie Folger)
• 8. Re: yibum (was:Tamar's theatrics) (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Local, Non-Global or Global Flood (Zvi Lampel)
• 10. Self Esteem (Prof. Levine)
• 11. Re: Local, Non-Global or Global Flood (Zvi Lampel)
• 12. Re: self esteem (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 13. Re: Local, Non-Global or Global Flood (Micha Berger)

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 7:53 PM, Zvi Lampel <zvilam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Please consider the implications of what you are saying in regards to, say,
> blanket interpretation of the entire Torah as allegory, both in its
> narratives and its halachos.

I am quite conscious of what I wrote. I did not suggest allowing for
"blanket interpretation of the entire Torah as allegory" either "in
its narratives" or "its halachos." What I did suggest is that just
because we reject blanket interpretation of Torah as allegory does not
therefore imply that there is neither allegory nor metaphor in Torah.
Likewise, I consider the preference for primary meanings of words to
be an a priori tendency, not an absolute rule, because while it is
convincing that we must err on the side of caution and be hesitant to
suggest what may be a reinterpretation, rather than a correct
interpretation, it is however not convincing to assume that words
always mean their primary meaning, except in the most extreme
circumstances.

Again, if you ask me "can one reinterpret," my answer is no. If the
question, however, is whether the Torah may utilize secondary meanings
of words, allegory and metaphor, the answer is a clear yes, and in a
manner of illustration, I just refer to the gemara in 'Hullin, dibru
hakhtuvim belashon havai. I agree that doesn't give me or you licence
to just redefine things as lashon havai at will, but the presence of
lashon havai is an established fact, in 'Humash, no less.

-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Basler Gymnasium experimentiert mit Chawrut?-Lernen
* Where Will We Find Refuge ... from technology overload
* Video-Vortrag: Psalm 34
* We May Have Free Will, After All
* Equal Justice for All
* Brutal Women of Nazi Germany
* Gibt es in der Unterhaltungsliteratur eine Rolle f?r G"tt?

On 11/30/2010 2:27 PM, Arie Folger wrote:
> Again, if you ask me "can one reinterpret," my answer is no.
Then we agree.
>   If the
> question, however, is whether the Torah may utilize secondary meanings
> of words, allegory and metaphor, the answer is a clear yes,
Again, then we agree. This is clearly what the sources I quoted said.
>   and in a
> manner of illustration, I just refer to the gemara in 'Hullin, dibru
> hakhtuvim belashon havai. I agree that doesn't give me or you licence
> to just redefine things as lashon havai at will, but the presence of
> lashon havai is an established fact, in 'Humash, no less.
Then we totally agree. Baruch Hashem! I must have misunderstood you. Why 
did you consider this "another way of looking at it," when it's 
identical to what I quoted the sources as saying?

Zvi Lampel

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Zvi Lampel <zvilam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Then we totally agree. Baruch Hashem! I must have misunderstood you. Why did
> you consider this "another way of looking at it," when it's identical to
> what I quoted the sources as saying?

Because the manner in which you wrote seemed to preclude understanding
a word according to its secondary meaning, unless there are serious
theological objections to using the primary meaning. I think that that
is an excessively high bar that denies the Torah the right and ability
to express itself in the most powerful way. I wouldn't lightly look
for a secondary meaning, but I consider the bar you seemed to have
set, to be too high. I do not think that the written word can be
treated like a math formula, and hence there cannot be any absolute
rules about how to interpret language; those rules are dominant
preferences (tm)(c), not absolutes. But language is not arbitrary, so
that we are not free to reinterpret things at will.

-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Basler Gymnasium experimentiert mit Chawrut?-Lernen
* Where Will We Find Refuge ... from technology overload
* Video-Vortrag: Psalm 34
* We May Have Free Will, After All
* Equal Justice for All
* Brutal Women of Nazi Germany
* Gibt es in der Unterhaltungsliteratur eine Rolle f?r G"tt?

Fri, 19 Nov 2010Meir Shinnar <chide...@gmail.com> wrote
>...one of the TORAH reason that I (and I think many
> rishonim) subscribe to is that ...[in] any apparent
> conflict... we must rethink our initial understanding of the two
> sources to reconcile them - and therefore, there becomes a TORAH
> reason to allegorize...

I am interested in seeing an example of a rishon who, based on
new information, changed, or posited that we should change, the
traditional/conventional way of understanding the basic nature of any
Torah narratives from historical to allegorical. As far as I can see,
any rishon who posits that a particular narrative is meant allegorically
maintains that this was the way Chazal understood it all along.

> ... Hashem will not willfully deceive
> us and lead us astray on these issues -and therefore, any apparent
> conflict, we must have misunderstood one of the two sources - and
> therefore, we must rethink our initial understanding of the two
> sources to reconcile them - and therefore, there becomes a TORAH
> reason to allegorize...

But this means that, in the example of the Mabul, Hashem did indeed
willfully deceive and lead astray all the Tannaim, Amoraim, Geonim and
rishonim and us about the fundamental nature of how to take its narrative
(and makes any belief in anything the Torah says only tentative).

>...Neither rashi nor rashbam saw a problem with ha"pshatim hamitchadhsim
> bekol yom" - why do we?

Rashi and Rashbam (as well as Rambam, Ibn Ezra and the others) worked
with their respective methodologies of determining peshat based upon
the meanings of the words, their context, directly and always observable
facts and logic, and overarching principles (not including a principle of,
"newly gained information shows that whereas before we thought passages
were meant literally, we now see they were meant allegorically) they
maintained were held by Chazal. They offer additional, non-conflicting
takes, but never oppose what they consider to be the consensus of Chazal
as to what thepeshat is. On the contrary, they support and validate their
interpretations by citing Chazal. The Ibn Ezra, for example, qualified
any differing peshat with, "if it was a kabalah, I will accept it."


In belated (but long ago posted) defense of RMB's interpretation of
Breishis 2:4, we see that this is the explanation given by Rav Saadia
Gaon and Rabbeynu Avraham ben HaRambam (see below). But don't stop
there. My position that in the context of the six days of creation, the
mesorah is clear that the six days were no longer than regular ones,
despite redefining "yom" in this posuk. And, as RMB has emphasized,
the real concern is not, in a vacuum, how the word "yom" is defined,
but how the ba'alei mesorah guide us in understanding and approaching
the Torah. Here's the entire post from long ago:

>> Yom Hashem is acharis hayamim. All of time after techiyas
>> hameisim. "Bayom hahu yihyeh Hashem echad ushemo echad." Not just
>> the day achareis hayamim begins.

> Maybe. But I thought it /did/ mean "as of that day." What's your ra'yah
> these pesukim are not referring to one day or the day that introduces
> the era? Oh, and I just found a Radak (Yoel 3:3 referring to Yoel 2:11)
> who says that the "Yom Hashem HaGadol V'HaNora" is the day of Gog and
> Magog's downfall. Sounds like a specific (V-)day.

I find it interesting that most meforshim do not care to understand "yom"
as more than one "yom," even where one might expect it. As R. Yitzchok
Zirkind pointed out concerning Bereishis 2:4 ("These are the tolodos
of the Heavens and the Earth b'yom hi-bor-om,"), Rashi, Ohr Hachayim,
Ramban, Sforno, and I add Ibn Ezra and Radak, all treat "yom" as one day,
and do not suggest that it is a way of referring to the six-day period
of Creation, although the opportunity seems to present itself. It seems
that they understood that Tanach would not use "yom" to represent a long
period of time.

On the other hand, regarding this particular posek (Breishis 2:4),
you do have a mekor from Rabbeynu Saadia Gaon and R. Avraham ben HaRambam:

In his Torah Commentary, RSG translates (according to R. KPH [fill in the
vowels as you please] "yom" as "eis" (that's ayin-suf), and R. Avraham
ben HaRambam in his Torah Commentary (cited by R. KPH) writes that it
refers to the overall six-day period. "Yom," he writes, can mean a long
period. He says this is evidenced by "All the mitzvah that I commanded
you 'ha-yom'," "referring to all the mitzvos they were commanded at the
time of mattan Torah [from Moses to Israel over 40 years, according to
R. Akiva; or even from Hashem to Moses, according to R. Yishmael? -- ZL)
which consisted of days, months and several years. And it is impossible,"
he says, "that by the word 'yom' here the intent could be a reference
to the first day of the Six Days of Creation, because the 'tolodos'
specified are those that came on the third and sixth days."

So you're right. "Yom" can (according to some) mean a longer than
24-hour period.

But -- now watch this jujitsu move -- this only proves that when a rishon
understands "day" to mean something other than a 24-hour day, he will
point it out. He would address it head on. The fact that in the case of
the six days of creation no baal mesorah redefined any of the six "yamim"
of Braishis in terms of time or even made any comment indicating that the
plain understanding is any sort of problem, proves that he understood
it kepeshuto. (On top of those few rishonim who do say or imply that
it was a 24-hour type day.) The conspicuous absence of any remark. by
even the most philisophically-inclined rishonim, redefining "day,"
(they are only concerned with /how/ the day could have been measured,
and answer how it can be measured, implicitly presuming it was a 24-hour
type day) shows that they assumed it was a 24-hour type day, and that
the shortness of the period was part of the glory of the Creation the
Torah means to reveal to us.

R. KPH puts in the appendix to his translation of Rabbeynu Saadia Gaon's
Chumash commentary the following piece from the sefer Tseyda LaDerech. He
complains that although it speaks in the name of RSG, many additions
were placed and it is therefore difficult to determine which words were
actually authored by RSG. Nonetheless, I think it's valuable to see what
I perceive to be the commonly held viewpoint of the earlier generations
of what Creation means:

"Hashem Yisborach's primary intent in informing us of Maaseh Beraishis was
not only that we should know that He created the Heavens and the Earth,
for there are many proofs for this principle. What was needed was that
which the narrative imparts....

"The fifth principle: ...if it did not tell us, we would not know what
thing preceded what in the order of Creation...

"The sixth principle: The principle of Creation contradicts those who
teach that the world is eternal. such as Aristotle and his followers...For
these masters of philosophy were great chachamim in accurate astronomy
and physics, and composed many works. And this exhorts us not to err ...

"The seventh principle Breishis teaches is that although you see the
heavens possesing vast dimensions, as is proven by the masters of
mathematics, do not think that it took a long time to create them. "I
called to them and they stood up together" (Yeshaia 48:13). This means
that in the Beginning, in the smallest amount of time, without any
effort. Likewise it says "He won't tire nor toil, there is no end to
His Understanding" (ibid., 40:28). And as it says, "'b'hi-bar'am,' --
b'hay bar'am -- at the beginning of the creation of Time, and in a short
period, the mind being unable to grasp this amount. ... "

(And please remember my focus in this post from beginning to end is
on the suggestion that by "day" in Beraishis, Hashem meant something
other than a regular earthling-perspective day. I'm not here discussing
other proposals, such as concerning the situation between Beraishis 1:1
and 1:2.)

On 11/30/2010 2:27 PM, Arie Folger wrote:
> I consider the preference for primary meanings of words to
> be an a priori tendency, not an absolute rule...
> it is however not convincing to assume that words
> always mean their primary meaning, except in the most extreme
> circumstances.

So you're saying that you disagree with the authorities I quoted, 
because they only allow for non-primary interpretation in the most 
extreme circumstances? They are clear about the circumstances that 
disqualify the primary meaning. Where do you see they limit secondary 
meaning to "extreme" circumstances?

> ... I just refer to the gemara in 'Hullin, dibru
> hakhtuvim belashon havai. I agree that doesn't give me or you licence
> to just redefine things as lashon havai at will, but the presence of
> lashon havai is an established fact, in 'Humash, no less.

I'm getting confused. You consider the posuk cited there, "Cities 
fortified up to the heavens" as a non-extreme circumstance?

Zvi Lampel

You asked
> What bar did I set higher than what the sources demand?

Well, in writing:
> Rav Saadia Gaon, the Rambam and the Ikkarim explicitly, and others
> implicitly, maintain the meaning of the word must be its primary meaning,
> unless it transgresses one of the rules you mentioned

you have, I believe, conflated secondary meanings of words with
allegory. Also, the second condition, "Where it[the literal reading --
arie] is repudiated by obvious logic" is a possibly large category.
Depends on which Rishon or Acharon you ask. Ralbag and Malbim would
both include physics in this.

In general, I take issue with the formulation "... maintain the
meaning of the word *must* be its primary meaning, unless ..." That is
the phrase I had in mind when I wrote that language is not math,
especially the verb "must." I consider that rule what I call a
dominant preference, not an absolute rule, because language just
doesn't behave like that.

KT,
-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Basler Gymnasium experimentiert mit Chawrut?-Lernen
* Where Will We Find Refuge ... from technology overload
* Video-Vortrag: Psalm 34
* We May Have Free Will, After All
* Equal Justice for All
* Brutal Women of Nazi Germany
* Gibt es in der Unterhaltungsliteratur eine Rolle f?r G"tt?

Milchamos Hashem, Rabbeynu Avraham ben HaRambam (Wars of the L-rd, 
translated by Dr. Fred Rosner) pp. 80-82, 129:

Our forefathers tells us, and the books and compositions authored in 
exile inform us, and the oral traditions from city to city and from 
country to country testify for us about all the Sages of Israel, East 
and West, about the heads of the talmudic academies in Babylon such as 
Rebbenu Saadia Gaon and Rabbenu Hau Gaon and Rabbi Samuel ben Chofni, 
may their memory be blessed; about the other academy heads and Sages of 
all Arabia, Syria and Egypt; about the Sages such as Rabbenu Nissim, 
author of Mehilat Setarim,, and Rabbenu Chananel who wrote a comentary 
on most of the Talmud; about Rabbi Isaac [Alfasi], author of Halachot 
Gedolot; about his disciple Rabbi Joseph known as Ibn Migash; about 
Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra who wrote a commentary on the Torah and other 
scriptural texts; and about many others whose names are known by virtue 
of their written works and others who are mentioned because of beautiful 
verbal or oral teachings.

All these Sages, of blessed memory, were scholars of the Mishnah, 
Talmud, Midrash and Aggadah....[and] strengthened the faith which they 
inherited from their ancestors, and made them understand...the basic 
principles of their faith...[that] G-d is not corporeal...nor does He 
occupy a place....There is nothing that contains Him.....

All the scriptural phrases such as "He that sitteth in the heavens" 
(Psalm 2:4)...are allegories about the loftiness of His eminence and the 
loftiness of his truth [or: reality--ZL]...which is higher than the 
eminence of the heavens and their hosts and the angels.

Zvi Lampel

RMB wrote:
> But in the case of shamayim, all derashos about eish+mayim aside,
> I think it's sham+ayim, yeilding "thereness". There, as in not here, a
> place I am not at. Thus shamayim is a term referring to places I
> can't reach.

That is exactly how R' Yaakov Meidan, quoting R' Yoel Bin Nun, in the
former's shiurim on Kohelet, interprets shamayim, from shamim,
"theres" or as you put it, "thereness."

I don't recall which shiur it was in, but the series is available here:
http://torah.libsyn.org/index.php?pos
t_category=%D7%9E%D7%92%D7%99%D7%9C%D7%AA%20%D7%A7%D7%94%D7%9C%D7%AA

-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Basler Gymnasium experimentiert mit Chawrut?-Lernen
* Where Will We Find Refuge ... from technology overload
* Video-Vortrag: Psalm 34
* We May Have Free Will, After All
* Equal Justice for All
* Brutal Women of Nazi Germany
* Gibt es in der Unterhaltungsliteratur eine Rolle f?r G"tt?

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 07:42:39AM -0500, T6...@aol.com wrote:
: But then we come back to, is a widow awaiting yibum subject to the death  
: penalty under Noahide law? ...

She was sentenced for prostitution. Let's say yibum and eishes ish wasn't
part of it. Perhaps it was, as you write:
: under Canaanite law of the time -- not Noahide law.  

But that would be Noachide law too -- the obligation to set up a civil
law.

Not that I hit meforeshim either...

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes
mi...@aishdas.org        "I am thought about, therefore I am -
http://www.aishdas.org   my existence depends upon the thought of a
Fax: (270) 514-1507      Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch

On 11/30/2010 3:32 PM, Arie Folger wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Zvi Lampel<zvilam...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> Then we totally agree. Baruch Hashem! I must have misunderstood you. Why did
>> you consider this "another way of looking at it," when it's identical to
>> what I quoted the sources as saying?
> Because the manner in which you wrote seemed to preclude understanding
> a word according to its secondary meaning, unless there are serious
> theological objections to using the primary meaning. I think that that
> is an excessively high bar that denies the Torah the right and ability
> to express itself in the most powerful way. I wouldn't lightly look
> for a secondary meaning, but I consider the bar you seemed to have
> set, to be too high. ...

But all I did was to add onto RAK's formula, cited by RMB, what the 
sources say. RMB wrote:
>> ...There are four conditions under which there is a tradition that the 
>> Torah is not to be taken according to its literal meaning: [181]
>>   1. Where the plain meaning is rejected by common experience.
>>   2. Where it is repudiated by obvious logic. [182]
>>   3. Where it is contradicted by obvious scripture.
>>   4. Where it is opposed by clear Talmudic tradition. [183]

>...But more importantly, we aren't talking about literal vs allegory. ...

And I added:

"True, we're not talking about literal vs. allegory; but about literal
(i.e., peshat) meaning. But there are rules for determining correct
literal meaning as well. Rav Saadia Gaon, the Rambam and the Ikkarim
explicitly, and others implicitly, maintain the meaning of the word
must be its primary meaning, unless it transgresses one of the rules
you mentioned. There is a hierarchy of meanings that must be followed:
Preferably primary; with cause (such as those you listed), non-primary."

What bar did I set higher than what the sources demand?

Zvi Lampel

>At 05:30 PM 11/30/2010, R. Akiva Blum wrote:
>>
>>  What I find strange about R. Dessler is that his father made sure that he
>>had a secular education, since his father had studied in Kelm where secular
>>studies were part of the yeshiva curriculum.
>>
>>
>>So? What do Rav Desslers observations have to do with the decisions of his
>>father?
>>
>>Akiva

I get the distinct impression from what R. Dessler wrote that he is 
against secular studies and has adopted the  "Torah only" approach. I 
would have thought that he would not have adopted this, given his 
"family tradition" (mesorah).   Clearly I am wrong.  YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101130/e23c9b6e/attachment-0001.htm>

On 11/20/2010 8:05 PM, RMB wrote:

>  But if the mishnah says we can't comprehend maaseh Bereishis, than
>  anything we understand to be the literal meaning of the verse's
>  description of history is in error.

What mishna?

And how does your intepretation square with sources such as these:

For we, the community following in the footsteps of Moshe Rabbeynu and 
Avraham Avinu, aleihem hashalom, believe that the world came into being 
in such-and-such a form, and became such-and-such from such-and-such 
(/haya kach mi-kach)/, and such was created after such (Moreh Nevuchim 
2:17),

*/Midrash Shemos Rabbah/*//(30:9) recording *Onkelos'* marveling the 
fact that /the youngest Jewish children know "how the 
Holy-One-Blessed-be-He created the world.?They know what was created the 
first day and what was created the second day, how much [time] there is 
since the world was created, and what [good deeds] sustain the world. 
And their Torah is true."/

And the *Ramban* citing this /Midrash/ to illustrate that "the Torah 
'opens one's eyes,' /for it reveals to us the secret of the Formation, 
the subject of Maaseh Breishis, the Creation and Formation of the 
Universe/,"

not to mention the Ramban insisting that the days of MB were regular 
says like those after them, consisting of minutes and hours, plus the 
numerous other rishonim who very clearly take the days of MB such, and 
argue over whether the Nachash was a snake or the Yetzer Hara?

Were all these rishonim who understood the peshat meaning of MB as a 
description of history in error and in violation of your mishna?
**


Zvi Lampel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101130/b6a43573/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Zev Sero asked:

> Ein hachi nami, but what do you do if the subject of your biography
> really was an illuy? Pretend he wasn't?!

This is a very important question. For me, the answer is to focus on whatever it was that he had to struggle with.

Learning comes easy to an illuy, so his ability to learn a great amount, or
at a young age, does not impress me at all. But just because he was good at
learning, that doesn't mean that his midos were so great. Maybe he
understood deep concepts easily, but found it difficult to control his
temper or get out of bed in the morning.

Just as an example, "The Making Of A Gadol" has several stories about the
several times that Rav Yaakov Kaminetzky struggled with his smoking habit.
It tells of how hard he fought, and several of the aytzos he used, and I
found it very inspiring.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
How to Stay Asleep
Cambridge Researchers have developed an all natural sleep aid just for you.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4cf5b1d54c3a348335cst04vuc

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 09:19:08PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote:
> On 11/20/2010 8:05 PM, RMB wrote:
>>  But if the mishnah says we can't comprehend maaseh Bereishis, than
>>  anything we understand to be the literal meaning of the verse's
>>  description of history is in error.

> What mishna?

Sorry, I thought it was obvious -- Chagiga 2:1. You know, the one that
tells you that "Maaseh Bereishis" is a topic of esoterica, not an exoteric
text? From which Maaseh Bereishis becomes an idiom. The real
peshat in Bereishis 1 is about the sheim of 42 osios (Tosafos
Chagiga 11b), and/or Sefer haYetzirah (Tos YT on the Bartenura ad loc).

In Bereishis Rabba 1:5 R' Huna quotes Bar Kaparah that people who try to
describe Maaseh Bereishis are described by the pasuq "tei'alamna sifsei
shaqer, hadoveros al tzadiq ataq begaavah uvuz." (Teh' 21:19)

But really I was just trying to say, "Bereishis 1 is THE Maaseh Bereishis
after all". I wouldn't think a person (other than a handful of neviim
and the dor hamidbar) could read the first peraqim of Yechezqeil and
get what the navi really means. Even with mesorah.

...
> For we, the community following in the footsteps of Moshe Rabbeynu and  
> Avraham Avinu, aleihem hashalom, believe that the world came into being  
> in such-and-such a form, and became such-and-such from such-and-such  
> (/haya kach mi-kach)/, and such was created after such (Moreh Nevuchim  
> 2:17),

Yeah, there was beri'ah, we know this as a fact. Do we understand anything
about how it was like? Only vague hazy notions.

> */Midrash Shemos Rabbah/*//(30:9) recording *Onkelos'* marveling the  
> fact that /the youngest Jewish children know "how the  
> Holy-One-Blessed-be-He created the world....

Couldn't find it in
http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%AA_
%D7%A8%D7%91%D7%94_%D7%9C_%D7%98
I think you mean what that edition call 30:12
http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%95%
D7%AA_%D7%A8%D7%91%D7%94_%D7%9C_%D7%99%D7%91

The word you're translating how is "heiach", which can very plausibly
be, "the youngest of them know about G-d creating the universe; what
He created on Yom Echad, what He created on Yom Sheini" -- which BTW,
Rashi would say "Nothing, they were only PLACED on Yom Sheini. Now what?

> not to mention the Ramban insisting that the days of MB were regular  
...
> Were all these rishonim who understood the peshat meaning of MB as a  
> description of history in error and in violation of your mishna?

You only mention the Ramban in this post, without a mar'eh maqom, and
a reference to a medrash I couldn't use. But recall, you're arguing
against someone who doesn't believe there is any rishon who clearly
takes Bereshis 1 as a comprehensible literal history. Your "all those"
presumes your conclusion.

In any case, wouldn't your question be on the Maharal (again, 1st
haqdamah to Gevuros Hashem discussing the mishnah in Chagiga and
"nevu'ah vechokhmah, chokhmah adifah")? And thus isn't it very likely
your question relies on a bad assumption somewhere?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to
mi...@aishdas.org        suffering, but only to one's own suffering.
http://www.aishdas.org                 -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949)
Fax: (270) 514-1507


------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 209
***************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."