As a follow-up to last week’s post and subsequent focus of argument, I was trying to think of a Dvar Torah that is so blatantly absurd in literal form that even the most right-wing, closed minded individual will be compelled to explain it figuratively. Over Shabbos, I read my daughter’s school parsha sheet and was astounded to find exactly what I was looking for, so here it is:
In Exodus 19:13, it states “b’mishoch ha’yovel” (with the sounding of the shofar); when the Shofar is blown with a long note they will know that they can climb onto the mountain because they will know that Hashem left. This is referring to a ram’s horn. Rashi says that this was a horn from the ram that was sacrificed at akeidas yitzchak (the binding of Isaac) .
Rabbeinu Bechaye asks, “How could this possibly be the same ram that was sacrificed? That ram was burnt!?” The answer given was that Hashem created a new ram from the ashes of the ram that was burnt. Pirkei de R’ Eliezer says that the bones of the ram were used for the foundation of the mizbei’ach (Temple alter). The skin of the ram was used to make a belt for Elijah. Its tendons and ligaments were used for the strings on David’s harp. The left horn of the ram was blown at Sinai, and the right will be blown by Moshiach.
My initial reaction to this Dvar Torah was, “funny how R’ Bechaye is incredulous enough to ask how the shofar could possibly be from Abraham’s ram, yet figures that a pheonix-ram is a suitable solution to that problem. And R’ Eliezer, about whom it is stated that he never said anything over that he did not hear directly from his rebbe, makes the claim that this ram took the form of numerous horcruxes that conveniently turn up throughout Jewish history exactly when needed — in other words, perhaps we should be spending more time expounding Harry Potter.
So what are we to make of this? What we are not to make of it is. “those of us alive in 2011 are too intelligent and informed to accept such drivel, so let’s re-interpret it.” My position, perhaps misunderstood by some last week (at least initially, perhaps), was that when R’ Bechaye and R’ Eliezer said these things, they were speaking figuratively and did not think that anyone would ever suspect that their words were to be taken literally. This, as I said, is the position of Maimonides.
The title of this post derives from a lecture given by R’ Mordechai Becher that traces such an approach from R’ Saadia Gaon, but then devolves into a tremendous focus on the protracted “Introduction to Understanding Chazal” of Maimonides in his commentary of the 10th perek of Mishna Sanhedrin.
He begins (with the large and emboldened “HaRishonah“) by stating that there are 3 groups of people. The first group, comprising the vast majority of people, takes Chazal at face value and doesn’t appreciate the real meaning of their words. They are unable to grasp the profundities of knowledge and understanding and they are far from recognizing Chazal’s intended message, thereby missing out on the tremendous insight and inspiration that are afforded to those with the mental faculties to perceive the metaphorical nature of their words. The most tragic part, he laments, is not only that this group doesn’t get it, but its doesn’t even get that it doesn’t get it — these individuals cannot appreciate their own poor of assessment skills, in line with the Dunning-Kruger effect. But at least these people treasure the words of Chazal
The second group also comprises a large percentage of the population and they also erroneously take the words of Chazal to be literal, but they do not esteem Chazal, and as such, they develop a strong sense of cynicism. They scrutinize the words of Chazal with an eye towards mockery and subterfuge. They doubt the validity of Chazal’s words in contrast to science and philosophy, and they are worse than those in the first group because they think they’ve deciphered the message but they’ve actually got it all wrong.
The third group is so scant, decries Maimonides, that it’s hardly fitting to refer to is as a group on par with the first two. This group consists of those who understand Chazal’s methods and intentions with honesty and sincerity. Those in this group readily see that the statements of Chazal exist as both the revealed remarks as well as the concealed messages, because their words are formulated primarily as riddles, parables, analogies, metaphors and other obscure forms. Their words are presented in enigmatic formulations that necessitate decoding, because it is in this form that their words have the greatest potential to penetrate the most lofty and exalted planes of the human mind.
So, in relation to my daughter’s parsha sheet, those in the first group look in utter amazement to God for his most awesome and terrific power over the natural world in that he can take the ashes of a burnt ram and restore it to life and then make a bunch of significant events in Jewish history follow supernaturally with intricate ties to the first event — but that’s not what R’ Bechaye and R’ Eliezer meant when they said what they said and the members of this first group champion a non-sanctioned cause, but they can’t be told that they do so, because they’ll call you a heretic if you do.
Those in the second group look at the Dvar Torah above and will roll their eye no less than 7 times — two for the phoenix and one for each horcrux. They can’t seem to understand why they are represented by aged thinkers who were so out of touch with reality and wasted so much ink on nonsense. So almost nothing Chazal say is worthwhile to read or discuss, and this group would suggest that you quit while you’re behind and stop worrying which horn will be used for which purpose, because, anyway, the whole thing’s a joke and Chazal were a bunch of clowns.
The third group — ah, the third group — sees the words of Chazal as they were originally intended. So perhaps we don’t know what all these references are supposed to mean, and we’ve lost the cultural and societal allusions so that we’re left with a structure of rhyme without reason and of symbols without explanation. And that’s true for many statements of Chazal — we have little-to-no clue what in the world they were trying to tell us, from comments about the Leviathan (e.g. that God pickled the female [Genesis 1:21 + associated commentary of Rashi], that he plays with the remaining male for the last 3 hours of each day [Avodah Zarah 3b], etc.) to comments about bringing Moses to the future to see R’ Akiva and there not being any mention of how God generated the necessary 1.21 gigawatts.
The words of Chazal are beautiful and meaningful and insightful, but only for those in the third group. Those in the first group just think they are, and those in the second know they’re not.
My question to you sir is, if we don’t take literally EVERYTHING the Rabbis said, then why take ANYTHING they said literally? And who decides?
That’s a great question, and likely the rationale of opposition to this approach. But imagine for a second that there were no cynics — your question would only be asked by skeptically sincere people, with an attitude of reverence for Chazal, Judaism and life in general, and that’s fine, because questions are not the enemy, as many believe.
Perforce, I sense that Maimonides here was not referencing halachic comments but aggadic comments — those that, like the ones mentioned above, have no direct effect on daily, weekly, monthly or yearly Jewish ritualistic observance.
And who would decide? Later Chazal, so the Rishonim who studied the Gaonim all day, and the Achronim who studied them both all day and so on…they all had a mesorah for what they were doing, and that mesorah was this attitude laid out by Maimonides.
It’s only in the last few centuries that secularism and cynicism (in the form of Reform Judaism, Conservative Judaism, colloquial Modern Orthodox Judaism, etc) arose to such a degree that certain fringe groups (yeshivish, etc.) moved farther to the right and brought the midrashic literature with them for fear that the common yet regularly devoted Jew would ask your question with perhaps a tinge (or more) of sarcasm — and they decided it better to skew rabbinic interpretation of non-halachic matters (and face only issues of rationality and logic) than allow those who would ask this question to actually ask it, and face the public skewing halacha.
I can see both ways as options — and they certainly are — but it’s just not intellectually honest, and the slippery slope applies to it as well, just in the opposite way. Now we have flaky BTs and FFBs who literally believe that Chazal make assertions (as I quoted above) about the world that are so inconsistent with reality that they are essentially inconsistent with Judaism, because Judaism is consistent with reality. These people will be very rational at work and at school, but when they talk into the synagogue, anything goes and anything is possible, because it’s prohibited to question the literal veracity of what the rabbis said and what the Artscroll sefer says and what The Midrash Says says.
you argue for naught. eventually, they
(baalei teshuva and bochrim) will learn more torah and as they go from bochrim to hachamim (hopefully they will get to the latter stage as this is the goal) they will know everything you say and much more. your judging hashkafa on highschool and young post highschool students that will eventually end up working and not know much anyhow. you have to speak to real scholars when it comes to these things and all real scholars know everything your saying and then some.
Your premise is false.
1) Lots of people get stuck in the middle.
2) Lots more get stuck under the tutelage of someone from group #1.
ok assuming that we have those that take this midrash literally like the arizal, ben ish chai, chaim vital, rashash and a few others. is that so bad? you really think the rashash was one of the destroyers of the world since he takes the midrash that you decided cant be literal…literally? i mean im glad your smarter then all the aforementioned rabbis and all but check your ego dude. and dont you dare quote the rambam for groups, the rambam clearly states that some midrashim are not to be taken literally which means that some are to be taken literally. now all we have to do is look at the hachamim and see if they take this midrash literally. o wait…they do, and you dont. that my friend means that you have just been debunked from all three groups of the rambam to a group all your own, its called an am ha’arets. next time you decide to do a post on a subject, do some research first.
I didn’t decide — Maimonides is passing on his mesorah that midrashim are to be taken figuratively. They were written to be insightful allegories and metaphors and we are to read them as insightful allegories and metaphors.
Funny how you just thought of all this right now and didn’t post it as your initial comment, strongly suggesting that you just thought of it now and indicating it is a rebuttal of my rebuttal and not an actual picture of a reality that existed prior to you sensing that your argument is going downhill.
Everything you say fits in so nicely to how Maimonides describes the people of the first group. The tenacity of their approach, the resistance to hearing it another way, the boldness of their sense of being in the right.
Your hesitation to see beyond your previous personal experiences provides its own explanation — you have been misinterpreting Chazal for so long that you cannot come to grips with someone suggesting that not only are you incorrect, but that Maimonides supports this view, and on top of that, states that you won’t accept this information readily, which is plainly evident to all.
“you have been misinterpreting Chazal for so long that you cannot come to grips with someone suggesting that not only are you incorrect,”
sweetheart ive known this rambam as well as all the other rishonim since i was 15. you have no idea what my my mhalech is so dont assume.
i didnt original post “all of that” because i didnt want to get too deeply into it. im still not and still keeping it on a very shallow level. i see you dont actually read the comments addressed to you nor do you even try to address them but restate the same thing over and over again eventhough you have no real basis for saying what you are. i feel like im talking to a teenager that just came across these meforshim and is so excited by it that he doesnt want to hear out anyone else.
I don’t really understand why you have such a problem with DR saying a solid Dvar Torah, no matter who it’s based on originally.
That being said, I agree that some people have an obsession with the Rambam. Not only teenagers though. The man had a brilliant encyclopedic knowledge of Judaism, he was a Rishon, and he lays it out so logically and neatly that it seems impossible for anyone to think of disagreeing with it.
But after reading commentaries on/against him, you realize that there are some problems, mostly due to lack of knowledge available to him, like modern science and Kabbalah. The Moreh, though clear and brilliant, seems dated and therefore ‘outside the pale’ about certain things, like Yechezkel’s vision being a kind of science book.
Well, maybe you should quit while you’re behind then. I’ll restate my point, and you can tell me why it offends you so much.
Maimonides provides this outlet for those who choose to submit themselves to the God of Moses, follow his Torah but find themselves helpless in the face of lots of ideas that they cannot find palatable. Now, that’s now the position taken by Maimonides — he put this out there because that’s his mesorah (that these things were never meant to be taken literally) — but if one chooses to accept his position, that’s what I meant.
Now, necessarily, Maimonides will be at odds with lots of people. Everyone in group 1 will be upset with him for being categorized as, well, to put it bluntly, fools and morons. Alright, so most people steadfastly in group 1 will not agree with Maimonides.
But let’s take the guy in group 1 who is there not because he’s heard all of this stuff and rejects Maimonides (I think it’s safe to say that you, and perhaps Nate, are included in this subgroup 1) — but let’s take those who are raised by those in group 1 and are thus in group 1 themselves, but find that they can’t deal with what they feel is the “silliness of Judaism.”
My point, which is merely a reiteration of point made by R’ Becher and others, is that they mustn’t reject Judaism because they feel altogether silly taking it as a given that God plays with the Leviathan once a day for four hours and makes rams out of ram ashes. I know these types of people, even though you may not, and this helps them stay committed.
And if one does kiruv, these are very permissible modes of attracting those who are more familiar with the world than, let’s say, insular yeshivish/hasidic folk. But you can’t suggest that we bring people back into the fold with these soothing Maimonidean concepts, and then once they’re in, tell them that it’s all foolishness and that everything’s gotta be taken completely literally. So if that’s the case, and these things are legitimate paths in Torah, it can’t be that it’s just for the soon-to-be-BT — it has got to be for the FFB as well, and who knows what lurks in the heart of FFBs? Maybe the reason an FFB talks during davening is because he or she doesn’t really think much of Judaism because all he or she can think of is how the rabbi gave a speech a few weeks back about how the Egyptian magic was X or Y or Z…and every week seems like something else that he or she doesn’t relate to anymore, and it’s all kids stuff, and he or she would just run away, if not for the spouse and kids and everything.
There is no reason whatsoever not to take these words seriously, you my dear friend are from the second group (as you showed us last week) and should not be writing divrei torah for the public. We know that kosher food cooked in a treife pot becomes treif, so to words of pure torah coming out of a “treife pot” especially when they come along with explenation, would be best kept out of the public eye.
Exactly. A toivel v’sheretz b’yado. Everything for these rationalists has to make perfect sense and shtim perfectly with what they hold to be true because it has been “proven” to be true. Can Hashem make a square circle? They say thats absurd. We say absolutely. So yes, the ram’s horn was the same one from the Akeidah, not a single doubt over that. And if he’s telling his child otherwise, he is doing her a great disservice, and creating a future heretic.
Let’s see some supporting content for your far ranging assertions, rather than make an analogy that presumes too much.
Or maybe it wasn’t an analogy at all — maybe I am to take your words literally. In that case, we’ve never discussed a treife pot, so I don’t know what you’re talking about.
ayin the maharal.
Let’s have a citation, please — the Maharal was quite prolific.
A sefer torah that an apikorus writes has to be burned, even though it is torah its coming from a “treife pot”, get it?
Who here is an apikorus?
But a phoenix-ram would be no more or less miraculous than (say) the plagues, or the parting of the seas. Why find fault with some miraculous occurrences but not with others? After all, if there is a God and God performs miracles, wouldn’t one be just as easy for him to perform as another?
Rationalist dont believe in miracles. They prefer to find some reason that jives with how they think the world operates, meaning they think God set up the world to run by itself, and that everything that happens has a “natural” reason for it.
What they fail to accept is that nature and God are the very same thing. So for us, if a tree limb falls and misses you by an inch, we say its because of some merit or some miracle God did for us for some unknown reason. They say it missed because it just fell and missed becuz some limbs fall on you and some dont.
“like”
Nate,
Funny that you use that analogy. I was in the woods with my cousin when I was in my late teens. We are lying on a bed of fresh, wet snow in the middle of a forest looking at the blue sky. I asked her, “Do you really think there is a G-d?” Within seconds and before she could answer, a large tree branch, laden with snow, which could easily have killed either of us, fell several feet to her right. I think from that moment on, I have never asked that question again.
What question I do ask though is if Hashem is all-powerful (which I believe) than why couldn’t Hashem decide to give us the knowledge and wisdom to evolve beyond the knowledge and guidance that the Torah given us? For example, we don’t stone people to death today for various crimes even if we are Frum. Well on the Heshy posts regarding the gay communities, why was there such disdain (from you) directed at them if there other Torah-based penalties are no longer enforced as originally written?
Thats precisly where these “rationalsits” fall short. At the very least even if every single miraculous event recorded in the talmud is treated as metaphor, as well as every one in the torah, at some point even the “rationalist” suspends his rationalsim and agrees in a miracle. Even Slifkin concededs (as far as im aware) that miracles took place during the exodus from egypt, though he diminshes their scope to make them more palatable to his “rationalsist” worldview. However at the end of the day any orthodx jew, no matter where the line is drawn has some irrational belief. At the very least he beleives in a creator who created the world. Even if this is believed to occur via evolution over billions of years, the beleif in an unseen omnipotent being is still irrational, thus for any orthodox jew, even one who trys to explain the world as rationally as possible, there is still an irrational leap that is made. So the “non-rationalists” makes a slightly (much?) bigger leap, there is no real difference there. The only difference being that one group is deluding themselves into thinking they are more rational than they are, while deriding the other group for being more irrational than they.
Mahla~
The question is not “What can God do?” but “What did God do?” Maimonides asserts that there’s no question whether God did these things, because no one is even claiming that he did theses things. According to him, the mesorah (Jewish tradition) never consisted of suggesting that the things states in Midrash be taken literally. Such a view is infantile — Chazal speak in metaphor for the effect it has on the mind.
Your question is a great one, and from time to time, I like to speak to my rebbe about these things even though we’ve spent more than 50 hours on this topic. The last time we spoke about it, he said, “you don’t sit on your couch and weigh this claim against that, and say to yourself, ‘Well, God could do this, so there’s no reason to believe that he couldn’t do this.’ But that’s not the point…it’s ‘did he do this.'”
John~
Your approach is ingenuous in that you make it seem as though Maimonides started a revolution — on the contrary, he was merely passing on the mesorah. When forced to believe in things because of compelling evidence despite the hesitations the result from a rational mind, Maimonides suggest a minimalist approach — agree where we must, but otherwise, understand that the Midrash is largely figurative. I sense that you think I am asserting that “Chazal should not be taken literally,” when really, what I am asserting is, “Chazal did not intend to be taken literally.”
Dale, you are quite good at avoiding people’s points when you dont have an answer. (I mean this as a compliment) Youve done this before when I asked you if you you beleive the in the 10 plagues and you strarted rambling about whether the blood in egypt had wbcs compliment clotting factors etc… as if that changes anything. So instead of focusing on miracles outlines in these parshas (Manna falling from heaven, seas splitting leaving dry land in their wake, water gushing forth from a rock after it is hit etc etc), although I am curious how/if you expalin them naturally or are they all metaphors. I have a simple question for you:
Do you beleive in a God who created the unvierse (wether in 6 days or billions of years is irrelevant) and gave us the torah instructing us how to live our lives? Isnt that irrational by conventional standards? and therofre doesnt that make you as irrational as those who beleive manna fell from heaven, or a flood actually destroyed the world and for that matter, those who beleive in a phenix-ram (regardless of wether it was ever meant to be taken literally)
That’s a very good question, John. I’d like to give a little introduction on belief, first, and then I’ll do my best to avoid avoiding your question.
I try not to use the word “belief” ever, only because people take it to mean something that it is not. People sense that things don’t exist if they are not believed in — take for instance, the Oedipus complex. Opponents of this type of thinking wouldn’t just disagree with that which proponents assert based on this psychoanalytic theory; they disagree in that they don’t believe that such a reality even exists. That’s very different than a patient telling me, “well, I don’t believe in using amalgam.” That just means they are either uninformed or misinformed, because there’s no reliable data to support not using amalgam. They may not agree with it because of esthetic concerns, or they might not like the idea of having mercury placed permanently into their mouth, and they may be unaware that composite restorative material has been shown to cause cancer in rats, but they maintain these beliefs largely because of lack of knowledge, rather than because of the abundance of it.
So do I assert that there is a god, and not just any god, but the God of Moses? Yes. How do I know he exists? I don’t pretend that I do from a rational perspective, even though many or most in the yeshivish world do. So why do I accept his existence as a given? Well, I struggle with that every day — that’s the way I was raised and when I ask my rebbeim, they don’t have answers to this question. But my trusted religious advisers know more than me, and they are more experiences that I am, and they are older than I am, and some of them are deeper thinkers that I am, and they maintain their observance of Torah Orthodoxy, so I do too, in hopes that I can one day find an answer to this very pressing question.
But assuming there is a god, and he is the God of Moses, there’s no reason to believe that manna didn’t fall from the sky for close to 40 years. The text of the Five Books of Moses makes a declaration to that end, and in reading the text, one sees no sense that the Torah is referring to anything but a literal miracle. That’s very, very different from phoenix-rams, which are not mentioned in the text, but by Chazal, and to which Maimonides makes the claim that his mesorah was that these things were never meant to be taken literally.
As for the flood, that’s a good question. Does the Torah mean for this to be taken literally…that’s the question. So you may say yes, and I don’t say that God could not have pulled it off, but, again, the question is whether or not he did, not whether or not he could. So, no, I do not take the account of the flood to be literal.
I had another few points to make, but I had to run for Shabbos, so here they are:
You assert that everyone has to draw their own line of rationalism — that’s very true. As a minimalist, I draw mine so that I need to accept on belief almost nothing. That includes the existence of God, and I like to think that everyone follows rationally from there.
But you don’t like that approach, it seems. You say that rationalists are strange because they think they are rational, but they are just kidding themselves (accurate impression of your position?) — but for those who, perhaps in an attempt to be a maximalist, there are also lines to be drawn.
Do you work for a living? Why work, if hakol bidei shamayim? Alright, so we have to put some ameilus in…but what about taking on more work to earn more income — does that fit in with hakol bidei shamayim? You may say yes, as do I, but that’s not really taking this literally, now is it?
And what about textual verses…nothing too controversial, I think, because I’d say you take them figuratively as well. Something like references to “eagles’ wings” (Exodus 19:4, Isaiah 40:31) — you don’t presume that it is meant literally, do you? But why is that? Because, in its context, it is clearly ridiculous to take literally — it’s so blatantly a euphemism.
So too, if one follows the words of Maimonides, Chazal speak in riddles, metaphors and quaint analogy, and that’s the way they always talk when the way they speak is about non-halachic, non-ritual things.
As opposed to the True Believer who falls short in every respect. If I threw out every result that conflicted with what I wanted to believe or had been told to believe I’d be dead now. Seriously. Literally.
Maybe the key is not to discard when in conflict, but to resolve.
Sorry, A. Nuran — I got lost in this thread and don’t know what your comment is commenting on.
I want a phoenix- ram as a pet! Where do you buy one? They sound adorable! 🙂
They don’t — that’s the point of my post.
I know, I just get a kick out of going into petshops and asking for imaginary animals, like dragons or hippogriffs to see the expression on the clerks’ faces
So the third group sees the arrows all over the place and the circles that have been drawn around them and says “Ah, they meant to shoot them there.”
Sorry, some things are just wrong.
well said. I would take it a step further and say that those who come upon all the arrows with circles around them and say “wow there must be a really great marksman out here,” as irrational as you may view them, are less irrational than those who beleive that “obviously these circles were all painted around the arrows, but by a marksman who is capable of making all those bullseye shots if he so desired”
That’s not what he’s saying. There are certain people who know the ideas that certain metaphors reference (eg ram= Binding of Isaac, etc.) and can decode the midrashim. I doubt anyone knows the keys to these midrashim anymore as they were probably lost by not being written down. There is one book called ‘The Juggler and the King’ that speaks about a few of these midrashim.
However, the Kabbalistic hints are understood by many people today. These stories include the one of R’ Eliezer above (R’ Eliezer incidentally was a Kabbalist.).
The Kabbalistic hints bother me. Deeply. The more historians look at the texts the more you see dotted lines like unto a European Royal Family tree from Zohar to Sefer Yetzira. Gematria quickly runs aground on the Law of Large Numbers. That’s leaving aside the purpose and authority of midrashim in general.
And once again I see the arrows and circles problem. The unprovable assumption that there must be a secret correct meaning means that the more tortured the explanation the more one believes it.
But don’t you see a problem with that logic?
People are claiming that certain things are highly complicated, and can show some ways how this is true, by the few glimpses which they have seen, and “your rationale” for disregarding the whole thing is “Well look how tortured and distant the explanations are getting!”
Your using exactly what they’re saying as a ‘reason’ to discredit them.
“The more historians look at the texts the more you see dotted lines like unto a European Royal Family tree from Zohar to Sefer Yetzira. Gematria quickly runs aground on the Law of Large Numbers. That’s leaving aside the purpose and authority of midrashim in general.”
Can you break spell these arguments out? I don’t understand a single one.
It was a while ago, and I’m afraid I don’t have the references anymore. This was about five years ago that I did the reading.
There’s been a fair amount of research on the history of some of the major Kabbalistic texts – linguistic, stylistic, passages in other texts – which indicate that many of them had more than a single author, derived from a variety of sources which made them later than we have been led to believe and drew on non-Jewish sources.
Well, these texts were said to have been compiled by Talmudic sages (yr 0-500 AD), written down partially by their students , and more by later students. The whole branch was kept hidden until the Arizal 500 years ago. However, they are referred to continually throughout the generations, from Gaonic literature (~609-1040), down to Rishonim (end of Gaonim-1500).
One (rather) normative view among Orthodox scholars is that these works were added to by later students, but that even these additions are based on teachings they learned.
A. Nuran~
I don’t understand your comment as it relates to my post.
Anonymous~
Yours either.
OffDB~
That’s exactly right.
Simple. There’s stuff that’s just plain wrong and some that’s not even wrong. But you and Maimonedes have assumed that it must be right, all evidence to the contrary. So circles are drawn around the arrows that are nowhere near the target and recorded as bullseyes.
Classic begging the question.
On Maimonedes’ part, not yours.
i would say more on his part then maimonides. maimonides in the third section of moreh delineates when and how to apply midrashim. for this guy overhere to take a rambam and decide to apply it everywhere he sees fit without actually know how and when the rambam applies it is highly pretentious.
Alright, Nuran, I see what you’re trying to say now — but I must disagree.
This is not an issue of circles and arrows at all. Maimonides was a contemporary with many of Chazal, and he is one of Chazal as well, albeit a late one (despite there being even later ones). He is just commenting on the “way of Chazal” to speak in riddles and analogies, that that’s what he heard from his rebbe, and that that’s what he’s telling his students — and us. He’s not saying that he can’t figure out what anyone means, so let’s just toss it to the side by metaphoricalizing it all — he’s saying that his mesorah was that that’s how they were written in the first place.
There’s a fourth group you know.
It’s those individuals to whom existence, reality, and all they contain, are all limited to the comprehension of this group. And in an arrogance concealed in “kindness justice and truth”, they actually believe themselves to be at the center of it all, able and capable of assessing everything and ascribing it to it’s proper place – based solely on their perceptions and experiences in life and thought.
But these people like all others are born and then die, and all their ideas, thoughts, beliefs and and desires go right down with their physical brains.
Why? Because everything ultimately goes back to it’s source.
How right you are.
“Some things are just wrong”.
And no matter how many ways you try and see them that way, and no matter how much of your life you waste away swimming in your personal beliefs and conclusions, the reality just doesn’t change.
Hmm…Maimonides didn’t say anything about a fourth group.
Back in his time it must have been basic knowledge that as a human, your mind is simply limited.
Not so today.
Ironic that it’s this very group that can’t fathom previous generations being wiser than us.
God knows our minds are limited — so he can’t expect us to follow where there is no reason to follow just because we think he might have commanded us to do something, but we can’t pass it on with any bit more of a compelling reason than another who says to do something else or nothing at all.
DRosenbach- dude totally the wrong blog to post this on. go to dovbear or hirhurim, this is simply not the place. i come to this site to laugh, not to discuss and debate ma’amarei chazal. what you are quoting is famous and yes we (as in the ones who care) know the rambam and the ramban and chisdai ibn shaprut and ibn ezra and shmuel hanaggid and all of the other rishonim and vast majority of achronim that know when to take a midrash literally and when not to. this is not the time to discuss this but honestly dude, i personally havent found one pirush that takes all midrashim literally. and i mean never. there are varying levels when we take them literally, metaphorically, kabbalistically or morally or sometimes all of them. so basically this is old news. nothing new. the only true way of know when to take something literally and when to take it metaphorically is by learning. period. an outsider that knows nothing about how to learn gemara and especially an outsider that doesnt know how to properly approach aggadata shouldnt comment on this because he/ she is simply ignorant on how to properly learn it.
in so far as the specific piece you bring down. the arizal explains it in depth. in so far as your other words, look into the ben yehoyada. and do yourself a favor stop posting these things up. the people that know this, know it already and the people that dont will just end up getting confused. shikul hadat is important but i highly doubt you understand these midrashim and aggadot even in the slightest bit. (and no they arent teaching little cute moral lessons about how we shouldnt steal or lie, these things go much much much much deeper.)
You sound like a very angry person.
Was there a reason why you commented, other than to complain that I am pretending to be the center of your life? No one compelled you to read my post. This is not the first post I’ve written, and so you don’t have much credibility to suggest that you didn’t know what was coming. If you’d like to go read about how pretty Lubavitch girls are, be my guest. Or, you can do it without being my guest — either way, I don’t feel like you’re pretending to be the center of my life, so I won’t let what you do or don’t do bother me.
Funny how you claim that “everyone who knows this knows this and everyone who doesn’t is going be be confused.” That’s not what the people who send me private emails tell me. They tell me that this is really inspiring because they never get this stuff from anyone else — all they here is ridiculous claims of Jewish superiority that turn them off of Judaism.
And then to attack me for not understanding the midrashim, something that I admitted to above, as though it’s a novel idea — that doesn’t seem to make much sense. Maybe you’re confused, and from group #1, and can’t seem to come to grips with someone saying something that you don’t agree with.
If you don’t agree, you have two options: we can discuss it here, neatly and nicely, or you can go elsewhere. No one’s telling you to read what I write, so there’s no reason to be uncivil.
And as for complaining that people who don’t learn gemara shouldn’t be commenting on this topic…well, one rarely chooses how to do kiruv — it’s sort of up to the kiruvee. If someone’s entire association with Judaism is reading what I have to write, then I’ve very well not going to let the fact that they don’t have a night seder get in the way of engaging them in Torah.
well no your not engaging them in torah and the point of your post wasnt to spread torah either. you are engaging in showing your intellectual superiority in assuming that you are the only one on this blog that has come across the rambam and furthermore by assuming that you actually think you fall into the rambams third category (which you dont though you wished you did).
my lack of civility stems from the fact that what you said was not only wrong which i could live with but worse, why you said it. it seems evident you said it to show that your a wise person that seems to hold the secret to torah that all those silly frummies just dont get. that they are all the silly people that fall into the rambams first category while you are the hacham that falls into the third. you felt my post was uncivil because it made you aware of the fact that not only are you not the first person to come across this but you probably dont even understand half what your saying anyhow. so your opinion doesnt matter. and if your opinion doesnt matter then you should keep it to yourself. especially when that opinion does more bad then good.
So you know me. I wonder what Maimonides would say about those in the first groups’ perceptions about those in the third group.
You’re so funny, that I figured I’d tell you what I think is funny:
Funny how your argument consists of, “You don’t know what you’re saying, because you are arguing against me. You must not know anything, and your opinion doesn’t count.” That would help you out a lot, because then your assertions would continue on unchallenged. It’s too bad you give no lucid rationale for your complaints about my assertions other than “there are those that disagree with Maimonides.” Well, of course there are those that disagree with Maimonides. There is hardly a single thought relating to Judaism that is not contested by multiple parties, and anyone that is knowledgeable about Judaism would know that — but you’re very knowledgeable. So very knowledgeable that you can’t be wrong, and if Maimonides says that you’re wrong, you must not only counter him but be uncivil towards and bash those that quote him, and tell them that they probably don’t even know what Maimonides is saying. This is all very typical of those in the first group.
Oh, and it’s also funny how you can perceive my entire essence, but you can’t even find the shift key (or the apostrophe key).
buddy its your argument thats consisting of nothing more then putting everyone but yourself into different groups. the group your in is the smart and intelligent one and everyone else is stupid. i clearly show how you misinterpreted rabbeinu bachaya and how you misapplied the rambam. you on the other hand have just said “well your in the first group so your just not worth talking to”. address the issues brought up, not your wounded ego.
No, I classify myself, too. I used to be in group 1 — that’s how everyone who goes to yeshiva is raised, because most elementary school teachers are either in the group actually, or play the part to keep their jobs.
So kids are raised in group 1 not knowing that there’s anything else. But they they grow up and have questions, and if someone decides to align themselves with truth rather than their own way of thinking, and submits themselves to changing the way they think to follow truth rather than bend truth to fit their way of thinking, that’s how you get to group 3.
If you have no problem being in group 1, that’s fine with me. But don’t insist that I take everything literally, because Maimonides doesn’t agree with that, and I think that makes a lot of sense. I just hope your children and grandchildren never need to move to group 3, because you’ll probably shout at them a lot.
oh and by the way, this is a bad example not to take literally dude. there is no logical reason not to take this literally once we accept that we are talking about miraculous events taking place (hello, g-d going up and down a mountain?) . rabbeinu bachya wasnt asking a cynical question. he wasnt asking a rationalist question either. he was asking a practical question as is evident from his answer. what i mean to say is that you didnt learn rabbeinu bachya properly. he is asking practically how did they get ahold of the ram if it was burnt. and he answers that it came back. definitely not a rationalist approach. as for you quoting the rambam, please dont quote him till you learn the moreh nevuchim because until you fully know the rambams system (yes he has a system) you cant possibly begin to understand what he actually means or holds.
You are thoroughly mistaken, and it’s not even funny.
The fact that we assume God revealed his presents on Sinai is based on content in the Five Books of Moses, whereas the fact that people in group #1 assume that God did all the other things mentioned in the midrash quoted above is based on content in a midrash.
At least for the discussion above, I have not made any reference to Maimonides claiming that any part of the Five Books of Moses is to be taken figuratively, whereas the entirety of my review of Maimonides’ section on Sanhedrin 10 relates to taking midrash figuratively — so “there is lots of logical reason” to do so.
“That is came back” — if that’s your position, you fall into Maimonides’ group #1, and because of that, you won’t even believe me when I tell you this (although I do believe that nowadays, most group #1-ers are there by default because of erroneous and inaccurate training from yeshiva or day school, and so there is definitely more room for rehabilitation than in the days of Maimonides).
In case you didn’t see it coming, I would counter that you are not learning R’ Bechaye properly.
And as for developing my syllabus, I’ll take care of that myself — please don’t tell me what to do and what not to do. Thanks anyway.
wow you totally missed my point in the last post unsurprisingly. you dont know how to read a rabbeinu bachya and you evidently dont know how to read a post as well. heres a piece of advice, stop reading what you want to be written start reading whats actually written.
in the post i was referring to two different things. the first was rabbeinu bachayas approach and the second the fact that you claim to understand the rambam. to the first point i explained how logically you misunderstood rabbeinu bachya. i would venture to say its because you want him to be asking something that he is evidently not asking.
as for the second point, its very clear you never actually learned moreh nevuchim . thats all i was pointing out. your an am ha’arets, simple as that.
You’re right, I’ve never learned it. So I must not be able to understand anything else Maimonides says, because reading part of a corpus is contingent on reading the entirely of that corpus. Is that your argument…yes, that seems like what you’re saying.
I don’t have to understand your perspective of R’ Bechaye’s approach — because Maimonides explains that such magnificent and splendid interpretations are off base. So you can tell me what you think about R’ Bechaye’s approach, but I don’t have to agree that that was what he was actually getting at, much in the same way that you don’t have to agree with Maimonides. You can take these things literally, and you have upon whom to rely — but don’t be upset when he puts you in group 1. It’s not wholly derogatory, because I’d vouch for you and say that you didn’t put yourself there — you were led there by others. And now you cannot seem to escape, because the ramifications would be too great for you to deal with. It would necessarily change the way you look at Torah forever, and you’re not ready for that — that’s what Maimonides was saying.
You, my friend, are a card-carrying member of group #1 and, as member of group 3, I sense your discontent at those in group 3 looking at your discontent at those in group 3 looking at you discontent…
ok, let me simplify this because i evidently over estimated your iq level. i see that i literally have to spell out everything for you otherwise you just dont know how to think critically.
its evident that this issue has varying interpretive forms amongst the rishonim. an intellectual person could hear all of the opinions and appreciate them as well. an egotistical person will take the one that makes him look smart and ignore the rest. in this case you have taken the rambam and no one on this blog argued on the rambam. but you have done in bringing in the rambam in this particular point is put rabbeinu bachaya as well as a slew of meforshim into rambams first group (something that we are trying to explain to you wouldnt necessarily place into group 1 ) because you want to show that your smart. grow up and get your ego checked. there is more to this then you just stating “haha stupid rabbeinu bachaya”.
The only potentially stupid one here is you. [Sorry about that — I was merely responding to your words in kind, but in re-reading my comment, I should not have said that.] I never said R’ Bechaye is stupid. You must have misinterpreted what I said — but you’re from group 1, so that’s understandable.R’ Bechaye, according to Maimonides, didn’t mean what he wrote to be taken literally. According to Maimonides, he knew that, too. Maimonides is explaining what happened, not dictating what he thinks makes for a better reality.
That’s all I’ve said, nothing more, nothing less. Maimonides is the one who says that group 1 consists of foolish people — that was not me.
You seem to be very sure of yourself, but it looks to me as though you’ve missed the entire point. I wasn’t asking you to change the way you think. I was offering an alternative path to Torah for those who are troubled with your way of thinking and perceive it as the only way. So to prevent them from taking the highway because they don’t like it your way, they can have it this way.
Chill out, man. You write with such blind passion that you can’t even bother to capitalize the first words of your sentences — that speaks volumes about your temperament.
If you don’t like Maimonides, don’t take it out on me. Just quit pretending to be so sagely.
to you the saying applies “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing”
And to you the saying “it’s my way or the highway,” applies.
to me applies the saying “the truth shall set you free”.
To you applies the saying, “I think, therefor I know.”
hypocrisy of the highest order.
Hmm…couldn’t think of anything else, eh?
I dont like this post. This is not the place for it. Yu should do more reaserch before you write such an article. I would recommend starting with the Kol Meanchem “Rambam’s 13 Principles of Faith” Its one of the best books that I have ever read and I try to read the entire book every 6 months
I hate when Lubavitchers speak about doing “more research”, as if they are open to learning sforim that aren’t approved by Lubavitch.
I’ve learned what things like “more research” mean. It means start learning lubavitch-approved stuff.
Thanks, OffDB.
Anonymous — what exactly don’t you like? Perhaps that I didn’t write what you would write in the way you would write it.
Must one have a PhD in Maimonidean literature before he quotes Maimonides?
he must have one if he wants to claim that he understands the rambams intent.
Not if Maimonides explains his intent. Ahhh…unless he meant this only figuratively.
Your singular point is becoming quite repetitive, yet you back it up by calling me an idiot rather than by providing any actual reasons why you are not in Maimonides group 1.
The fact that you accept midrashic literature to be literal, I’d say by definition, puts you in group 1 — there’s not really any two ways about it. You may disagree with the Maimonides, but it’s like you complaining that the Yankees put you on their blacklist for future shortstop candidates. You may very well disagree, and you might even get to play shortstop for the Cardinals…but that has no bearing on the Yankee blacklist.
(That was an analogy.)
while you may understand the rambams intent, you evidently dont know its proper application.
Well, I asked two of my rebbeim, and they agree with me completely. Include your email in the next post log-in data and I’ll email you their phone numbers so you can deal with your misunderstanding. I’ll also give you R’ Becher’s email address so that you can check with him.
What a beautiful sound- Jews (and non Jews) arguing about Torah!
Thanks, DRosenbach.
That’s what we’re meant to do — to argue is to refine and define.
It is prohibited to discuss Torah or teach Torah to non-Jews.
let me answer for drosenbach.
“that teaching of chazal is not to be taken literally. ill show where the rambam says that not everything is to be taken literally then ill decide to apply it here and if you disagree with my application, well then your arguing with the rambam not me”
i hate arguing with fools that rush in.
How about you stick to answering for yourself, TWF? Or is this part of your PhD thesis on me?
Yes, but no one can control what somebody reads on the Internet, so it’s not the author of this post’s fault if non-Jews subsequently read what he’s written. Aish.com, Chabad.org and AskMoses.com are all in grave error if this is so.
BORING!!
So far, this post has received 305 views and you’re the first to comment that it’s boring. Am I to assume that everyone (save for those above) found it riveting…or perhaps they all died of similar boredom.
Maybe you’ve got to expand your horizons, Elana.
Are you telling me that because this post got 305 views that means EVERYONE thought it was great? There are ONLY 36 comments showing up on my screen, you gave an opinion, and I gave mine, why because I said boring do I have to expand MY horizons? I know what I know, just like you know what you know… Do we have to agree?
furthermore, most of the comments posted are negative. so ive got you back elana. its boring cause its out of place. i dont see how this is satirical.
Elana~
No, we don’t have to agree. But how does your comment contribute to discussion?
Moreover, not everyone is a commenter. So for you to take the time to submit your comment, only to say that it’s boring — well maybe you’re just too inane to appreciate this. Then again, perhaps you’re not. But it does seem pretty childish to comment that a post is boring, and put it in all caps, and finish it with double exclamation points.
R’ Becher has an hour lecture on this topic, and so does R’ Wieder. No one drove you to read it; if it was so boring, why’d you finish? And if you didn’t finish, how can you comment that it was so boring? Because the first 4 lines were boring? So walk out.
But no, you took the effort to publicly comment that you were bored, going out of your way to be noticed for your incivility and your immaturity.
That was funny~
Most of the comments are negative because most of the comments are from you, and you’re in group 1. I wouldn’t expect you to support Maimonides after he trashes your worldview.
It was boring because it was out of place? What does that even mean? I post Divrei Torah here and often without any tremendous satire. We’re you expecting something different? That’s not funny…that’s odd.
I can’t believe you seem so offended, and even though this is a very offensive site,that I happen to enjoy, you seem pissed, why did I continue reading? What? I read most of the posts on FS, so I can’t comment because you think I was not contributing? My hart is telling me to say sorry if I offended you,my nature is saying something else,hart wins, sorry to offended you. If you think that things are all metaphors so that the common folk can understand fine, you want to question or have proof provided that these things actually happened? Fine. Please define faith to me.
Offended doesn’t really capture it — why would you go out on a limb to say something like that?
And faith? Faith is unsubstantiated. Something Christianity, Islam and everyone else has to rely on, because it’s not real. I’d love for Judaism to be able to not rely on faith — it’s really weak.
I loved this post. I think we should transcribe the crap our kids bring home or we pick up in shul on the sheets. For fun one shabbat I brought home the Dvar Torah sheet and read it aloud to my out of town guests. I counted the many spelling and grammatical errors and then contemplated the mentality and message of the work.
Rambam is 100% right. There are the idiots who take things literally and believe in falsehoods — these the people who call themselves rabbis and religious teachers. They think they are doing a service to religion, but they are not. Then there are idiots who take things literally and realize that they cannot believe in those falsehoods and thereby reject good religion. These are the “doctors” (philosophers). They are foolish because they think they are being clever in rejecting something silly, but this means that they believe that God expected us to believe in something silly in the first place — and that’s just foolish. And then there are the few who understand that the Rabbis spoke using imagery and metaphor in order to convey messages of spirituality to people, whose ability to understand spirituality is much like a fish’s ability to understand fire. His words ring so true that I get goosepimples.
When all else fails the intellectually bankrupt call any opposition stupidity. The classic “Just shut up!” argument of blind mindless faith.
You assume your conclusions and jeer at anyone who points this out.
When the facts are against your position you can always invoke a miracle.
When logic is against you you can always say the other side is just foolish because God wouldn’t ask us to believe anything that could be wrong.
How do we know God wants us to believe this? Because the Book and the Sages say so.
How do we know the Sages and the Book are right? Because God tells us so.
So facts are out. Logic may be invoked only if it supports your position. Simple faith takes care of any time that facts and logic are both lined up on the wrong side. Begging the question. Special pleading. Ad hominem. Just Shut Up. Circular reasoning. And a few others.
I can see why it’s forbidden to talk about this sort of thing to outsiders and dissenters. It cuts as much is as a soap hacksaw, and it would embarrass all Israel to have this brought to light.
well said. thats what i was trying to explain to the foolish poster that posted this in the first place. this argument shouldnt be on a satire website. its really that simple. the reason he posted it was not to spread torah or search for truth. his mind was made up before he got into the game. he just wanted to show us how “intellectual and smart” he is.
I’m here to present another way to see things, TWF. You are here to intimidate others and have your way presented supreme.
Don’t speculate about me and my motives, when you are unfamiliar with everything I’ve ever said and written. You don’t have a PhD in DRosenbach, so how can you read the pittance of what I’ve written above and be able to extrapolate my entire purpose? How about this — I just explain to you why I post, instead of you making things up?
WTF! Then don’t read it, moron. No one’s forcing you to click this.
I find it pretty interesting and thought provoking. You can f off.
DR, thanks for another great post. Love it or hate it, your stuff always sparks off an interesting discussion (even if such discussions ultimately serve to further entrench everyone’s original positions).
As to the “three groups” idea, let me propose a minor refinement: members of each group acknowledge, ultimately, the existence of only ONE other group rather than two. What do I mean by that? This:
1. First groupers lump second and third groupers together: whether you don’t buy any of it or simply don’t take some of it literally, you’re wrong.
2. Second groupers lump first and third groupers together: whether you believe all of it or only some of it, you’re wrong.
3. Third groupers lump first and second groupers together: whether you take it all literally and buy it or take it all literally and dismiss it, you’re wrong.
So the gist of what you’re saying is that everyone thinks that s/he’s right and everyone who disagrees is wrong.
I propose a fourth group: people who realize that they don’t know whether the statements of Chazal were intended to be taken literally or not. Some of these people are comfortable in this state of not knowing while others are driven nuts by it and struggle to reach a point where they can come down conclusively on one side or the other. Either way, people in this fourth group may be the most honest and self-aware of all, but they–like first, second, and third groupers–are certain that they are right and that everyone else is wrong. That’s why these discussions are fun, but never, ever lead to anyone changing his/her mind.
I actualy agree with you, I’m definitely in the 4th group.
Wow Dale, finally a post which I’m with you on.
Although we would probably disagree on 99% of the applications of the above, the concept is true to anyone who sees.
Thanks. It looks like you and That Was Funny might agree on 99%, but he seems a bit too hot under the collar to let me speculate on which group he’s in, because he’s already seem this and who am I to take his literal approach and match it with the literal approach as described by Maimonides.
Well, see you around, Yankel.
I was remember being told by a (retired) Dayan in London that not to believe in all the the midrashim was apikorsus pure and simple. The Meharsh”a in Ein Ya’akov (daf 20 IIRC) clearly states the opposite.
‘that was funny’ and to a lesser extent, A. Niman, need to calm down a bit and if you’re going to hurl abuse and fail to use your Divinely bestowed acumen in examining the meaning behind some of these stories then your views are shallow indeed. You exemplify the fundamentalist and exclusiveness that is destroying Judaism.
Well said.
So we only look at the Rambam? What about the fact taht R Bahya doesn’t seem to be saying that? Or is it that we have a kahya on him that we answer with the Rambam even though he’s not saying that? If he were, he wouldn’t give the answer he had. I understand a lot of midrashim make us uncomfortable but I see no evidence that they were intended that way. The Rambam just wants everything to fit so he says that, but many, including Rashi, disagree. Do we put him in the first group or reinterpret him as well? Maybe I don’t mean what I say or do we only reinterpret “crazy” statements when they come from rabbis?
Devora — that’s a very good question, and it’s a pitfall that many fall into.
No one other than contemporary misguided people fall into group 1. Rashi himself understood these things metaphorically, and all his comments are similarly veiled in riddle and anology — he was no fool, but he knew that it was all euphemism.
That’s the point Maimonides is making — R’ Bechaye was speaking in riddles, R’ Eliezer was speaking in riddles, the Talmud was speaking in riddles and Rashi was speaking in riddles. No one is suggesting for even a moment that any of Chazal are to be taken for fools.
And I agree- why reinterpret midrash and not the Torah?
If the rabbis can talk figuratively, why can’t God?
He does, and we can…but there’s one slight issue with your premise.
I am not suggesting reinterpreting the midrash — I am saying, reiterating Maimonides, that the midrashim were never written to be understood literally in the first place.
I hesitated to quote this story I’ve heard from R’ Becher, only because I cannot recall all the details or the context at large, but it was a great example and fits in nicely. He speaks about a letter written by someone championing Germany during one of the World Wars. In describing Germany, he writes of the “German eagle, with its wings spread from [here] to [there].”
I cannot remember the locations, but suffice it to say that the point was to show the tremendous superiority of Germany over its neighbors, and that the German influence was vast and was on the rise, and all that bit.
So, does anyone read this and say, “Ha! I don’t believe in bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster, so I’m certainly not going to believe in the great German eagle.” I mean, come on, this was a metaphor. I’m missing out on some more details and the continuation of this guys referencing Germany’s greatness, but the point was that, in the time it was written, everyone could clearly see that Germany was vying for greater and greater control, both of physical land mass and of other, less tangible things such as economic and military prowess, etc. So there was no eagle — it was a metaphor. But hundreds and thousands of years later, when, let’s say, there is no Germany anymore, and it’s so ancient that no one really recalls anything about the era — could it be that someone would read it and have absolutely no idea what the references meant? Surely, one can imagine such a thing. In that case, what would the reader in the super-later future think…they can’t possibly understand a metaphorical nature of the letter, because they have no context and they have no basis for anything written in the letter.
That’s the way R’ Becher explained it — we are sometimes so far removed from the way of life, the manner in which people lived and the things people took for granted as true or false, and it’s sometimes difficult to realize that such things were obviously stated allegorically.
And as for interpreting the Torah figuratively, R’ Saadia Gaon speaka about that, and we might cover some other time if people are interested — but I don’t find it very interesting, only because it is so limited in scope and most people take these figurative interpretations as a given already (such as God being described as an eish ochlah [consuming fire] and we don’t understand such a thing as being literal.)
Now re-interpreting the Torah — a la Maimonides, Slifkin and R’ Wieder — that’s very interesting, indeed! But I will admit a bit too controversial even for my tastes, only because I’d be quoting R’ Wieder much more directly, and I would not be able to respond to comments adequately because of the inadequacy of my familiarity with the topic other than an hour’s worth or so of lecture.
Or think of the “Iron Curtain.” Remember, Churchill famously stated “From Stettin in the Baltic, to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the Continent.” For the next 40 years, people talked about “the Iron Curtain” and nobody ever misunderstood what was being spoken of.
But if thousands of years were to pass, and specific knowledge of the 20th century was totally obscured & fragmentary, future archeologists working from a very incomplete knowledge of our times might search in vain for historical evidence of a huge defensive wall constructed of metal.
They would not find the slightest bit of physical evidence for such a wall, and would eventually conclude the whole thing was an ancient fairy-tale. Sensitive tests & intensive excavations throughout Stettin, Trieste and all points in between would turn up nothing.
Little would these rational archeologists and historians realize that their expensive, exhaustive efforts to arrive at “the truth” that there was never a real metal wall dividing Europe completely missed the point and “proved” something that should never even have been in question.
Some simple or naive people might continue to believe the ancient stories about this metal wall, “the Iron Curtain,” and accuse the archeologists and historians as purveyors of revisionist history. The scientists would call people who continued to believe there was ever such a thing as “the Iron Curtain” deluded and naive.
Only a very few people might come to the conclusion we feel to be obvious and know to be true: that of course there ~really was~ an “Iron Curtain” — it was just a metaphorical one, and Churchill or anyone else who used the phrase never dreamed people would take that phrase literally.
Alright Mahla — that’s another great example. I’m a biologist, not a historian, and so it’s tough for me to come up with similar historical examples, but that fits very nicely with what R’ Becher was saying.
Good job!
I like that example. I always wonder what future generations will think of us. Will fragmentary records of our internet conversations today be pored over in future college campuses? “What is phatgrrrl420 really saying when she speaks of having the ‘Bieber fever’? Why does this excite her to the extent of forgetting all early 21st century grammar? Is she really fat; is she 420 pounds fat? After all, there are records of huge, warring fat people, competing and crying in front of a camera”.
You remind me of GalaxyQuest.
Oh man, that was an awesome movie.
My point is how do you know it was meant metaphorically? Because it doesn’t make sense to you? Maybe to them it did. They didn’t have the same rationalist premises or scientific methods or sense of history. They sure didn’t have the sense that Maimonides did, which might explain why Rashi and R Bahaye are not bothered by this. The problem also is changing the method: When it’s the rabbis, of course this is what they meant, because otherwise it doesn’t make sense to us. If it’s God, not so fast, even when I can’t see how one statement is more fantastical.
Your question underscores the reason why I posted this in the first place. I’ve explained this a number of times already, but perhaps it got muddles and cut up because of the many threads, but you are challenging the wrong point — Maimonides is not calling Rashi or R’ Bechaye an idiot. He is not calling them out for foolishly believing in silliness, while holding himself to a higher rational standard and laughing at all of the rest of the dummy chachamim.
Maimonides is explaining Chazal. When R’ Bechaye said what he said above, he meant it figuratively. R’ Bechaye didn’t mean to suggest that God made a ram from ashes — it was a mashal (parable). When R’ Eliezer said that the left horn was used at Sinai and the right horn will be used upon the arrival of the Messiah, he didn’t actually mean to say that that was what happened and that that is what will happen — it was a mashal. So too, when Chazal speak, in general, they speak in a poetic, euphemistic manner. When the Talmud in Rosh Hashana (17a, towards the bottom) says that there’s a dispute between the House of Hillel and the House of Shammi over whether one of God’s attributes of mercy consists of raising the aveirah side of the balance scale or lowering the mitzvah side of the balance scale, the message is that there is no scale. How can there be a scale? It’s infantile to think that everyone has a scale with their name on it and little pebbles are generates whenever we do good deeds or bad and they are placed into the balance and when the time comes for judgement, God peers at the pointer, and if the pointer is on the GOOD side, you win, and if it’s on the BAD side, you lose. I mean, do you actually think that that’s what the Talmud means to say is actually happening in shamayim (heaven)? And what is shamayim? Where, exactly, in the sky is this? In the seventh heaven? It’s all a metaphor so that our puny minds (relative to God’s essence) can be able to interact with him and understand him to the best of our ability. Otherwise, it’s like watching an alien movie in which the aliens come to Earth and want to have a relationship with the humans, but the aliens have 17 senses next to our five, and it just so happens that the five that match ours are their least developed and they don’t even really use them anymore — let’s call them vestigial. So what kind of relationship can there possibly be? There can be no communication, because we are on entirely different planes of comprehension.
So the Torah talks about God’s anger and God’s wrath and fury and God’s love and God’s hand and finger — but he doesn’t have a body. And he doesn’t have rooms in heaven, and there isn’t a counting room that contains everyone’s deed scale. So what could it possibly mean when the Talmud says with no attempt to deviate from the literal meaning that God lowers the side of good or raises the side of bad — they accomplish the same thing, granted, but this is the dispute of the House of Hillel and the House of Shammai. It’s a message to us — we can talk about it, cry about it, be stimulated about it, recognize things about the world and about us because of it…but it’s not really there. So it is a lie? Well, you can say that it’s true, because it’s meaning is true, even though there’s not really any actual balance, and it’s not because the metal scale will fall out of the sky — there’s no scale made of cloud wisps or fire, either.
So, according to Maimonides, Rashi is not bothered by this because he’s in on it — he talks in riddles and analogy, but doesn’t mean that what he says is to be taken literally.
And when God talks in metaphor, it’s also taken as metaphor. We can’t very well discuss every single thing and get answers to every single question in one post, and I certainly don’t have all the answers — I’m just attempting to open people’s minds and provide a path for those who want to be Orthodox but feel compelled to pretend to follow the derech because, in their heart, they just don’t buy any of it. So Maimonides comes and says you don’t have to “buy it,” because there’s nothing to buy. Rashi didn’t mean to suggest that the mountain was really suspended in mid-air, because the line in the Talmud doesn’t suggest that either — it’s merely a metaphor, and Rashi got that. But today, in 2011, there is a cult known as “yeshivish” that feels that allowing people to understand things in this way serves to undermine the credibility of the Torah. To that, Maimonides would respond that prohibiting such interpretation (as it was meant to be interpreted) and interpreting these things literally serves to undermine the Torah. Those in group 1 may have good intentions, but they are kidding themselves and don’t even know it.
I don’t know about you being a biologist, DR, but with that closing argument you should be a barrister!
Why are there are no Nates or That Way Funnys complaining that I am distorting the Talmud by interpreting the bit about holy scales of good and bad deeds from RH 17a metaphorically?
So, to answer your question, Devora, I don’t know what’s supposed to be taken metaphorically — but I asked my rebbeim, and they endorsed the position that, just as the bit about the scales is obviously and most evidently to be taken metaphorically, so too are the other, perhaps more dearer stories that have become part of who we are because they were taught to us as “the reality” back when we were kids, like that of God approaching the nations and asking them if they want the Torah.
Or maybe no one’s stupid even if their statements are unsophisticated to us since we come from a different background. Is it really a coincidence that Maimonides is the only one to explain this to us? Why didn’t Rashi say it? If Maimonides is just explaining Rashi, why doesn’t Rashi ever tell us? Is Rashi the cryptic one and Maimonides the elucidator? Is it also a coincidence that the Rambam is following a rationalist tradition and those with a different background don’t say this?
yes — no one is stupid.
Why didn’t Rashi comment on it? Perhaps they thought it was obvious — much in the same way that the Talmud takes it for granted that the Torah is written word for word from God’s mouth to Moses’ pen — no one would ever think to question that thousands of years ago, or even hundreds of years ago.
Devora — you seem to be hung up on developing this new understanding of Rashi, in particular, but do you question my point about the scales measuring good vs. sin? The Talmud never says that’s a metaphor, so why do you understand it that way? Is it because it’s too ridiculous to be literally true? That would be inconsistent, because you complained that I seemed to be doing that — so why?
I think it’s because you see that it’s so clear and obvious. So, too, it’s so clear and obvious to others, including Maimonides and Rashi (according to Maimonides) that they don’t bother explaining it.
DR- I found another medrash for you.
Why is mishpatim near yisro? Because when Moshe was on the way to Har Sinai, he saw the following scene: A man leans over to take a drink at a well and his money pouch drops out. A second man comes to take a drink, sees the pouch, picks it up and leaves. A third man comes to take a drink. Meanwhile, the first man realizes his pouch is missing and comes back to the well to look for it. He doesn’t see it, but sees the 3rd man there and accuses him of stealing it. 3rd denies it, they get into a fight, and one man kills the other. Moshe asks is there no justice, is everything random? God gives him the Torah and shows him the behind the scenes justice that went on: The guy who was killed, murdered someone but was never caught, etc.
This story is wonderful if meant as a lesson that we can learn told in a poignant story form that we can relate to and remember (especially when Torah was transmitted orally).
Some problems with a ‘maaseh shehaya’ approach:
Is there a well in the desert besides the be’er miriam? (Possible.)
Did the dor hamidbar carry money pouches? (No.)
Why didn’t Moshe tell the 1st guy he dropped his pouch?
Why didn’t he just tell the 1st and 3rd guy what happened and avoid the murder?
So either Midrashim weren’t meant to be historical stories or Moshe’s depiction in the Torah should have been ‘rasha mikol adam’.
That’s fine — He showed him this scene, but the scene wasn’t actually happening. I think the time warp gives it away as a figurative depiction rather than a historical account.