- This topic has 83 replies, 34 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 8 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
ItcheSrulik – lol on the word “circa”. I know it means “around”, and shares roots with “circle”. And I know it’s colloquially used to refer to a year date and not to a length of time. However, it was too tempting, and I couldn’t to avoid the inserting of some old school tongue in there.
Sam2 – That’s not really true. Egyptologists have to dig to uncover ruins in similar desert environments all the time. And they’re often in the middle of the abandoned desert, not in urban areas. Courtesy of the Discovery Channel. Yes, I grew up with a TV in the house, oy vey! Now that I think of it, many of these Egyptian ruins are less ancient than the story of Sdom, and even they got buried…. Kal vechomer baby!
In any case, Josephus says he saw Lot in ???????? ???????, so its Josephus.
I mean Lot’s wife.
Curiosity: Lol I don’t mean that. I meant that chasimat hatalmud was in the late fifth century CE which was circa 1500 years ago.
For all those who “wondered” how rationalists explain the pillar of salt, the Ralbag explains that it was the land that turned into salt, not Lot’s wife:
???? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??? ???? ????? ??? ???? ??
and then he explains more:
??? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?? ??? ????? ?? ???? ??????? ?? ?? ?????? ?????? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ???? ???? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???
So in other words, the greatest rationalist doesn’t have an issue with an open miracle. His issue would only be rational.
“So in other words, the greatest rationalist doesn’t have an issue with an open miracle. His issue would only be rational.”
Of course rationalists believe that H’ can perform miracles. The issue is how often, under what circumstances, for what purpose, and if there is historical evidence against it.
There’s a big difference between accepting a ‘rationalist’ explanation as Torah vs insisting that everything must fit in accordance with a rationalist ideology or else it is to be dismissed.
“There’s a big difference between accepting a ‘rationalist’ explanation as Torah vs insisting that everything must fit in accordance with a rationalist ideology or else it is to be dismissed.”
So you can choose whether or not to accept the Ralbag’s rationalist explanations as Torah. But why do you think the Ralbag offered rationalist explanations if not because of a rationalist ideology? Granted there will be some times where he will accept things even when they are irrationalist but so will the people who were being attacked in the beginning of the thread (I think the only one mentioned by name was R’ Slifkin).
ari-free: I do not regularly read R’ Slifkin’s blog, but I have seen him explicitly state many times that he is not trying to remove mysticism and mystical interpretations from Judaism. He just wants to explain the rationalist position and why/how it is viable.
Question: How could the Ralbag say it was the land that turned to salt, if the gemara implies it was lot’s wife?
Ivdu: First of all, Rishonim on Chumash argue on Chazal fairly often. That’s a discussion in its own right.
It’s not so weird here though. He could say the Mishnah means you make the Brachah on seeing the place where the miracle happened. That’s actually more Mistaber, because there are thousands of salt pillars there and the Mishnah and Gemara give no indication as to which one to make the Brachah on.
But what about the other gemara, quoted earlier in this thread, which discusses whether or not lot’s wife has the status of a meis?
Ivdu: That could have been theoretical. Also, the Gemara does call it a stupid question.
Sam2: nice answer.
Why does your post say “posted -1 years ago” on the bottom?
It stopped saying that
My friend D.W. suggested simply that during the sulfur, fire, sand and salt storm, Lot’s wife was completely covered in salt, her body forming into what looked like a pillar of salt. Since pillars (i.e. concrete buildings) are often described by their exterior (concrete) and not their interior (office space), so too in this case. Her body did not become salt, she was simply covered with it.
Obviously, being covered with salt, she must have died quickly. What happened afterwards I don’t know, but it’s reasonable to assume that the pillar disintegrated over a short period of time (my guess is a few weeks, mayber a bit more,salt is a preservative) and since then has been unidentifiable.
A rational explanation that fits neatly into the pasuk. Take it or leave it. I take it.
Sam, if you think it is not a silly question in its own right then the title can go to you.
Most Rishonim who give different interpretations from Chazal do so in the form of explaning the Pshuto Shel Mikra. There are Parshanim Rishonim who took the liberty to argue on non-Halachic Midrashim. The idea is that while Chazal were Mekabel the Torah, the Drushim are open game.
Anyhow, as I pointed out, rationalist then is not rationalist now. What we call rationalist are actually naturists. Rationalist means someone who weighs heavily on the rational mind. The Rambam had no problem with a Ness in the Torah. He didn’t try to explain the natural causes for the Makkos or Yosef’s psychoanalysis. But he disagreed with the world categories being blurred.
Most Gemaros about extra fantastic events are also usually translated to something more nuetral. This is not a rejection of Nissim, but a rational understanding that such things are very uncommon, and that it is not even being portrayed as something so strange.
Received today from the Halacha Text:
H-Text.Back to regular program.Pskei Tshuvas(218:31)says in todays times we DONT say the special Bracha when we see “Lot’s wife” as we dont know its forsure her
Does this mean it’s not true that Lot’s nephew wrote a book called “My Aunt the Netziv”?
If you want a scientific explanation, her body was probably rapidly fossilized or petrified from all the minerals dissolved in the warm water there.
A naturist only accepts what is usual and known to him. If you were to tell a naturist from 200 years ago that it is possible to have an airplane that flies and supports hundred of people, he would laugh at you. His rejection is not because of a deep understanding of how the world works. He really has no clue what is really possible.
Rambam Shemonah Perakim Perek 1:
?????? ????? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ??? ????? ????? ??? ????? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ????? ?? ??? ??? ????? ???? ??????? ?????? ??? ????? ??????? ??????
It’s pretty hard to ignore that Mishna, actually. It is obviously spoken by those who have seen it. They lived there. And, the Mishna is not being theoretical. This doesn’t stop anyone from giving alternate Pshatim in the Pasuk and it’s fine. The Ralbag is not really taking on Chazal head on. He wants to give a Pshat that satisfies him.
Old Man and Ari-Free’s approach maat very well be how out took place. I wrote that on the coffee room someplace but can’t find it now. I suggested that her turning around allowed enough time for the sulfur and salt to catch up with her and consume her. When salt consumes something you get one big pile of salt.
This would mean that not only was she punished, but she was punished by her own actions. We find this concept often how a person gets rewarded by their actions.
“This doesn’t stop anyone from giving alternate Pshatim in the Pasuk and it’s fine. The Ralbag is not really taking on Chazal head on. He wants to give a Pshat that satisfies him.”
The Ralbag is not simply giving an alternate pshat in the pesukim; he is giving an alternate pshat in the reality of what happened – he is saying that it can’t have happened because H’ would never do such a thing.
I’m aware of that. That is his reason for giving an alternate Pshat of his own. This is still not taking on Chazal. He is not commentating on a Gemara and saying that he argues on it. He is saying in the Pasuk what he feels and his Pshat follows.
haleivi: i’m not sure i follow you. rishonim have often dismissed explanations brought down in the gemarah or mishna as non-pshat. the only rishon i can think of who tries to force pshat into every opinion of the tanayim and amorayim is rashi. so they dont necessarily take on chazal they simply relegate divrei chazal as non-pshat.
as a total aside, there is a very good reason to attempt a rational explanation when possible and its right here in this week’s parsheh:
? ?????????????, ???????????–???? ???? ??????????? ????????????, ???????? ?????????: ?????? ???????????, ??? ????-????????? ????????, ????????? ??? ???-????? ????????, ??????? ????????? ??????
the rambam looks to these words as a driving force to not give explanations that rational people will look at and say “what a small and ignorant people these people are.”
Haleivi:
I’m not entirely clear as to what we are arguing about. But perhaps the following quote from the Ralbag will be a good demonstration of the Ralbag’s attitude toward Chazal:
???? ?? ???? ????????? ??????? ?????? ???????? ????? ??????????????? ???’ ??? ????? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ????? ??????? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ??? ??? ?? ??? ???? ??”? ???? ????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ??? ????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ??????? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ????? ??? ??? ????? ????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ??????????? ?????? ???????? ????? ??????? ????????? ???? ??? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?? ??? [???/??] ???? ???? ?? ???? ??? ??”? ??? ????? ??????? ??????? ??? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ??? ???? ?? ?? ????? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ?? ??????? ??”? ??????? ??? ?? ??? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ??????
PAA: The Rambam basically says that (maybe in the Iggeres on astrology) that when Chazal say something that we know to be false via empirical evidence (to him meaning rationalist logic and/or scientific evidence) then we can say that those statements of Chazal were in error. (It is unclear if he is even talking about statements that have Halachah L’ma’aseh applications or just Aggad’ta/scientific statements. The former is what makes more sense for him to have meant but the latter just sits better with our sensibilities.)
See also the Ralbag’s discussion of Billam’s donkey. The point is that the Ralbag objects to Chazal’s pshat on theological grounds – not simply because he is explaining a different level of pshat. In the cases of Billam and Lot’s wife he is disagreeing with Chazal on the theological implications of miracles (under certain circumstances), and in the quote from Bereishis he is disagreeing with them about changes in the ratzon Hashem.
If you are interested, I recommend reading the article entitled “The Scholar Rabbi Levi – A Study in Rationalistic Exegesis” by Yitzhak Grossman in Hakirah vol. 12 available for free download on their website.
To clarify my point:
There is a difference between offering an additional pshat to Chazal’s pshat, even perhaps saying that your pshat fits better into the pesukim, and saying that Chazal’s pshat CANNOT BE which is what the Ralbag does on several occasions.
Sam2:
Are you agreeing to me?
the hebrew ??????? was translated in the times of the ?????? so ??”? saw it, but the original was written in greek, first it was translated to latin (some say by Josephus himself) and in the 1700’s it was translated into english as well.
as far as ????? ????? the halachah is a ? that is petrified, (ie even if it were to be soaked in water for 24 hours it would still be dry and hard) is not ???? at all
PAA: Yes. The Ralbag held what he held and was widely condemned for it. He said something similar to the Rambam (that the Rambam also got condemned for at the time) and took it even farther. I’m not saying that his Shittah wouldn’t be Apikorsus for any of us to say, but he certainly said it.
yie: Yosifon (Josippon) was written wholely in Biblical Hebrew, which is part of its intrigue. It claims to be written by Josephus but is most likely a later pseudopigrapha. I am not holding in whether the Rishonim mean this Sefer when they quote “Yosifon” or they are actually referring to Josephus’ other works.
Sam2:
Is this the letter that you were referring to?
??????? ??? ????? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ??????? ??? ?? ??? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????? ???????? ??????? ????? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ?? ??????? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ??? ????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ???? ????? ??????? ????? ?? ??? ????? ???? ????? ??? ?? ?? ??? ???? ??
By the way, R’ Meiselman contends that the Rambam specifically says ????? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ????? ?????? ???? ??? but would not apply it to a definitive statement of Chazal.
As to whether the Ralbag’s shitta would be apikorsus for any of us to say, that would be an interesting discussion and we pretty much had this discussion at http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/shmuly-yanklowitz-novominsker-and-oo-theology
The key difference is that the Ralbag hasn’t said anything that would be against the Rambam’s principles of faith (well maybe he has – I won’t claim to be an expert in all the Ralbag’s statements, but certainly the statements being discussed here are not against the Rambam’s principles).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.