tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33081113.post2901431461681928890..comments2024-03-19T12:13:34.854-04:00Comments on Yeshivat Deah VeHaskel: Maimonides and Spinoza on Scriptural Interpretation IRabbi Joshua Maroofhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12585369620887846940noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33081113.post-43116123062042345962010-03-20T08:38:34.505-04:002010-03-20T08:38:34.505-04:00Howdy,
I mostly visits this website[url=http://ww...Howdy,<br /><br />I mostly visits this website[url=http://www.weightrapidloss.com/lose-10-pounds-in-2-weeks-quick-weight-loss-tips].[/url]vesomsechel.blogspot.com is filled with quality info. Frankly speaking we really do not pay attention towards our health. Let me show you one truth. Recent Research shows that about 90% of all U.S. grownups are either chubby or overweight[url=http://www.weightrapidloss.com/lose-10-pounds-in-2-weeks-quick-weight-loss-tips].[/url] So if you're one of these individuals, you're not alone. In fact, most of us need to lose a few pounds once in a while to get sexy and perfect six pack abs. Now next question is how you can achive quick weight loss? Quick weight loss can be achived with little effort. You need to improve some of you daily habbits to achive weight loss in short span of time.<br /><br />About me: I am webmaster of [url=http://www.weightrapidloss.com/lose-10-pounds-in-2-weeks-quick-weight-loss-tips]Quick weight loss tips[/url]. I am also health expert who can help you lose weight quickly. If you do not want to go under painful training program than you may also try [url=http://www.weightrapidloss.com/acai-berry-for-quick-weight-loss]Acai Berry[/url] or [url=http://www.weightrapidloss.com/colon-cleanse-for-weight-loss]Colon Cleansing[/url] for fast weight loss.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33081113.post-21091207517436716182007-01-11T15:06:00.000-05:002007-01-11T15:06:00.000-05:00>I don't think that Hazal or the Rambam ever saw t...>I don't think that Hazal or the Rambam ever saw the text of the Torah, especially the Beresheet-parts, as a scientific account in the modern, materialistic sense of the term. <br /><br />I'm not sure whether you're being cute by using "scientific" to mean something other than literal. Did Chazal not believe that the Egyptians were descended from Noach after the Flood? If you mean that Chazal didn't read Bereishis literally, I would love to hear your evidence for that. In one of your previous posts, you seemed to be arguing that when the Midrash interprets Doson as hinting at a deeper meaning, it doesn't really mean that the brothers didn't go to Doson. <br /><br />I also have a lot of philosophical difficulty with defining the limits of the Rambam's approach. Even if one accepts that DH is currently less plausible than TMS (I know you don't want this post to be about that so I'll concede you that point), would you be prepared to reinterpret Yetzias Mitzraim and Sinai (perhaps along the lines of the Conservative position on Torah Min Hashamayim instead of Torah Misinai) if evidence were discovered in the future that warrants it? My point is that you can't totally separate theology from history, since so much of the Torah's meaning is rooted in the history it recounts. Gid Hanashe, anyone?<br /><br />MikeskepticAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33081113.post-77719149779147477302007-01-11T14:31:00.000-05:002007-01-11T14:31:00.000-05:00yes, the Rambam mentions an argument similar to Ku...<i> yes, the Rambam mentions an argument similar to Kuzari in his Letter to Yemen. In the Moreh Nevuchim, he states that one can perceive the divinity of the Torah from the depth of its content and the perfection it imparts to human beings (he mentions this in Iggeret Teman too).<br /><br /></i><br /><br />Thanks. Per your request, I won't respond to these here. Some other time.littlefoxlingshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01309962988376540455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33081113.post-28981571880296520252007-01-11T14:18:00.000-05:002007-01-11T14:18:00.000-05:00LF, yes, the Rambam mentions an argument similar t...LF, yes, the Rambam mentions an argument similar to Kuzari in his Letter to Yemen. In the Moreh Nevuchim, he states that one can perceive the divinity of the Torah from the depth of its content and the perfection it imparts to human beings (he mentions this in Iggeret Teman too).<br /><br />MikeSkeptic, I don't think that Hazal or the Rambam ever saw the text of the Torah, especially the Beresheet-parts, as a scientific account in the modern, materialistic sense of the term. <br /><br />The Torah teaches mankind how to conceptualize reality and understand existence. For example, evolution is irrelevant to the Torah because it is not designed to tell us how things got the way they are; it is presenting us with a way to construe the universe as God's creation, and not offering a play-by-play of how God brought it to the point it is now.<br /><br />So the days of creation, for example, really identify different components of the world as it is experienced by human beings, and explicates their order, hierarchy, etc., relative to the "whole". And the story of Adam is more about human nature and internal conflict than about history, just as the subsequent stories show us ways to conceptualize, philosophically, the development of society and the necessity of diversity.<br /><br /> Because the Torah is focused upon presenting a theological view of existence and human life, it can be an eternal document. Only a superficial understanding of both science and religion, in which the material details, descriptions and measures are held above all other concerns, can there be a genuine conflict between science and Torah. But if the Torah is seen as a theological or philosophical paradigm for contextualizing science, anthropology, etc., rather than providing specific data for use in those sciences, then it essentially transcends them.Rabbi Joshua Maroofhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12585369620887846940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33081113.post-84476484298281535422007-01-11T13:41:00.000-05:002007-01-11T13:41:00.000-05:00>but the question is whether that undermines the w...>but the question is whether that undermines the whole concept of learning something from Scripture or not.<br /><br />Yes, there is an attraction to fundamentalism, which is why it is so popular in OJ. I'll wait to hear your spin on it, but I've always understood the Rambam as saying we assume the meaning of the text is literal, except to the extent that reason forces us to abandon that assumption. This position is somewhat defensible if one assumes a static world in which the outer boundaries of what reason can tell us are fixed, because one could then say that the author and his original audience both knew (or at least the author reasonably expected his readers to know) what those boundaries were, so that the text's meaning is fixed. However, the position does begin to look intellectually dishonest once you realize (which the Rambam may well not have) that the metaphysics of Aristotle is different from the metaphysics of today and from the metaphysics of the early Israelites. Also, reason leads to science which can tell us things about the history of creation and the genealogy and birth of Israel that were not certainly not known in ancient times and may tell us things in the future that we don't know today. We are then left with a text on which we can't rely because there is no way for us to tell where fact ends any myth begins.<br /><br />MikeskepticAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33081113.post-81640128671349239312007-01-11T13:03:00.000-05:002007-01-11T13:03:00.000-05:00I don't want to make every post a forum for the di...<i> I don't want to make every post a forum for the discussion of TMS. Only some of them :) </i><br /><br />OK, we don't have to have a whole fight about this time. But, I am curious. Since you say, <i> he had good evidence for his position </i>. What evidence is it? Is this Kuzari again? Did the Rambam agree with Kuzari? I am just curious as to what you mean. I won't make it into a whole fight about TMS again.littlefoxlingshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01309962988376540455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33081113.post-17904928334485569562007-01-11T12:57:00.000-05:002007-01-11T12:57:00.000-05:00MikeSkeptic, I agree with you 100%, but the questi...MikeSkeptic, I agree with you 100%, but the question is whether that undermines the whole concept of learning something from Scripture or not.<br /><br />LF, yes, of course the Rambam proceeds with the assumption that the Tanach is true. And of course, I would hesitate to call it a bias and would say that he had good evidence for his position (from his perspective it was even more solid, being that many of the issues that fuel the skeptics today were unknown in his time.On the other hand, he had to deal with the eternity of the universe problem, which was no different than any other contemporary science-Torah conflict.)<br /><br />But again, what is amazing is his apparent willingness to allow philosophical speculation to twist the meaning of the text, all the while maintaining its Divine origin.<br /><br />I don't want to make every post a forum for the discussion of TMS. Only some of them :)Rabbi Joshua Maroofhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12585369620887846940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33081113.post-70594627662749648012007-01-11T12:47:00.000-05:002007-01-11T12:47:00.000-05:00Isn't this a little intellectually dishonest? Giv...Isn't this a little intellectually dishonest? Given a contradiction between our reason and the text, the 2 choices we are considering are to reinterpret the text or to conclude that our philosophy (= reason) is wrong. But, the more likely explanation would be a 3rd possibility. That our reason is correct, the simple interpretation of the text is the correct one, and the text is just wrong. <br /><br />There seems to be a bias here towards assuming the text is accurate.<br /><br />Once you accept that bias, the Rambam's position is not really hard to accept. If we knew the world was eternal and we assume the text does not err, the only possibility is that the text thinks the world is eternal. Just as, for example, nowadays, no (normal) frum people would suggest that the Tanach feels that nothing existed more than 6,000 years ago. <br /><br />Anyway, great post. Looking forward to the rest of the series.littlefoxlingshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01309962988376540455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33081113.post-34425631467824525232007-01-11T12:21:00.000-05:002007-01-11T12:21:00.000-05:00First, I want to say I find this to be a fascinati...First, I want to say I find this to be a fascinating subject and I thank you for taking it up.<br /><br />>Of all of his critiques of Maimonides, this one is Spinoza's most formidable, in my opinion. How can we explain the Rambam's approach?<br /><br />This is not necessarily a weakness in the Rambam's approach. On the contrary, the willingness to interpret the text figuratively, when necessary, arguably makes for a much more durable theology. This is especially true since the advent of modern science, where maintaining a belief in the divine authorship of the Torah requires one to choose between rejecting scientific truths or reconciling the text to those truths. (It is hardly necessary to provide examples, but the Creation account, the Flood, Dispersion of the Nations, and details of the Exodus, are the more obvious ones.)<br /><br />MikeskepticAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com