חדש באתר: NotebookLM עם כל תכני הרב מיכאל אברהם. דומה למיכי בוט.

Regarding Column 298 (Divine Involvement)

שו"תRegarding Column 298 (Divine Involvement)
שאל לפני 3 שנים

The rabbi claims that God left the earth, and that this is interpretively plausible because of God's general process of disengagement from the world, which is expressed in prophecy and overt miracles. A. This claim can explain the stories in the Torah that speak of providence, but it is not an explicit claim of the Torah that there is providence. When the Torah tells us that God is providing, it means forever, just as keeping the Sabbath is an eternal commandment. There should be no distinction between commandments and factual claims. Therefore, if the Torah writes "And it came to pass that he cried to me, and I heard him, for I am a widow" (and your wives were widows, etc.), it assures us that there is providence, and forever.
on. Regarding allegorical interpretations of claims of providence in the Bible, it seems to me that this type of interpretation is only possible in historical stories, such as the creation of the world, since the basic claim is that the Torah does not come to teach us history but morality and commandments, and therefore historical stories are amenable to allegorical interpretation. Theological claims, on the other hand, are not amenable to this interpretation, since they are part of the purposes of the Torah. This would be like explaining a halakhic commandment as an allegory, or generally explaining the sacrifices as an allegory for the need for sacrifice rather than the slaughter of actual animals. As for an allegorical interpretation of concepts of the personification of God, such as "and the Lord appeared," it seems to me that there is no comparison between the two: first, because in this case it is required by a conflict with explicit verses ("for you have not seen any image," I beg you), and second, because there is no allegory that uproots the matter from its meaning, but only an explanation that involves borrowing concepts: God does not really smell, but from our perspective he does smell. (In addition, I suspect that Maimonides had a tradition on this)
thanks


לגלות עוד מהאתר הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

השאר תגובה

0 Answers
מיכי צוות ענה לפני 3 שנים
A. Why can't this explain the verses in the Torah? The verses that talk about prophecy deal with this time? You assume that it was said forever and I say that it was said for each period according to what will happen in it. This certainly doesn't make things any more out of their ordinary than what the sages did in various verses. B. A good consideration. Halacha should not be interpreted allegorically either. An eye for an eye literally? To establish a name for one's dead brother literally? In general, your arguments are based on a wrong methodology. You deal with them on the interpretive level, but I proceed from observing reality. If this observation shows me that there is no involvement – then my conclusion is that there is none. The interpretive difficulties come in stage B. The tangible cannot be denied. You start from the interpretation and if you have difficulties in reality, you ignore it.  

לגלות עוד מהאתר הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

השאר תגובה

Back to top button