Thursday, October 25, 2007

Avraham's Prophetic Dream - Lot will be saved!

I have not posted much this week as I am working on a quite complicated post about Truth and I need every so often to break with some lighter fare.

R. Nissim of Marseilles was a 13th century Maimonidean who lived in Provence and wrote a sefer on the miracles in the Torah called Ma’aseh Nissim. Professor Chaim Kreisel has recently published it in a scholarly edition which is really worthwhile for anyone interested in the views of a sophisticated rationalist. One word of caution – like many rationalists of his time he believed Astrology was true and a science.

He has a fascinating comment on this week’s Parsha. It is common knowledge that Rambam held that the whole episode with the angels visiting Avraham was a prophetic dream. Even those who do not know Rambam know this about him thanks to Ramban’s vehement attack on him in his commentary on the Parsha. It is however not clear where Rambam ends the dream and reality takes over. R. Nissim however extends it to the whole story with Lot. He says that as part of Avraham’s dream he saw the three angels go to Sodom, hideout in Lot’s house, the whole story of the people gathering around and Lot offering his daughters in exchange. Reality begins with the destruction of Sodom and Lot’s escape. He suggests that lot was warned by Avraham based on his prophecy and he heeded by escaping. He interprets the verse 19:29

כט וַיְהִי, בְּשַׁחֵת אֱלֹהִים אֶת-עָרֵי הַכִּכָּר, וַיִּזְכֹּר אֱלֹהִים, אֶת-אַבְרָהָם; וַיְשַׁלַּח אֶת-לוֹט, מִתּוֹךְ הַהֲפֵכָה, בַּהֲפֹךְ אֶת-הֶעָרִים, אֲשֶׁר-יָשַׁב בָּהֵן לוֹט.
29 And it came to pass, when God destroyed the cities of the Plain, that God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when He overthrew the cities in which Lot dwelt.

As God remembering Avraham by giving him this prophecy allowing him thus to indirectly cause Lot’s escape!

He then offers an even more radical explanation that Avraham saw in his prophetic vision that Lot will be inspired to leave the city before it would be too late!

No wonder Rashba wanted to ban (in fact succeeded – his sefer was unknown until lately) the Provencal philosophers! How different would Judaism be today if he had not prevailed.

22 comments:

  1. Fascinating!

    Where can I get a copy of the sefer? I can't find anything online....

    Shabbat Shalom.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Fascinating history and a very good question. It definitely leaves one feeling freer to interpret the sources than many Rabbis would have us do.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The sefer is published by the Hevrat Mekitzei nirdamim. I think I bought it at Magnes press.

    ReplyDelete
  4. i like your idea of "lighter fare"

    shavu'ah tov

    ReplyDelete
  5. see my next post and you will agree that this one is a feather!

    ReplyDelete
  6. You mention the Rashba as wanting (and succeeding) in banning the sefer. Was there a consensus amongst the rishonim on this? If yes, then do we have the ability today to overrule the ban?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ergo. It was not an official ban but a defacto one. Once you ignored a sefer there was non incentive to copy. Note how Meiri, who was a Rashba contemporary, is rarely mentioned and his sefarim were not around until about 100 years ago.

    The same applies for malmad Hatalmidim by R.Yaakov Antuli. His sefer was last printed by Mekuitzei Nirdamim in Lik in the late 1800's (it has a haskamah from R. Shlomo Kluger).

    Separately there is no problem ignoring bans that were not put inplace by Sanhedrin.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thanks. I am interested in your final point. What authority do we have to challenge a ban insituted after the times of the Sanhedrin?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ergo see Introduction to MT
    לב וכל בית דין שעמד אחר התלמוד בכל מדינה ומדינה וגזר או התקין או הנהיג לבני מדינתו, או לבני מדינות--לא פשטו מעשיו בכל ישראל: מפני רוחק מושבותיהם, ושיבוש הדרכים; והיות בית דין של אותה המדינה יחידים, ובית דין הגדול של שבעים בטל מכמה שנים קודם חיבור התלמוד.

    לג לפיכך אין כופין אנשי מדינה זו לנהוג במנהג מדינה אחרת, ואין אומרין לבית דין זה לגזור גזירה שגזרה בית דין אחר במדינתו. וכן אם למד אחד מן הגאונים שדרך המשפט כך הוא, ונתבאר לבית דין אחר שעמד אחריו שאין זה דרך המשפט הכתוב בתלמוד--אין שומעין לראשון, אלא למי שהדעת נוטה לדבריו, בין ראשון, בין אחרון.


    Basically your question is reversed - what authority does a BD have to impose a Gezeira or Takana outside its immediate community?

    ReplyDelete
  10. We are getting off your original point but I am interested in your comment: "Separately there is no problem ignoring bans that were not put inplace by Sanhedrin".

    If the Rashba and others had put in place a formal ban (which you say is not the case here) would we be able to ignore that ban today. You seem to be saying we would - I find that difficult to understand. In halacha we do not find an achron challenging the pesak of a rishon unless he has the support of another rishon?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ergo- I dont understand- see my last comment. Clearly without Sanhedrin no new Takana is binding. It was extended through the sealing of Talmud and some Takanot of geonim but after that Nehar Nehar Upaskey.

    It would behoove all of us to revisit every one of these rules such as that we don't find an achron challenging a Rishon. The pessakim of many Rishonim would be unrecognizable by their authors if they were to observe them!

    ReplyDelete
  12. אין שומעין לראשון, אלא למי שהדעת נוטה לדבריו, בין ראשון, בין אחרון.


    Is this not clear enough?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Please forgive me if I am a little slow here but what you are saying is a big chiddush to me. The fact is that no recognised halachic authority (achron) will argue with a rishon (without the suppport of another rishon). According to what you are saying what is the problem?

    ReplyDelete
  14. David: I think you have a very corrupted view of what a Sanhedrin is. Think of the Sanhedrin as a position not an institute. Read the Mishneh Torah again with this in mind and you will see this is exactly how the Rambam saw it and it is what he meant by his suggestion.

    ReplyDelete
  15. >The fact is that no recognised halachic authority (achron) will argue with a rishon (without the suppport of another rishon).

    There you go - without the support of another Rishon. The genmara has rules Hilcheta kerav be'issurei and so on. You do not find the same with Rishonim. Anyone who learned Chazon Ish knows that when he did not find a supporting Rishon for his opinion he found a way to read him to agree with himself. Basically although professions in public otherways, the Rambam rule I quoted above is in practice.

    ReplyDelete
  16. >Think of the Sanhedrin as a position not an institute.

    Please explain what you mean?

    ReplyDelete
  17. David: It is 12:30AM and I am in the holy city of Jerusalem. It is time for me to go to bed.

    Think of the Sanhedrin as a position not an institute.

    ReplyDelete
  18. David --

    If you haven't already, see the Ritva's Sefer HaZikaron in Vayera (and the paragraph before vayera!).

    ReplyDelete
  19. Sure Ritva is the first to look at. He is apologetic though sometimes.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I wonder why the Rambam thought his psokim could be relied upon universally, without a critical examination of the sources. This can be only for one of two reasons: either he felt that he was unapproachably superior to all other poskim, or that he believes he could arrogate to himself the status of Sanhedrin, that he was the Rashkebahag. I suppose this is akin to the Maharshal's complaint against the Beis Yosef as well.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Barzilai, that is an intersting question. Rambam tells us at first that he paskened mostly like Rif except in a few places. He also tells us about his father being a talmid of the ri migash who was regarded as amazing by rambam. Apparently he was confident in the kabbalah he was following. He was also supremely confident that he had it right as we can see from his letters. But ultimately you are right he had a good opinion about his abilities.

    The really important aspect of rambam is that he basically gives us Maskanat Hagemarah and where he adds he lets us know by a Yreh li or quoting the geonim. That is totally different then the Beit Yossef approach.

    Talking about Beit Yossef the Magid Meisharim seems to have been a place where he soothed his conscience. Prof Werbelowsky in his book notes several places where he has a hard time with rambam and learns some kvetch into him and the Magid comes and tells him not to worry - rambam meant it the way he reads him (if he did not he should have :-))

    ReplyDelete
  22. "Rabbi Hiyya b. Ammi in the name of 'Ulla: Since the day that the Temple was destroyed, the Holy One, blessed be He, has nothing in this world but the four cubits of Halachah alone."

    ReplyDelete