tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post9028304905955369292..comments2024-03-05T21:22:43.426-05:00Comments on parshablog: Can angels eat?!joshwaxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03516171362038454070noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-30345557390913870322009-11-12T22:25:46.333-05:002009-11-12T22:25:46.333-05:00ibn ezra is certainly the most obvious about it, s...ibn ezra is certainly the most obvious about it, such that we can see him arguing on midrashim. but i don't think he is really so unique in this regard.<br /><br />for example, Radak and Rashbam join Ibn Ezra is believing <a href="http://parsha.blogspot.com/2009/09/does-arami-oved-avi-refer-to-wandering.html" rel="nofollow">Arami oved avi</a> does not grammatically mean what the haggadah asserts it to mean. Ralbag (and Chizkuni as a davar acher) both assert that the Netziv Melach was the city, rather than the woman. Rashbam asserts that vayhi erev vayhi voker means night follows day, against Chazal. Ran argues with Chazal as to the "problem" with the Tower of Bavel, and as to whether bechors of the mother were killed in makkat bechorot. Rav Moshe Hadarshan offers many different midrashim which are not compatible with the traditional midrashic narrative, for example regarding the poisoning incident in this week's parsha. Ibn Caspi argues with Chazal about Pharaoh's butler forgetting and not recalling, and about Rivah being a virgin and a man not knowing her. Ramban argues with the midrash about the dimensions of the teivah. shmuel hanagid explicitly says that one can argue on midrash. rav saadia gaon asserts that certain statements in the gemara he wants to argue against (such as that Hashem created 18000 other worlds) is a mere daas yachid and thus non-binding. And he asserts that the suffering servant in Yeshaya 53 refers to Yirmiyahu, rather than the gemara in Sotah's assertion that it refers to Moshe. These are simple examples off the top of my head, from many examples I have encountered. some instances may be debatable, and they may give justifications, but my impression is that it is not really limited to just Ibn Ezra.<br /><br />It is just because people are not attuned to this issue that they don't recognize it.<br /><br />kol tuv,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-76865564528765363942009-11-12T19:20:19.639-05:002009-11-12T19:20:19.639-05:00Ibn Ezra was a rather unique Rishon in this regard...Ibn Ezra was a rather unique Rishon in this regard.<br /><br />I think its for this reason that the Maharshal write on him that he wasn't a "baal Talmud". He writes that its only because of the Rambam's praise for him that he doesn't discard him completely.<br /><br />The Maharshal himself, however, loved to argue on Rishonim. :)Yosef Greenberghttp://blog.yachdus.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-17209480614575657692009-11-12T08:29:57.329-05:002009-11-12T08:29:57.329-05:00Soncino, indeed, in a footnote on the page (seen o...Soncino, indeed, in a footnote on the page (seen on come and hear) says precisely that: when in Rome, do as the Romans do. They likely intended it within certain limits. But I would guess that to an extent, they did do as the Persians did.<br /><br />"arguing on the Gemara"<br />:)<br />the problem is that people suddenly encounter it, often enough from me, and they don't realize just how common it was in the Geonim and Rishonim. so by pointing out example after example, i might hope to assemble a large corpus of something which is really obvious, but which people don't realize. (ibn ezra argues on several midrashim in this week's parsha, for example, but without first reading the midrashim, it is non-obvious that this is what he is doing.) but yes, obviously a theme.<br /><br />kt,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-67062723032645509562009-11-12T00:42:09.466-05:002009-11-12T00:42:09.466-05:00I'm surprised you didn't mention the amazi...I'm surprised you didn't mention the amazing conclusion one can draw from this Midrash regarding what our behavior should be here in America.<br /><br />You didn't forget the 'arguing on the Gemara' cause, though. :)Yosef Greenberghttp://blog.yachdus.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-85434282279400011922009-11-11T09:55:35.930-05:002009-11-11T09:55:35.930-05:00We spent a bit of time on this in my Midrashic Lit...We spent a bit of time on this in my Midrashic Literature course. Our final thought: When in Rome, do as the Romans do. <br /><br />That is, that's why Moshe couldn't eat when he was with the angels, but when the angels were on earth they ate with him. <br /><br />This is such a fascinating topic!Chaviva Gordon-Bennetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03332712096317076482noreply@blogger.com