-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) You yourself translated it as "logic" in your linked post to the teshuva. Not "compelling reasons". Additionally, Rav Saadia Gaon doesn't leave the term up to our imagination. All his examples of this "מופת" category are air-tight syllogistic logic.
2) You yourself inserted "science" into the חוש category and implied here that it can cover the inductive evidence against the mabul's occurence. I am still at a complete loss how you justify this blatant distortion even to yourself.
FKM | Homepage | 09.07.09 - 6:12 am | # ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| FKM: I don't understand how your parents and rebbe could have raised you to think that it is acceptable to write directly to someone and refer to his "blatant distortion".
If you would think with a little flexibility and creativity, you could judge favorably and find an explanation for all of your questions. But, evidently, even during Elul you cannot do that.
Gil | Homepage | 09.07.09 - 8:56 am | # ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| If you would only be distorting Shakespeare (or J.K. Rowling) I wouldn't really give a darn.
But you're not, so I do.
Don't you realize that one false move in this area puts one under the Rashba's cherem?
When so many less knowledgeable Orthodox Jews take your views as representing non-controversial positions in Jewish theology, I think you have a responsibility to justify your reading of Rav Saadia in a way that does not require "flexibility and creativity" on my part.
FKM | Homepage | 09.07.09 - 9:19 am | # ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| "You yourself inserted "science" into the חוש category and implied here that it can cover the inductive evidence"
FKM:
I don't want to get involved in your battles, since I have other important issues to attend to.
However, in defense of R. Gil (not that he needs my defense), all physics is inductive evidence. Only mathematics is deductive. The law of gravity is inductive - one could easily imagine a universe with no gravity. We all use inductive evidence every day. Chazal used inductive evidence repeatedly in the Gemara.
The real question is not whether evidence is inductive, but whether it is persuasive. To know whether it is persuasive, you need to study it thoroughly.
On another matter, I think I speak for many people here when I ask you to have a bit more derech eretz for our achsania, R. Gil.
Moniker | 09.07.09 - 12:59 pm | #
|
| --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The real question is not whether evidence is inductive, but whether it is persuasive.
If you think that's the question, then
you haven't read Rav Saadia inside. The examples he gives to this category simply do not lend to that kind of enormous generalization.
Look, I'm not the only one who thinks this is a clear distortion of the sources:
http://machzikeihadas.blogspot.c...iders- when.html
(If R' Gil thinks a negative description of someone's scholarship is not appropriate for Elul because he takes it personally, then what does he think about R' Slifkin's critique of "Chaim Be'emunasom"?
The double-standard here is really quite transparent. Feel free to delete if you think it's offensive.)
FKM | Homepage | 09.07.09 - 1:27 pm | #
|
| Chazal used inductive evidence repeatedly in the Gemara.
Huh??
But did they use it as a reason to allegorize something in the Torah??
The question is not the general reliability of inductive reasoning (in halachic decision making or everyday life)!
That is certainly the NOT question.
FKM | Homepage | 09.07.09 - 1:34 pm | # --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
| >If you think that's the question, then
you haven't read Rav Saadia inside. The examples he gives to this category simply do not lend to that kind of enormous generalization.< I have. He clearly believes that philosophical conclusions which contradict the literal interpretations are sufficient reason to allegorize. The examples he give are reflective of the Aristotelian epistemology of his time. We live a 1000 years later and philosophy has developed a bit with something called the scientific revolution which cause a not-so-minor shift in the field of epistemology. It stands to reason that R' Saadia would apply the most current philosophical approaches were he living today. chardal | Homepage | 09.08.09 - 2:49 am | #
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| E-man said: "...That would go against logic, reason and common sense.
However, you can say that G-D performed an unnatural miracle and although it is impossible for a global flood to have happened G-D did it unnaturally, that is fine. However, it does not fit into the theology or philosophy or Rav Saadia or the Rambam."
If you think the possibility of nature-defying miracles goes against logic and reason then how can you (and Rav Saadia and the Rambam) believe in the ikkar of Techiyas Hameisim?
He clearly believes that philosophical conclusions which contradict the literal interpretations are sufficient reason to allegorize.
More unwarranted generalizations.
Don't commit the obvious fallacy of assigning all philosophic conclusions with the same strength.
Mathematical deductive logic is also a form of philosophy. That is the kind of philosophy Rav Saadia is clearly referring to.
Would you claim that this was significantly altered by modern science? I hope not.
Does 2+2=4 change over time like most of philosophy changes over time?
FKM | Homepage | 09.08.09 - 7:59 am | # -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| More unwarranted generalizations.
Don't commit the obvious fallacy of assigning all philosophic conclusions with the same strength.
Agreed. But many of R. Sa'adia's philosophical arguments that he accepted have been challenged. They are not of the type of 2+2=4.
Gil | Homepage | 09.08.09 - 8:58 am | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| Agreed. But many of R. Sa'adia's philosophical arguments that he accepted have been challenged.
Agreed. But were those challenged arguments the same ones he touts as an example of when we can allegorize Chumash? No.
So they are completely irrelevant.
They are not of the type of 2+2=4.
The ones he uses to justify allegory come pretty darn close. That's precisely my point.
FKM | Homepage | 09.08.09 - 9:04 am | #
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
| looking at R' Kapach's translation of RSG again. I have to say that FKM's interpretation is a bit puzzling.
the second manner by which it is appropriate to allegorize is:
או שהשכל דוחה אותו, כאמרו כי ה' אלהיך אש אכלה הוא אל קנא, והרי האש ברואה וזקוקה לחומר ופעמים נכבית, ואין השכל מקבל שיהא הוא כך, ולכן מוכרח שתהא מלה נסתרת בלשון שנקמתו כאש אכלה, וכמו שנאמר כי באש קנאתי כאש אכלה, וכמו שנאמר כי באש קנאתי תאכל כל הארץ.
השכל דוחה אותו is not limited to deductive logic nor is the example which itself includes inductive observed components.
The reason R' Saadia give as to why techiyat hameitim does not fit into this category is:
וגם אין השכל דוחה אותו, מפני שהחזרת דבר שכבר היה ונתפרד קרוב למושכל יותר מבריאת יש מאין.
This is of course based on a aristotalean understanding of the nature of matter which itself was based on non-scientific observations about the world.
The point is, that your diyukim in R' Saadia are not warranted. All he is saying is that the intellect is a solid authority for the allegorization of scripture. His examples are exactly what you would expect from someone writing in that era.
chardal | Homepage | 09.08.09 - 2:01 pm | #
================================================================
|
| I had a feeling someone would make this mistake.
He is giving two different examples of reasoning to make the following contrast.
The criteria for violating logic in order to allegorize the verses are HIGHER than the logic required for keeping their original intent.
Saying "God is literally a fire" is logically absurd--השכל דוחה אותו because:
God, on the one hand, is a uncreated entity and is not dependent on substance.
Fire, on the other hand, is a created entity and needs material substance to exist.
This is not an Aristotelian argument but syllogistic logic.
So to MAINTAIN the literal meaning of the verse and say God is fire, is a logical absurdity which the intellect rejects. And that level of intellectual certainty against absurdities allows allegory to win over the literal.
But to MAINTAIN the literal understanding of resurrection does NOT require a logical absurdity and is NOT something that the intellect rejects (--on the contrary-- it is something that Aristotelian logic can accept since it is not as bad as creation ex-nihilo), so it can stay literal. Allegory is not justified here because it is not an absurdity and can be logically justified (even though it is "scientifically impossible"--which Rav Saadia says elsewhere).
FKM | Homepage | 09.09.09 - 7:34 am | # ================================================================
|
| >This is not an Aristotelian argument but syllogistic logic.
The aristotelian part is the claim that "שהחזרת דבר שכבר היה ונתפרד קרוב למושכל יותר מבריאת יש מאין"
As for the syllogism. It is as powerful as the assumptions on which it is based - namely the observation that והרי האש ברואה וזקוקה לחומר ופעמים נכבית. a property of fire which is established through induction.
But in the final analysis - you are again missing the point. The example does not need to limit the condition - it only needs to illustrate it. The main point of R' Saadia is that something which the intelect rejects strongly is something which is worthy of being allegorized. Your diukim are not warranted nor are they even compelling.
chardal | Homepage | 09.09.09 - 9:00 am | #
===================================================================
|
| The aristotelian part is the claim that "שהחזרת דבר שכבר היה ונתפרד קרוב למושכל יותר מבריאת יש מאין"
You are simply cutting and pasting this line out of context. Yes, Rav Saadia employs Aristotelian type arguments for accepting things as true IN GENERAL. But NOT for allegorizing pesukim!! His example for doing that shows you that it requires something much more powerful!
You are forgetting this Aristotelian notion he gave here was NOT an illustration of what it takes to allegorize. You are making a cholent out of the whole thing.
The main point of R' Saadia is that something which the intellect rejects strongly is something which is worthy of being allegorized.
And that means you have to RANK each argument for its particular strength, right?
The illustration Rav Saadia actually gave as a strong rejection of the intellect was in fact a syllogism which has NOTHING to do with his Aristotelian way of accepting Techiyas Hameisim.
But then you try to kvetch that this Aristotelian way of thinking about techiyas hameisim then qualifies as a being powerful enough to allegorize a pasuk??
Again, showing that Rav Saadia accepted an Aristotelian way of accepting some propositions as reasonable doesn't imply whatsoever that it has a great rank in absolute terms akin to his example of a syllogism.
FKM | Homepage | 09.09.09 - 10:28 am | #
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
| >You are simply cutting and pasting this line out of context. Yes, Rav Saadia employs Aristotelian type arguments for accepting things as true IN GENERAL. But NOT for allegorizing pesukim!! His example for doing that shows you that it requires something much more powerful!< Again, there is no reason to think that that his example is anything more than an example. He does not say "and the only type of intellectual argumentation you can use for allegorical pesukim is X, Y, or Z" It would be absurd of him to say such a thing since R' Saadia was well aware that the human intellect progresses and develops new and improved methods to arrive at an understanding of reality. You are making diukim that are not warranted by R' Saadia's words in order to protect your own fundamentalism. >And that means you have to RANK each argument for its particular strength, right?
Presumably, yes. but reasonable minds can disagree on how to rank arguments. and even if you are right and R' Saadia's one example was meant to put a hard red line beyond which pesukim are not to be allegorized, this does nothing to us living in the scientific age. An age where epistemology is radically different than it was a 1000 years ago. (and if I may add, an age where we routinely matir issurei deOraitas for pikuach nefesh based on observations of reality that are purely based on the inductive scientific approach). Your arbitrary line in the sand is a bit disingenuous.
chardal | Homepage | 09.10.09 - 2:15 am | #
|
| and even if you are right and R' Saadia's one example was meant to put a hard red line beyond which pesukim are not to be allegorized, this does nothing to us living in the scientific age. An age where epistemology is radically different than it was a 1000 years ago.
Then do me a favor. If you think today's epistemology radically different enough to make the rishonim obsolete, don't bother quoting Rav Saadia as your Rav Hamachshir.
Just be upfront about it and say "Today, we know better and we need to allegorize things the rishonim never dreamed of."
Conjecture about what rishonim would have said if living today is not really worth anything--the non-Orthodox can say the exact same thing about us.
It will clarify to everyone where you really stand on Torah and Science.
FKM | Homepage | 09.10.09 - 3:14 am | # --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
| >Then do me a favor. If you think today's epistemology radically different enough to make the rishonim obsolete, don't bother quoting Rav Saadia as your Rav Hamachshir.< Oh, I see, so in your view, admission of the progress of human knowledge and thought makes earlier greats obsolete. So much for the dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants image. Are you truly that inflexible in your thought?
>Just be upfront about it and say "Today, we know better and we need to allegorize things the rishonim never dreamed of."< Today we know many things better and people have the right to allegorize things the rishonim never dreamed of - all based on the same methods those very rishonim used themselves when they allegorized things their predecessors never did.
>Conjecture about what rishonim would have said if living today is not really worth anything< It is called talmud Torah - learning the rishonim (or geonim in this case) and applying them to the current reality. >the non-Orthodox can say the exact same thing about us.< so what? how is that an argument about anything?
chardal | Homepage | 09.10.09 - 4:24 am | #
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| It is called talmud Torah - learning the rishonim (or geonim in this case) and applying them to the current reality.
I don't see you or Gil applying anyone with any real precision over here:
Rav Saadia used accepted Aristotelian arguments as proofs so we can accept modern science as proofs. That much I can agree with.
But then you say modern science has enough proof to force an allegorization of the Torah when Rav Saadia did no such thing with Aristotelian arguments.
If a non-orthodox rabbi pulled a move like that in a teshuvah to matir XYZ as a horo'as sha'ah or whatever, I don't think you would be so quick to approve.
And he would charge that in your rejection you are acting just like רבי זכרי'ה...
FKM | Homepage | 09.10.09 - 12:05 pm | # -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
| >But then you say modern science has enough proof to force an allegorization of the Torah when Rav Saadia did no such thing with Aristotelian arguments.< But he did! Syllogistic arguments are one of the foundations of Aristotelian logic. And even if they are not. They are certainly not a part of our messorah. There is not much if any formal logic in the gemara. R' Saadia was applying the standards of his time. We should do the same. If we move past RSG and onto the Rambam, then we can see clearly that he allegorized pesukim based on greek astronomy as well as neo-Aristotelian metaphysics. There are of course times when he rejects the Aristotelian dogma a but it is usually for conceptual reasons which go far beyond the want to preserve the literal level of scripture. chardal | Homepage | 09.11.09 - 6:52 am | #
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| They are certainly not a part of our messorah. There is not much if any formal logic in the gemara.
I can't think of examples off the top of my head, but I contest this assertion. If there is at least one example, then why couldn't you consider it part of the mesorah?
the Rambam, then we can see clearly that he allegorized pesukim based on greek astronomy as well as neo-aristotelean metaphysics.
Examples please.
And let me clarify:
1) Are you referring to allegorizing psukim in Chumash or only in Nevi'im or Kesuvim?
2) If in Chumash itself, is it really whole pesukim and total allegory? Or rather the metaphoric understanding of a phrase, like "lev hashomayim"?
FKM | Homepage | 09.12.09 - 8:17 pm | # -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| >I can't think of examples off the top of my head, but I contest this assertion. If there is at least one example, then why couldn't you consider it part of the mesorah?< Because the MO of the gemara is not formal logic - even if you were able to find an example of such argumentation (which would surprize me but would still not change the force of my point). See HaRav HaNazir's Kol HaNevua where he gives pretty comprehensive treatment to the differences between greek formal logic and the argumentations of the gemara. >1) Are you referring to allegorizing psukim in Chumash or only in Nevi'im or Kesuvim?
2) If in Chumash itself, is it really whole pesukim and total allegory? Or rather the metaphoric understanding of a phrase, like "lev hashomayim"?< 1) all of the above. 2) understanding whole passages as dream sequences would qualify (eg. Abraham and the angels, Bilaam, etc). I would add to this his asseration in MN 2:25 that if the platonic model of a world created from primordial matter were philosophically compelling, he would re-interpret bereishit to conform to such a model. There are of course many other examples from the wider Maimonidean school which is of course why the whole debate about philosophy raged in the first place. chardal | Homepage | 09.13.09 - 3:27 am | #
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
| I still don't think the Greeks can put a copyright on deductive or logical thinking-- even if they were the first ones recorded in history to formalize the technical rules.
understanding whole passages as dream sequences would qualify (eg. Abraham and the angels, Bilaam, etc).
This certainly does NOT qualify.
1) This is not allegory in any sense that the Rambam himself used the term. It all literally happened in the spiritual realm. He explicitly differentiates between Chumash and Navi regarding the use of real allegory.
Acc. to you, that distinction doesn't exist.
2) The Rambam's shitta about malachim's non-interaction with the physical world makes him very tightly consistent in his application to all your examples. You cannot extrapolate from these to a story that has no internal indication that it did not physically take place.
I would add to this his asseration in MN 2:25 that if the platonic model of a world created from primordial matter were philosophically compelling, he would re-interperet bereishit to conform to such a model.
Sorry, this is only a metaphoric reinterpretation of the meaning of specific words. He explicitly compared this to how he re-interprets anthropomorphisms.
All it would take to accomodate Plato is to understand Bereishis as referring to a beginning of the physical universe and not an absolute beginning of all existence.
This would not alter the literal meaning of the creation story itself and render it an allegory-- it would only constrict its literal description to one (enormously significant) plane of existence.
There are of course many other examples from the wider mimonedean school...
Not relevant to this discussion if we are talking about appealing to authoritative rishonim for a license to allegorize. I believe R' Gil was trying to do that and he would not take a license from someone like Ibn Caspi etc...
(If I'm mistaken and he would, then I wouldn't bother debating him on the subject.)
FKM | Homepage | 09.13.09 - 7:34 am | #
|
| Another response to this:
I would add to this his asseration in MN 2:25 that if the platonic model of a world created from primordial matter were philosophically compelling, he would re-interperet bereishit to conform to such a model.
This gets us back to where we left Rav Saadia Gaon. "philosophically compelling" is too vague a translation and open to the same abuse as above.
The Rambam used the term מופת and Kafach described it as הוכחה.
From the context it is absolutely clear that this term demands a high if not the highest level of proof in order to force such a re-interpretation.
FKM | Homepage | 09.13.09 - 7:46 am | # --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| That is entirely made up by you. Mifas and Hochacha just mean compelling. Highest level of force would be ones.
E-man | Homepage | 09.13.09 - 8:00 am | #
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| Huh?
If I want to say in Hebrew that something is proven without a shadow of doubt I say it's מוכרח.
I would never say that it's אנוס! (or some other form of the word)
FKM | Homepage | 09.13.09 - 9:13 am | # -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| FKM,
with all due respect, debating you is like trying to nail jello to a wall.
>This certainly does NOT qualify.
1) This is not allegory in any sense that the Rambam himself used the term. It all literally happened in the spiritual realm. < This is a major revisionism of the rambam's whole philosophy! what spiritual realm? Rambam knows of no such realm. And if understanding whole narratives as dream sequences is not allegorization then I do not know what is. >He explicitly differentiates between Chumash and Navi regarding the use of real allegory.<>Acc. to you, that distinction doesn't exist.<> >2) The Rambam's shitta about malachim's non-interaction with the physical world makes him very tightly consistent in his application to all your examples.< This is based on his philosophical understanding of metaphysics and the way the Divine influences the physical. The fact that it is internally consistent does not change the fact that he is allegorizing based on a-priori philosophical conclusions whose source is well outside of traditional thought for his time.
>You cannot extrapolate from these to a story that has no internal indication that it did not physically take place.< What "internal indication"? I am not even sure what you are saying in this sentence. The rambam does not allegorize based on internal indications in the text but based on philosophical understanding.
>From the context it is absolutely clear that this term demands a high if not the highest level of proof in order to force such a re-interpretation.< This is ridiculous. The context shows no such thing. Further, the "highest level of proof" is a dynamic standard itself. As we said above, philosophy has developed over the past 800 years and what was considered compelling in the past has been largely reconsidered. The Rambam was quite radical in his philosophy and had few qualms about shifting away from the traditional messorah when his intellect compelled him to do so. People who allegorize the mabul today are simply following in that tradition.
chardal | Homepage | 09.13.09 - 9:21 am | #
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| This is a major revisionism of the rambam's whole philosophy! what spiritual realm? Rambam knows of no such realm.
I obviously disagree. This issue needs more detailed treatment than a comment on a blog.
This is ridiculous. The context shows no such thing.
Of course it does!
The Rambam was quite radical in his philosophy and had few qualms about shifting away from the traditional messorah when his intellect compelled him to do so. People who allegorize the mabul today are simply following in that tradition.
This line of argument is just futile and self-defeating.
A non-Orthodox theologian could oh, so easily replace "allegorize the mabul" with "allegorize Ma'amad Har Sinai" and remain an authentically believing Jew in your view?
FKM | Homepage | 09.13.09 - 12:16 pm | # ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| >I obviously disagree. This issue needs more detailed treatment than a comment on a blog.< But you are plain wrong. Please point to one passage where the Rambam discusses a "spiritual realm." Just one. >This line of argument is just futile and self-defeating.
A non-Orthodox theologian could oh, so easily replace "allegorize the mabul" with "allegorize Ma'amad Har Sinai" and remain an authentically believing Jew in your view?< Do all your arguments boil down to fear of slippery slopes? if so, you may find that there is no dry ground anywhere. Since I am not the one who is making a business out of finding dogmas that define "authentically believing Jews" - this is not a question I wish to answer. It is simply not a topic I am interested in. I will say however, that if someone feels that it is intellectually compelling to reject the historicity of maamad har sinai, then I certainly hope that he would prefer allegorizing it and still conceiving of the Torah as Divine as opposed to throwing it all away. chardal | Homepage | 09.13.09 - 2:09 pm | #
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| Please point to one passage where the Rambam discusses a "spiritual realm." Just one.
The Rambam in Moreh Book I chapter 49 describes malachim as real live beings which are simply not physical.
This proves the existence of a spiritual dimension in which these malacim actually exist.
Below are the relevant excerpts from that perek to prove that malachim are real live existing beings.
גם המלאכים אינם בעלי גוף, אלא הם שכלים נבדלים מחומר 1, אבל הם פעולים וה' בראם [עב] כמו שיתבאר 2.
גם מחמת קושי זה 15 דברו ספרי הנביאים בלשונות שאפשר להבין מפשוטם גשמות המלאכים ותנועותיהם, ושהם צורת אדם, ושהם מצווים מאת ה' מפעילים פקודותיו ועושים את רצונו במצותו, כל זה כדי להדריך את המחשבה על מציאותם, 16 ושהם חיים שלמים כמו שבארנו במה שכלפי ה' 17. אלא שאילו השאירו את הדבר בהם כפי דמיון זה, כי אז הייתה נדמית אמיתתם ועצמותם לעצמות ה' בדמיון ההמון. כי גם כך נאמרו בה' לשונות שמראים פשטיהם שהוא גוף חי בעל תנועה כצורת אדם.
לפיכך הודרכה המחשבה לכך שמעלת מציאותם למטה ממעלת ה', במה שעירבו בתארם משהו מתוארי בעלי החיים שאינם מדברים, כדי שיהא המובן מכך כי מציאות הבורא יותר שלמה ממציאותם, כמו שהאדם יותר שלם מבעלי החיים שאינם מדברים.
ונבחרה תנועת התעופה, להורות 20 על היותם חיים, כיון שהיא היותר שלמה בתנועה המקומית 21 של בעלי החיים הבלתי מדברים והיותר נכבדה. והאדם חושב אותה שלמות גדולה, [עג] עד שהאדם מתאווה לעוף 22 כדי להקל עליו הבריחה מכל מה שמזיקו, וילך לקראת מה שמתאים לו במהירות, ואפילו היה רחוק. לפיכך יוחסה להם תנועה זו.
ועוד, מפני שהעוף נגלה ונעלם, ומתקרב ושוב מתרחק 23 בזמן מועט, וכל אלה מצבים שראוי שכך תהיה דעתנו על המלאכים כמו שיתבאר 24.
FKM | Homepage | 09.14.09 - 7:45 am | #
|
| Do all your arguments boil down to fear of slipery slopes?if so, you may find that there is no dry ground anywhere.
You misunderstand. The argument is not from a slippery slope. It it against a lack of rigor and rampant intellectual dishonesty.
Judaism is not a subjective realm of belief that has to conform to whatever one finds "convincing" or "compelling". It is a system which demands obedience to rigid rules of interpretation and precise models of precedent.
If you can liberalize your approach to belief in Judaism to whatever you personally find "intellectually compelling", then in principle, you are undermining the basic authority of Judaism as a self-justifying religious system.
I'm just pointing out the immediate logical consequences of that approach as an illustration of why it is wrong.
Since I am not the one who is making a business out of finding dogmas that define "authentically believing jews" - this is not a question I wish to answer. It is simply not a topic I am interested in.
That's funny. It seems the Rambam was VERY interested in this business. Why don't you follow the Rambam's approach and take interest in this area as well?
This is what I mean by intellectual dishonesty.
FKM | Homepage | 09.14.09 - 7:59 am | # |
Posts
