Last Doug post - promise

---

I'm sure my back and forth with Doug is boring many of you to tears, so let this be the last one.  In what follows, I'll show you exactly how mendacious and dishonest his arguments are, and leave it to you to decide what's behind it: Is he unintelligent? Or does he imagine this serial mistreatment of the sources is a pious act in that it displays loyalty to some mistaken idea of "tradition?" Be sure you reach the end so you can see how utter and shameful Doug's defeat was.

HOW IT STARTED:

A - I provided a list of sources which clearly state that its ok to reject, contradict and disregard midrashim.

Doug's Various Responses:
(1) Being a haredi "tone-freak" Doug naturally objects to my use of those verbs in that he imagines they're inherently disrespectful, but I've been using them correctly.
(2) He also claims that when the sources say "Midrash" or "Divrei Chazal" they don't actually mean that; rather they are describing something far narrower such as "things Chazal said about science that were wrong"
(3) While he conceded that Chai Gaon actually gives us permission to reject Midrashim, he denies that the others are. In fact he insists they aren't!
(4) Also, Doug claims that the Ramban was lying when when he said, during the Disputation at Barcelona, that Midrashim are the invention of Chazal, and that we can deny them if we wish.

THE MAIN OFFSHOOT OF THE CONVERSATION

B - In response to (4)  point out that the the Ramban actually denies Midrashim in several places in his commentary, and give several examples.

(5) Doug denies them all. He says Ramban never does this.Not once.

A BRIEF ASIDE

C -   In the midst of all his teeth gnashing and foot stomping he never gets around to doing something crucial. Let me explain: In several places the Ramban will quote Chazal (usually via Rashi) and after telling us  why that position is inadequate he presents his own opinion, an opinion not found in Chazal. In yesterday's post I gave an example, which I'll now summarize:

1. Rashi says X (quoting Chazal)
2. Ramban says "There are divrei aggadah and they don't clarify the matter"
3. Ramban then offers another interpretation, an interpretation found nowhere in the aggadah. 

Those of us who speak English as our first language can easily describe what happened. Ramban has dismissed as inadequate [=REJECTED] the opinion of Chazal and replaced it with one of his own. Doug, loudly and obnoxiously, insists that no "rejection" took place, but what other word would you use?  Chazal said "X" Ramban said nope that doesn't work because of the following reasons, and here's a better approach. What is that if not a rejection? Doug never tells us.

WHERE IT GETS HYSTERICAL

D-  For days, I've been the one doing the hard work of quoting actual sources, and making actual arguments while Doug has been taking it easy,  calling us names, and suggesting no one in the universe is as smart as he is. Finally I demanded that Doug provide some sources. Luckily he complied.

E - At first he gave several citations from books. When these books proved to be unavailable on Google I asked him to post a photograph of the relevant quotes. To date he has not done this,

F - Instead, he posted a link to a long, Hebrew essay. I asked him to cite a quote from the essay that supported him, and he refused. So I read the essay, and discovered some AWESOME things

G - The book citations he provided in (D) were not from books Doug has actually read. (That's why he couldn't provide photos) They are all sources for the Hebrew essay Doug gave me, and cited by the author in his footnotes.  Doug has never reviewed those sources  himself. HE just saw them in the footnote and passed them along to make himself seem learned.

G - Remember how Doug in (3) above insisted that no one aside from Chai Gaon "agrees" with me and how not a single source other than Chai Gaon suggests Midrashim are fallible, and that we are licensed to reject them? Remember that? Well here's Doug's source's view of the matter:

דעה זו, הממעטת במחויבות כלפי מדרשי חז"ל, מצויה בגאונים, ברמב"ם ואצל אחרים

Translation: This idea that the authority of miodrashim is limited can be found in the Geonim (plural) the Rambam and others!

H  - Remember how Doug said in (4) and (5) above how Ramban was defiately lying in Barcelona and how he never ever disregards Midrashim in his commentary? Well here's his source's view of the matter:

אלו שהם מחודשים על ידי חז"ל ולא נכנסים לקטגוריה ב' שהזכרנו ("משל"). האגדות הללו נשארות בגדר "חידה", ואותן מוכן הרמב"ן לדחות. על מדרשים כעין אלה דיבר הרמב"ן בוויכוח בברצלונה, 

Translation: Category 4:  These are novella created by the Sages which are not to be included in the category previously mentioned ( "ie Moshal ") These midrashim are "chida" [riddle or mystery] and those types of midrahsim the Ramban was willing to reject. These are the types of midrashim Ramban had in mind in Barcelona [ie he was not lying] and these are the types of midrashim he rejects in his commentary

I   - Remember how Doug got so bent out of shape (1) over my use of the word reject? Well here's his source!

אותן מוכן הרמב"ן לדחות

Translation: Those types of Midrashim the Ramban was prepared to REJECT

So, that about sums it up. 

Now unlike Doug, I'll be fair. In this essay, some scholars who think Ramban lied are cited, but what Doug either can't see or won't admit is that the author of this essay, the essay he presented as a source for his own side of the argument,  agrees with me about the following crucial points (1) Lots of Rabbis thought it was ok to reject midrashim (G) (2) The Raamban agreed with them - at least when it came to some midrahsim (H)

A REPEAT OF SOMETHING IMPORTANT

Please take note of this!

C -  However, in the midst of all his teeth gnashing and foot stomping he never gets around to doing something crucial. Let me explain: In several places the Ramban will quote Chazal (usually via Rashi) and after telling us  why that position is inadequate he presents his own opinion, an opinion not found in Chazal. In yesterday's post I gave an example, which I'll now summarize:

1. Rashi says X (quoting Chazal)
2. Ramban says "There are divrei aggadah and they don't clarify the matter"
3. Ramban then offers another interpretation, an interpretation found nowhere in the aggadah. 

Those of us who speak English as our first language can easily describe what happened. Ramban has dismissed as inadequate [=REJECTED] the opinion of Chazal and replaced it with one of his own. Doug, loudly and obnoxiously, insists that no "rejection" took place, but what other word would you use?  Chazal said "X" Ramban said nope that doesn't work because of the following reasons, and here's a better approach. What is that if not a rejection? Doug never tells us.

   Search for more information about ### at4torah.com