literalism - Did manna really fall from heaven according to Rambam or Gersonides?

What does the Rambam or Gersonides, who were both rationalists, have to say on the miracle of manna falling from heaven? Did they believe such an event took place?

Answer

Both Maimonides and Gersonides believed that manna fell from heaven.

Maimonides discusses the verse which describes the manna as raining down from the doors of heaven and asserts that the "doors of heaven" part is figurative, implying that the "raining down" part is literal:

Guide for the Perplexed 2:47

The same is the case with the following passage--"He opened the doors of heaven, he rained upon them manna to eat" (Ps. lxxviii. 23, 24). No person assumes that there is a door or gate in heaven, but every one understands that this is a simile and a figurative expression. (Friedlander translation)

Elsewhere he states that this was the greatest of the miracles God performed in the wilderness because it was not a one-time temporary miracle, but an ongoing miracle for forty years.

Guide for the Perplexed 3:50

Now the greatest of the miracles described in the Law is the stay of the Israelites in the wilderness for forty years, with a daily supply of manna. This wilderness, as described in Scripture, consisted of places "wherein were fiery serpents and scorpions, and drought, where there was no water" (Deut. viii. 115); places very remote from cultivated land, and naturally not adapted for the habitation of man, "It is no place of seed, or of figs, or of vines, or of pomegranates, neither is there any water to drink" (Num. xx. 5); "A land that no man passed through, and where no man dwelt" (Jer. ii. 6). [In reference to the stay of the Israelites in the wilderness], Scripture relates, "Ye have not eaten bread, neither have ye drunk wine or strong drink" (Deut. xix. 5). All these miracles were wonderful, public, and witnessed by the people. But God knew that in future people might doubt the correctness of the account of these miracles. in the same manner as they doubt the accuracy of other narratives; they might think that the Israelites stayed in the wilderness in a place not far from inhabited land, where it was possible for man to live [in the ordinary way]; that it was like those deserts in which Arabs live at present; or that they dwelt in such places in which they could plow, sow, and reap, or live on some vegetable that was growing there; or that manna came always down in those places as an ordinary natural product; or that there were wells of water in those places. In order to remove all these doubts and to firmly establish the accuracy of the account of these miracles, Scripture enumerates all the stations, so that coming generations may see them, and learn the greatness of the miracle which enabled human beings to live in those places forty years. (Friedlander translation)

Gersonides actually has a lengthy discussion about whether the miracle of the manna was actually possible (in accordance with his view of miracles, which I briefly discussed here) but ultimately concludes that it was possible (and did occur):

Commentary to Exodus 16:4

ראוי שתדע שזה המופת היה נפלא מאד כי לא יתכן שיתהוה על דרך הטבע דבר מזה בעת מהעתים כי לא יתהוה מאלו האידים העולים באויר דבר יתכן שיהיה מזון וזה מבואר במעט עיון למי שעיין בטבעיות והנה על כל פנים יתכן שיהיה מעירוב היסודות והמזגם מה שיהיה טבעו כטבע זה המן אשר ירד להם מן השמים שאם לא היה הענין כן יהיה מציאות המן דבר נמנע מצד עצמותו ומה שזה דרכו לא יתחדש על דרך מופת כמו שזכרנו במה שקדם והנה היה התהוות המן בזולת סיבותיו באופן התהוות מהמטה נחש רוצה לומר שאין מציאות המן דבר נמנע מצד עצמותו כמו שאין מציאות הנחש נמנע מצד עצמותו ואמנם היה נמנע מדרך הטבע שיהיה המן מאלו האידים או מהאויר ושיהיה נחש מהמטה

Like Maimonides, he also points out elsewhere the especially miraculous aspect of the miracle occurring for forty years, noting that this is one of the ways in which Moses is different from other prophets:

Commentary to Deuteronomy 34:10-11

והשלישי הוא שלא התמידו אותותיהם ומופתיהם לעיני כל ישראל כמו העניין במשה שהתמיד ירידת המן מ' שנה ועניין עמוד הענן ועמוד האש ודבור השם יתעלה עמו שהיה תמיד בעמוד ענן לעיני כל ישראל

The supremacy of the miracle of the manna was actually pointed out even earlier by R. Saadia Gaon:

Emunot V'Deiot 1:6

Personally, however, I consider the case of the miracle of the manna as the most amazing of all miracles, because a phenomenon of an enduring nature excites greater wonderment than one of a passing character.

(Rosenblatt translation p. 29)

halacha - Does a mourner tear one garment, or every garment he wears for a period of time?

I belong to a liberal community and what I have seen, when somebody is in mourning for a parent, is that they wear a "kriah ribbon" instead of tearing an actual garment, and they wear it at least through the period of shiva (I can't remember if they wear it through sh'loshim). I am fortunate to not yet have direct experience in this area, nor have I learned the relevant laws, but a recent question here about that "ribbon" practice made me wonder what the traditional practice really is. (I am aware of the problems with the ribbon practice, which is why I want to know what's correct.)

I know that upon learning of the death one tears his shirt. Does the mourner do it that one time -- the commandment is to tear -- or does he wear a torn garment for some period of time to show that he is in mourning? If the latter, how long? Does he keep wearing the same shirt, or if he changes clothes (as we are more wont to do in modern times) does he tear the other ones too?

Answer

Shulchan Arukh YD 340:14

על כל המתים אם בא להחליף תוך ז' ימים מחליף ואינו קורע על אביו ואמו אם מחליף תוך ז' קורע כל הבגדים שהוא מחליף ואינו מאחה לעולם כמו בפעם הראשון.‏
Upon any [ordinary] death, if [the mourner] comes to change [his clothes] during Shiva, he may switch and not tear [again], [but] on one's father and mother, if he switches [clothes] during Shiva he tears [again] all the clothes that he changes [into] and doesn't fix [the tear] forever, just like the first time.

This is also the practice cited in Arukh haShulchan (ibid. 14) and in The Jewish Way in Death and Mourning. I often see mourners (not just children) wearing the same shirt for the whole week of Shiva.

parshanut torah comment - Sarah is Abraham's sister?

Genesis 20:12 has Abraham honestly saying that Sarah is indeed his sister when he is talking with Abimelek.

Besides, she really is my sister, the daughter of my father though not of my mother; and she became my wife.

How is this compatible with Genesis 11:31 which describes Sarah as being merely Terach's daughter -in-law, rather than as his daughter (a more immediate relationship, and therefore presumably more worthy of mention)?

Terah took his son Abram, his grandson Lot son of Haran, and his daughter-in-law Sarai, the wife of his son Abram, and together they set out from Ur of the Chaldeans to go to Canaan. But when they came to Harran, they settled there.

where in talmud or halacha can one find about the separation of calling jews ashkenazi or sephardi?

where can one find the talmud text or halachah text or something similar that identifies or divides Jews as either Ashkenazim or Sephardim or Teymanim? (Also, is it two only, the first two only, because the last one, Yemenites or Teymanim, is sometimes left out)?

halacha - Is it permissible for a woman to learn Pirkei Avot & Shulchan Aruch?

Is there anything prohibiting/restricting a woman from reading Pirkei Avot or the Shulchan Aruch?

chanuka - How to measure Menorah height

A menorah should preferably be within 10 tefachim from the ground (though higher than 3 tefachim). Are these ten tefachim measured to the base of the menorah, or to its top, or to the actual level of the flame (e.g., if glass inserts are used)?

pragmatics - Situational acceptability of politeness and/or honorific use

Consider:

• 
  

  I am expected to use polite forms when speaking to someone socially above me. Let's take for example, a teacher.

  
  

  If our relationship improves, and it becomes permissible for me to speak casually to the teacher, then if I speak to that teacher in the presence of another party. How should I behave?

  
  

(Question) Is the politeness determined by accountability to the person I'm addressing, or is it accountable to external societal pressures?

Answer

Basing on my experience it depends more by the context rather than the two interlocutors and their relationship. I am going to tell you my experiences, and what my teachers told me.

At work

When I was at work I was the (saying it not badly) the very last one in the hierarchy I would say. I worked in one of the 4 biggest research facilities of one of the biggest Communication and Technology companies in Japan. There I always addressed people in my group (superiors and sempai, but not necessary older) using polite style (ます-form actually). They all used the ます-form.

Once I befriended another guy who was younger than me (another university student). Like me he was having a traineeship over there. At the beginning we started with ます, but then we became friends (more) and I was allowed to talk with him using first names and plain style. But when we were together with our team leader or supervisors, we used ます-form with each other. The same goes for welcome parties and so on. At work, when we were alone, we used plain style.

My superiors always used ます-form with me. But when we went together drinking and partying (something very important in work contexts in Japanese society), they were sometimes quite straightforward with me, sometimes they used plain style, but after the mood got really up and easy. Back to work, of course back to ます-form.

At work, sport activities and recreational activities

When I was together with my team colleagues (I was the youngest), we went together for some trips and nice activities. We used plain style there. Back during work, especially during meetings, we were all using ます-form. When we went for some activity which involved our superiors, we addressed each other using family names and ます-form. However some superiors were really nice people and allowed us to be free to use plain style. They say that these people are 喋{しゃべ}りやすい or 話{はな}しやすい => Easy to talk with.

During that time I also used to practice sports. During those activities it was me and many other people from my company and other companies nearby. All together, while playing, we were really plain! No ます-form at all. So easy and nice. Just straight to first names. Maybe at the beginning it was a little hard, but after two times together they get used to you. Consider also that using plain style is quite easy when there are 外人 (gaijin: foreigners). Japanese people are encouraged to use plain style.

Teachers

I addressed my teachers always by their family names. Knew their given names only in the very last days of school ahah. Always using ます-form. I only used plain form when practicing it! The teacher actually started saying: "ok, now I am your friend... let's talk...".

Conclusions

From my experience, conversation styles are driven by context, not just the two interlocutors. You can be friend with someone and talk plain with him, but if the contexts enlarges and embraces people higher in the hierarchy (especially at work), then, no matter your relationship with that person, you must change the language level and adapt it accordingly.

Just one more last thing...

When it comes to politeness using 敬{けい}語{ご} and 尊{そん}敬{けい}語{ご} (honorific languages), this is quite obvious to see for those who live in Japan. I mean, consider コンビニ (Convenience stores). In those places, personnel are compelled to use honorific language when speaking to guests (お客{きゃく}様{さま}). Many times I was paying and the desk and it happened that the man in front of me said something to his colleague. They were the same age and none was a supervisor or something... just normal コンビニ people probably working there as a part time. Often when talking to each other in front of me (one giving some advice or similar) they used ます-form and sometimes the honorific language. Rarely I heard them talk plain in fornt if me...

Hope I could be helpful...