Avodah Mailing List
Volume 03 : Number 129
Saturday, July 17 1999
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 14:45:06 -0400
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject: Mabbul and Chazal
From: esteemed listowner
Micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger) :
Rich Wolpoe asks:
: Question: is Mesorah re: history/machshovo less subject to revision than wrt
: Minhag?
No. In a parallel case where all of mesorah indicates the halachah should
be X in situation Y, we'd also be unable to overthrow the halachah. However,
the cases in the past were where either 1- we had multiple traditions as to
the halachah; or 2- we were able to show the situation wasn't really Y.<<
Question: Can we now suspend with the minhog of nine days and revert to the
other tradition of the mechaber's shito to use shavuo shechol bo, ? After all
Yesrushalyim is partially restored, Jews are (more or less) at peace, etc.
etc.
Rich Wolpoe
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 13:16:32 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject: Megaleh Ponim ba'Torah
The truth is that anyone with a Bar Ilan or DBS CD-Rom (I have neither,
but Skokie Yeshiva has both) can find many marei mekomos on Megaleh Ponim
ba'Torah and Doresh Agados shel Dofi. I have not exhausted the search yet,
because so many sources come up, but if you look in the Moreh 3:50 and the
Ramban in Toras Hashem Temima, you will see that they were quite adamant
in taking the episodes in Bereishis as fact, not allegory. There are many
other sources, Rishonim and Acharonim, that come up, and perhaps we might
pursue others in due course.
However, ein chadash tachas ha'shemesh. The Rashba's famous ban on
Chochmos Chitzoniyos was promulgated, to a significant extent, because
those involved in such studies were allegorizing portions of the Torah -
such as Lot's wife, Amalek, etc. The Rashba and the other Gedolei Torah
who signed on the ban were quick to identify this as Doresh Agados shel
Dofi/Megaleh Ponim ba'Torah. This is all explicit, at great length, in
Shu"t ha'Rashba 1:517 or so and on. Even when the head of the group that
was subject of the ban wrote an Apology, he took pains to claim that he
and his followers had not engaged in this practice of allegorization
(ibid., 519).
In sum, we could go on in this vein, but I do not believe it is necessary.
There is no honor in defending views rejected implicitly in severe terms
in Shas and explicilty in equally severe terms by Rishonim. As I have
noted, before REC requested sources, sevara would have sufficed to reject
allegorization, but now that we have the kra, al achas kamma v'kamma.
I guess if I would have written a L to the E on this to Tradition I would
have simply cited the words of the bibliographic work "Or Ha'Chaim"
(found courtesy of the DBS program) on a book written by a Potugese
scholar, long ago, that also took the tack of allegorization, where he
said that it is proper to tear keri'ah upon reading such works. Words too
strong for our generation, but reflecting how bygone generations would
have reacted.
YGB
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 14:26:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eli Turkel <turkel@icase.edu>
Subject: outside activities
>
> I was going to again argue whether or not chess can be seen as value positive
> or even value free, but I realize that's tangential. It seems we all agree that
> intellectual stimulation is value positive, as long as the means of stimulation
> isn't so bad as to outweight that value.
>
We should just be careful that "we all agree" means most of the people on
this list. It aint necessarily so out there.
I remember seeing a teshuva whether one is allowed to play chess on shabbat.
The author (sorry - don't remember whom) concludes that since chess is
"bitul zman" it is always prohibited.
Eli Turkel
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 14:22:43 -0400
From: Sholem Berger <bergez01@med.nyu.edu>
Subject: Megale panim betorah shelo kehalachah
>[...] The allegorization of Torah is
>called: "Megaleh Ponim ba'Torah shelo k'halacha" ...
>I have refrained from now from quoting this halacha, because of the
>explosive penalty attached there to its transgression. I tried, until now,
>to make clear that this allegorization is simply ludicrous and dangerous,
>and falls, at a minimum, under the geder of "cheit she'chatanu lefanecha
>b'tipshus peh" and, furthermore, tat publication of essays to this effect
>is corrosive and counter to Chizuk Emuna. And, as a self-styled Lamdan, I
>am aware that we can say dakus'dike chilukim between a classic Megaleh
>Ponim and Nidon Didan. But they are far too fine: I.e., they may get
>individuals off on technicalities, but they do not repudiate the
>undeniable rejection, by Chazal, of allegorization.
How do you know that the panim one is megale is not kehalachah, especially given the already extensive discussion on this list about the non-halchic nature of midrash and mayse breyshis? What distinguishes allowable from non-allowable allegory? How does allegorization "corrode," how is it counter to khizuk emuno, if it enables a greater understanding of the text corresponding to our notions of God (cf. David Glasner's posting)? Could you please cite the "undeniable rejection, by Chazal, of allegorization"?
Sholem Berger
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 14:36:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eli Turkel <turkel@icase.edu>
Subject: [none]
>
> Also, while in this seif in SA, what does the mechaber mean by sipurei
> milchamot, i.e., are history books implied?
>
Rambam was not in favor of history - felt it was a waste of time.
Rabbi Spero has an article in Tradition several years ago on this topic.
>
> And likewise in Tfilas Rosh Hashonoh Zichronos the Mabul is mentioned.
>
The davening certain mention "hayom haras olam" that the world was
created in Tishre (though we seem to pasken that it was in Nissan).
No one claims that Chazal allegorized or re-interpreted or did anything
but a literal translation. That did not prevent Rambam and others
from disagreeing. At least some on this list are willing to allow
re-intrepretaions of the creation in the vein of Schroeder and also
medrashim that previous worlds existed.
On a slightly different issue - Rambam seems to assume that G-d interferes
only for special indiduals and everyone else is ruled by nature.
Does that go against the thought that we are judged for our deeds on
Rosh Hashana and are next years life determined. This is most eloquently
seen in in UNesaneh Tokef followed by BeRosh hasahana.
I assume these were not in the Rambam's machzor.
Eli Turkel
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 16:27:32 -0400
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject: Allegory
>>
As someone wisely wrote me off list, a person can be wrong short of being
an apikores. Nevertheless, the source is explicit in the Mishna in Avos
3:11 and Sanhedrin 99 and elsewhere. The allegorization of Torah is
called: "Megaleh Ponim ba'Torah shelo k'halacha" The example there in the
Bartenura is highly illustrative: One who teaches: "Me'zaracha lo titen
la'Molech" as an allegory.
I have refrained from now from quoting this halacha, because of the
explosive penalty attached there to its transgression. I tried, until now,
to make clear that this allegorization is simply ludicrous and dangerous,
and falls, at a minimum, under the geder of "cheit she'chatanu lefanecha
b'tipshus peh" and, furthermore, tat publication of essays to this effect
is corrosive and counter to Chizuk Emuna. And, as a self-styled Lamdan, I
am aware that we can say dakus'dike chilukim between a classic Megaleh
Ponim and Nidon Didan. But they are far too fine: I.e., they may get
individuals off on technicalities, but they do not repudiate the
undeniable rejection, by Chazal, of allegorization.
YGB
<<
And should one take EVERYthing in the Torah literally? Sounds like the karoim
had the right idea, n'est-ce pas?
I am reminded of my rebbe's admonition to us: "the problem with you talmidim is
that when you say Ahsrei Yoshvei Veisecho you sit!"
Rich Wolpoe
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 1956 21:22:06 +0000
From: David Riceman <driceman@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
Subject: Re: Maharal and Tycho Brahe
Saul Stokar asked:
[1] Is there evidence that any post-medieval "gadol" was personally
acquainted with any contemporary scientific luminary?
[2] Is there evidence that any post-medieval "gadol" was personally
acquainted with contemporary scientific thought (i.e. the groundbreaking
thought of his day, not the textbook stuff) ?
R. Yosef Shlomo Del Medigo studied with Galileo (is that
post-medieval?). See Kol haNevua p. 264 (especially footnotes 366 and
367).
David Riceman
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 17:14:40 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject: Re: Megale panim betorah shelo kehalachah
On Thu, 15 Jul 1999, Sholem Berger wrote:
> How do you know that the panim one is megale is not kehalachah,
> especially given the already extensive discussion on this list about the
> non-halchic nature of midrash and mayse breyshis? What distinguishes
> allowable from non-allowable allegory? How does allegorization
> "corrode," how is it counter to khizuk emuno, if it enables a greater
> understanding of the text corresponding to our notions of God (cf. David
> Glasner's posting)? Could you please cite the "undeniable rejection, by
> Chazal, of allegorization"?
I believe my post today, expanding on ths issue, clarified many of the
questions you raised.
YGB
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 17:17:07 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject: Haras Olam
On Thu, 15 Jul 1999, Eli Turkel wrote:
> The davening certain mention "hayom haras olam" that the world was
> created in Tishre (though we seem to pasken that it was in Nissan).
>
Haras means conception, not birth. We assume the world was created in
Nissan (Birkas HaChama) but "alah b'machashovo li'vro es ha'Olam b'din" -
the conception - in Tishrei.
YGB
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 18:28:09 -0400
From: David Glasner <DGLASNER@FTC.GOV>
Subject: Re: Normative Mesorah and Allegory
Rabbi Bechhoffer wrote:
<<<
As someone wisely wrote me off list, a person can be wrong short of being
an apikores. Nevertheless, the source is explicit in the Mishna in Avos
3:11 and Sanhedrin 99 and elsewhere. The allegorization of Torah is
called: "Megaleh Ponim ba'Torah shelo k'halacha" The example there in the
Bartenura is highly illustrative: One who teaches: "Me'zaracha lo titen
la'Molech" as an allegory.
I have refrained from now from quoting this halacha, because of the
explosive penalty attached there to its transgression. I tried, until now,
to make clear that this allegorization is simply ludicrous and dangerous,
and falls, at a minimum, under the geder of "cheit she'chatanu lefanecha
b'tipshus peh" and, furthermore, tat publication of essays to this effect
is corrosive and counter to Chizuk Emuna. And, as a self-styled Lamdan, I
am aware that we can say dakus'dike chilukim between a classic Megaleh
Ponim and Nidon Didan. But they are far too fine: I.e., they may get
individuals off on technicalities, but they do not repudiate the
undeniable rejection, by Chazal, of allegorization.
>>>
Whoa. I think the rhetoric is starting to get a bit overheated. To invoke a currently fashionable cliche, let's all take a deep breath. A megaleh panim ba-Torah she-lo k'halakha forfeits his portion in the world to come. While you warn against making any fine academic distinctions, don't you think that intent is critical here? The example of the Bartenura, it seems to me, works against you here. In his example the purpose of the misinterpretation is to promote the most unspeakable form of idol worship. Unless there are sodos to which you are privy (holding back on us again?), I think that you are perforce obligated to be dan the allegorizers l'kaf z'khut and to grant that on the contrary, they, however misguided, are m'khavein l'shem shamayim, u'lhagdil Torah u'l'ha'adirah. There is all the difference in the world between to'eh b'dvar halakha (or agadah) and m'galeh panim ba-Torah she-lo k'halakha. From the perspective of the fate of one's immortal soul, that is hardl!
!
!
y an academic distinction. And since there is no halakhic consequence to the allegorization, I don't see how your comparison even gets off the ground.
<<<
> [you] don't like allegorical explanations because you find them in some way
> threatening to a complete faith in the divinity of the Torah and because
> you are unable to draw a line between safe allegories and unsafe ones.
> Slippery-slope arguments are not nonsensical, and I occasionally agree
> with them, but they are not necessarily compelling. I think the
No, I also do not find them necessarily compelling. Making Noach an
allegory is so far down the slope already that you need a lot more than a
ski lift to get back to ground zero. Was there a Noach? Was he comparable
to Avrohom Avinu or were Chazal wasting there time? was he just playing
with a toy teiva in his bathtub with plastic figures of animals?
>>>
These are perfectly good questions, though perhaps a tad hostile (but then I have my own hot bottons). I have no idea how the allegorizers would answer them, and I would certainly not presume to speak on their behalf. But before condemning them out of hand, why not wait for their answers?
<<<
> Excuse me, but the Rambam in Mamrim 2:1 does not at all accept your
> notion of Hazal as keepers of the Mesorah. Else, how could he have
> codified l'halakha that the Sanhedrin could change a halakha previously
> pronounced by an earlier Sanhedrin based on an alternative
> interpretation of the relevant Biblical text? The Mesorah is not
These are not halachos l'Moshe the Rambam is dealing with, else they
indeed would not be subject to dispute. Theses are halachos derived by
middos she'bahem ha'Torah nidreshes; the middos themselves are the
Mesorah, not the application.
>>>
Well, just as an aside, I would remind you that the Rambam's assertion that there was never a dispute about halakhot l'Moshe mi-Sinai is, to understate matters greatly, highly problematic. But we needn't get bogged down on that issue while we are in the thick of this one. I agree that the Midot are part (no, the core) of the Mesorah, but there are no specific midot for parshanut, and if Hazal were given license to offer allegorical interpretations where they thought appropriate, who is to say that we may not, in all humility, also offer allegorical interpretations to address difficulties that we find in the Biblical text or narrative? Again, if in theory we could offer alternative drashot to those of Hazal, (to reiterate, that is the halakhah p'sukah in Mamrim 2:1 - - it is only the temporary adjournment of the Sanhedrin that, for the time being, is preventing that halakhah from being put back into practice), why may we not offer new textual interpretations devoid of halakh!
!
!
ic consequences? Nothing and no one obligates you to accept such interpretations. Meanwhile, you can sit back and wait for the inevitable vindication of science or Elijah, whichever comes first.
David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov
!
!
!
!
!
!
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 19:09:06 EDT
From: C1A1Brown@aol.com
Subject: Re: comments of C1A1brown@aol on being literal
<< The Drashot Haran says there are deeper levels to maasei beraishis! as my
students say "Duh"!.
The Ran never suggested that we abandon the P'shuto shel Mikrah as to the
Genesis accounts- merely that we don't deal with them only at that level.
the Ran would never agree with your position, >>
Please reread what I wrote because your distortion bothers me. I responded to
the person who wrote, quote - "that there is no reason to take any event in
the
Torah dealing with creation, floods etc. out of it's Plain Meaning" - that
this is incorrect. Any attempt to reconcile what we see as a discrepency
between science, logic, reason, etc. or even discrepencies within the text,
involves constructing a meaning (Stanley Fish, in "Is There a Text in This
Class", puts it best - meaning is constructed, not construed) that is not at
all implicit in the text. I assume that by 'plain meaning' the writer meant
that which is implicit to the reader (if indeed, such a thing exists) without
a need for further interpretation, e.g. if in Braishis 1:1 it says G-d
created Shamayim v'Aretz, it means they were created at that moment. After
all, isn;t that the plain meaning? We all know that reading such leaves us
with the difficulty of the rest of the parsha. So the 'plain meaning' here
is false. I see no difference between license to reinterpret the text
because of internal difficulties and license to interpret the text to resolve
logical, scientific, or other difficulties. I haven't denied pshuto shel
mikra. I haven't calimed the Ran denies pshuto shel Mikra. (And lest I be
accused of anything else, I haven't defended or attacked allegory).
A fundementalist Christian or a true literalist might argue that the act of
interpretation is a corruption of the authentic word of G-d, and if we fail
to understand, or are challenged by logical or textual inconsistancy, it is
our deficient reasoning that prevents our understanding, such as our
inability to fathom the problem of evil or free will and G-d's foreknowledge.
In fact, interpretation might be a lack of faith in the True Word of G-d as
perfect in the way it was revealed - is the Bible a puzzle that needs
solving? I carry through the line of reasoning only to illustrate that it is
a position that can be defended coherently and requires more than a duh as a
response.
-CB
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 18:30:23 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject: Re: Normative Mesorah and Allegory
On Thu, 15 Jul 1999, David Glasner wrote:
> Whoa. I think the rhetoric is starting to get a bit overheated. To
> invoke a currently fashionable cliche, let's all take a deep breath. A
> megaleh panim ba-Torah she-lo k'halakha forfeits his portion in the
> world to come. While you warn against making any fine academic
> distinctions, don't you think that intent is critical here? The example
I told you so.
I was really not interested in quoting the source, but was challenged to
provide sources.
I am not c"v interested in depriving anyone of their chelek in Olam ha'Ba,
and am perfectly willing to let anyone off on a technical chiluk. The
geist, however, of the relevant passages is clear beyond all doubt. This
is not rhetoric - but a simple perusal of sources.
> These are perfectly good questions, though perhaps a tad hostile (but
> then I have my own hot bottons). I have no idea how the allegorizers
> would answer them, and I would certainly not presume to speak on their
> behalf. But before condemning them out of hand, why not wait for their
> answers?
>
I came not to condemn *them* - as above - but their *approach* (Chata'im
v'lo chot'im :-) ). I would, indeed, be interested in what they do with
Noach...
YGB
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 18:36:33 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject: Typo in Shut haRashba Citation
It is 1:414-419, not 514. The teshuvos are quoted extensively in the
Encyclopedia Talmudis entry on Chochma Chitzonis (vol. 15.) although not
the specific nekuda we are discussing.
YGB
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 23:52:16 EDT
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject: Re: science & mesorah
In a message dated 7/14/99 1:57:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time, turkel@icase.edu
writes:
> Another, major problem is Joshua making the sun stand still. Taken
> literally with modern science that would require stopping the earth from
> rotating which would cause untold havoc on the world. On the other hand
> there is no historical records of other nations seeing such a
> phenomenon. The easiest way out is to explain that the sun looked like
> it stood still due to some reflections but not to take the verse literally.
>
Please see the RaLBaG on this (Yehoshua 10:12), who has questions on this
from Torah, (in a previous post i referred to the Radak in error, I meant the
RaLBaG).
Kol Tuv
Yitzchok Zirkind
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 00:52:53 EDT
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject: Re:
In a message dated 7/15/99 2:36:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, turkel@icase.edu
writes:
> >
> > And likewise in Tfilas Rosh Hashonoh Zichronos the Mabul is mentioned.
> >
>
> The davening certain mention "hayom haras olam" that the world was
> created in Tishre (though we seem to pasken that it was in Nissan).
>
See Tosfos Rosh Hashonoh 27a D"H K'maan
Kol Tuv
Yitzchok Zirkind
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 00:33:29 EDT
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject: Re: science & mesorah
In a message dated 7/15/99 12:17:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
micha@aishdas.org writes:
> : Another, major problem is Joshua making the sun stand still. Taken
> : literally with modern science that would require stopping the earth from
> : rotating which would cause untold havoc on the world.
>
> why can't Hashem prevent
> the other consequences of the event? Or perhaps create time that was
> experienced by the warring parties but by no one or nothing else
See Rashi Breishis 48:19, D"H V'zaroi Yihiyeh Mloi Hagoyim.
Kol Tuv
Yitzchok Zirkind
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 00:49:43 EDT
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject: Re: outside activities
In a message dated 7/15/99 2:26:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time, turkel@icase.edu
writes:
> I remember seeing a teshuva whether one is allowed to play chess on shabbat.
> The author (sorry - don't remember whom) concludes that since chess is
> "bitul zman" it is always prohibited.
>
Licho'roh it's a clear Halacha in 338:5, (unless one want's to be Docheik
that we are referring to women and children only), however see Shmiras
Shabbos Khilchosoh Vol. 1 16:24 footnote 87 who brings the Minchas Yitzchok
III # 33, who brings from the Reishis Chochma, that even in the week not to
play.
Kol Tuv
Yitzchok Zirkind
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:58:00 -0400
From: "Clark, Eli" <clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM>
Subject: Allegorization of Halom Yaakov
Further to our conversation regarding allegorization of mikra:
The current issue of Le'Ela (an Orthodox journal from England) contains
an article written by a frum person who "suggests" that halom Yaakov
never happened. The article calls it "a dream within a dream." In
other words, the entire episode at Bet El/Luz never happened.
Anyone else on the list think this is an example of slipping down the
slope?
She-nir'eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu,
Eli Clark
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 10:03:00 -0400
From: "Clark, Eli" <clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM>
Subject: Hallel on Yom Ha-Atzma'ut
To pick up on an old thread:
Maharatz Chajes in Darkei Moshe (near end of vol. 1 of kol kitvei m. h.)
discusses the recitation of Hallel on Hanukkah. He explains that hallel
is only said with respect to a miracle that occurs she-lo be-derekh
ha-teva. Therefore, the Gemara in Shabbat, in explaining "Mai
Hanukkah?" focuses on the supernatural miracle, rather than the military
victory which, however miraculous, occurred be-derekh ha-teva.
She-nir'eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu,
Eli Clark
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 10:36:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Hallel on Yom Ha-Atzma'ut
--- "Clark, Eli" <clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM> wrote:
> To pick up on an old thread:
>
> Maharatz Chajes in Darkei Moshe (near end of vol. 1 of kol kitvei
> m. h.)
> discusses the recitation of Hallel on Hanukkah. He explains that
> hallel
> is only said with respect to a miracle that occurs she-lo be-derekh
> ha-teva. Therefore, the Gemara in Shabbat, in explaining "Mai
> Hanukkah?" focuses on the supernatural miracle, rather than the
> military
> victory which, however miraculous, occurred be-derekh ha-teva.
The problem with this line of reasoning is that the gemara asks why
we don't read Hallel on Purim (which is a "natural" miracle) and does
not answer the Maharatz Chajes' answer. In fact, one answer is
"kriyata zo hee hiloola"--that we really do say Hallel by reading the
Megillah.
Rav Ovadia Yosef deals with this issue in the tshuvah I quoted last
time and suggests that Purim was really a supernatural miracle.
However, I find difficulty with this position, as I pointed out in my
prior post.
Kol tuv,
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 10:35:32 EDT
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject: Re: Allegorization of Halom Yaakov
In a message dated 7/16/99 8:57:51 AM EST, clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM writes:
> The current issue of Le'Ela (an Orthodox journal from England) contains
> an article written by a frum person who "suggests" that halom Yaakov
> never happened. The article calls it "a dream within a dream." In
> other words, the entire episode at Bet El/Luz never happened.
>
> Anyone else on the list think this is an example of slipping down the
> slope?
>
I didn't see the article, so it's not possible to judge, however in addition
to slippery slopes, the idea is Mufrach from the text, nowhere does it say in
the text that he dreamed that he was in Bet E-l/Luz, and see Rambam Yesodei
Hatorah 7:3.
WRT allegorizing the Mabul, I would like to point out the Rambam in Hil. Beis
Habchira 2:2 "Msores Byad Hakol...."
Kol Tuv
Yitzchok Zirkind
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 12:39:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eli Turkel <turkel@icase.edu>
Subject: daf yomi/ creation and calendar
In the recent daf yomi the gemara goes through the argument when the
world was created tishre or Nissan. The gemara brings prrofs to both
side from bereshit which seems to indicate that it was either spring or fall
when the world was created, i.e. the rainy season or the growing season.
All this assumes that we are talking about israel. However, the creation
is for the entire globe. What is spring in israel is fall in the southern
hemisphere. Even if we are talking about the garden of eden it is not
clear where that was located. If it was in the tropics then it rains
all year round.
2. The gemara says that there was an extra month in the year before Isaac
was born. Who established Rosh Chodesh and an extra Adar before the Totah
was given? Did Avraham have a formal bet din? What about pre-Abraham?
kol tuv,
Eli Turkel
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 12:09:19 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject: Re: daf yomi/ creation and calendar
On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, Eli Turkel wrote:
> 2. The gemara says that there was an extra month in the year before
> Isaac was born. Who established Rosh Chodesh and an extra Adar before
> the Totah was given? Did Avraham have a formal bet din? What about
> pre-Abraham?
>
We discussed this at length in my shiur (of course, if one allegorizes
everything one has no problem :-) ). I tentatively proposed that the
answer lies in that R' Yehoshua considers Iyar part of Nissan and in that
Noch is told after the Mabul that there will be six seasons, i.e., there
was a solar calendar in place, with six seasons of two months each,
further subdivided by the constellations into twelve months. When the
Gamara speaks of a "shana me'uberes, it means the onset of Spring (Ziv:
Nissan-Iyar) was delayed that year.
YGB
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila
Go to top.
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 22:32:31 +0300
From: Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il>
Subject: Allegory and the Rashba
"Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" wrote:
> It is 1:414-419, not 514. The teshuvos are quoted extensively in the
> Encyclopedia Talmudis entry on Chochma Chitzonis (vol. 15.) although not
> the specific nekuda we are discussing.
The Rashba was extremely upset by those who try to make Greek or natural
explanation of events in Tanach. In particular those who would say that
Avraham and Sarah were symbolic manifestations of Form and Matter. His
language is rather harsh. Sounds relevant to the present thread.
Take a look also at the Tashbatz (3:20) who objects to allegorical
explanations of the Mabul - because the audience might mistakenly assume
that it didn't really happen.
On the other hand Akeidas Yitzchok Sha'ar 7 has an extensive discussion of
the *need* for allegorization based on the Zohar. The Zohar (III 252:1)
states "Woe are the people who think that the Torah is just a bunch of
stories. Because if it only were stories we could today write better
stories..." He notes that the difference between Torah and the history of
the nations is simply that the Torah not only describes real events but that
these descriptions at the same time have an inner meaning. Even though we
don't have an extensive mesorah on the inner meaning we are obligated to try
and ascertain the inner dimension through viewing the stories as allegory
*as well as* history. [sounds like Rav Kook]
Finally look at the Maharetz Chajes (Shabbos 63a). "The principle that a
verse never loses its meaning on the level of pshat is a major Torah concept
because without it - it would be possible to explain all the mitzvos of the
Torah to not be taken literally and consequently all the mitzvos would be
eliminated c.v. For example the mitzva of mila would be symbolic of the
orlah of the heart and similarly tefilin would be a mental remembrance. Look
at the Rashbam [Rashba?] and he condems those who take the events described
in the Torah from their simple meaning and explains them according to Drash.
Avraham and Sorah become Tzura v'Chomer. The Ramban (Shoresh II) notes that
both the inner and outer meanings are both True at the same time...
A similar approach is found in the Shelah HaKodesh (Shavuous Perek Torah Ohr
64)
Daniel Eidensohn
Go to top.
*********************
[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version. ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/ ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]