Avodah Mailing List

Volume 24: Number 87

Tue, 04 Dec 2007

• 1. Re: The Kuzari, vindicated (Richard Wolpoe)
• 2. Re: what did we learn for 350 years? (Richard Wolpoe)
• 3. Re: Was Lavan daft, dense or what? (Richard Wolpoe)
• 4. Freedom of exegesive interpretation (Arie Folger)
• 5. Re: The Chanukah Musings of a Mathematician (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Freedom of exegesive interpretation (Rich, Joel)
• 7. Re: Freedom of exegesive interpretation (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Fables and Lies (T613K@aol.com)
• 9. Re: Was Lavan daft, dense or what? (Rich, Joel)
• 10. A shemitta miracle story (Gershon Dubin)

On Dec 3, 2007 5:09 PM, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:

> My opinion on the dispute between the Rambam and Rihal is split:
>
> I'm at home with the Rambam's universalism, the notion that being
> Jewish "just" means having more tools at your disposal to reach the
> same goal. Rihal not only defines Jews as different in composition, he
> makes a distinction between geir and ezrach.
>
> OTOH, the Rambam is overly cerebral for my liking.
> --
> Micha Berger


IIRC The sub-title of Kuzari is about the downtrodden People of Israel.
Hypothesis:

   - There may be various legitimate approaches to G-d and human
   perfection,
   - but there is only 1 societal/communal/national covenant between G-d
   and a people and that is by means of the Torah.

In this  dichotomy you need not take sides which is better..
No matter how 'frum" Shem vo'Ever [or Yisro] were, they did not get the
covenant of lema'an yetzaveh that was given to Avraham Avinu.



E.G. if you were to claim that Mother Theresa was the greatest saint of the
20th century and so  people should emulate her.  I would counter, it  CAN
work for any individual  but as a people the ONLY valid approach is the
Torah. Yisroel v'oraisso, vekudsha brich had hu.  [Aisi Xitans essentially
have never succeeded in creating a Peoplehood or a cohesive Society.]

So all philosophies and approaches to G-d can work, and they can be mystical
or pragmatic. But ONLY Torah creates a Societal Covenant.

AISI Das Moshe is not intrinsically superior for the individual, it is for
Yisroel. That is perhaps why Yisro and Iyyov left no heritage behind. Nor
did the "nefesh asher asu becharan" leave a legacy. ONLY Am Yisroel is the
Am Olam [Eternal people]

The Tibetan Buddhists and the Dalai Lama perhaps have the only OTHER
people/nation/society I have seen that approximates a holy nation in concept
and structure.  But I know of no Divine covenant there.

Rambam seemed to be obsessed with philophising aboutthe absolutely correct
truth re: G-d and the Divine etc.

Rihal was more interested in perpetuating the peoplehood of Israel,etc.
Rambam seemed to be concerned with pointing out the Truth of the Torah as
uspeiror to other sysstems.  Kuzari [to me anyway] was more about the
superiority of the Jewish relationship with HKBH as opposed to other
attempts.

Recall that it has been recommended that those who do hishtadlus should
learn parshas Vayishlach.  Now a case could be made that certain segments or
sects should simply read this parhsa every week of the year for THEIR
perfection. And those in need of parnassa should read the parshas Haman .
etc.  But  what unites us a  "people" is that we all prety much read the
same  parsha every week  [with some  exceptions between EY and the Golah.]
And we are supposed to ma'avir Sidrah to be in step with the weekly reading.
Why? So as a people we are literally on the same page.


Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071204/21c6131e/attachment.htm 

On Nov 29, 2007 11:32 AM, Jonathan Baker <jjbaker@panix.com> wrote:

> From: "Moshe Y. Gluck" <mgluck@gmail.com>
> > R' AY & CB Walters:
>
> >> The Geonim say that from the chasimas hatalmud by R' Ashi until the
> Behag
> >> was 350 years.
>
> >> Now, AFAIK, the Behag was the first post talmudic sefer, he was
> probably
> >> from the early gaonim/late saboraim.
>
> > I believe the She'iltos D'R' Achai Gaon preceeded him. ?
>
> Maybe. The Sheiltos and the Siddur R' Amram gaon are about parallel,
>
>
> Sources: Jewish Encyclopedia.
>
> -       name: jon baker
>

AFAIK the She'iltos was the first post Talmudic BOOK.

And it was the FIRST book in Talmud in SUBJECT order and not in masechta
order. Halachos Gedolos and Rif followed the Talmudic order. [although there
is some idea that Halachos Gedolos USED to be in subject order but was
revfised]

The masechtos ketannos were also more or less in subject order.

And boks such as Halachos Gedolos were written primarily for communities
outside Bavel.  In Bavel the yeshivos LIVED the Talmud and did not write it
down right away because they did not need to.

and to answer teh original question what did we learn for 350 years?
Besides the final redactions of the Talmud, the final touches were put on
Tosefta and the aforementioned masechtos ketannos.  Thee actaully was a lot
of activity going on, perhaps less creative and more editorial.

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071204/fa09aca2/attachment.html 

On Nov 28, 2007 3:44 AM, Arie Folger <afolger@aishdas.org> wrote:

>
> Bias, in other words, does prevent us from seeing the Truth.
> --
> Arie Folger
> <http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com>


That is perhaps why a beis din requires multiple points of view
Ein dan yehidi ela echad.
And perhaps this explains why I favor relying upon a consensus of poskim and
while I remain skeptical of individual poskim.  Emunas Chachamim not Emunas
Chacham?

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071204/9fbbd3bd/attachment.htm 

Rabotai,

We have, in the past, often argued about whether we are free to interpret 
verses according to our own understanding, against that provided by the 
midrashim and the Talmud. One of the issues was whether those Rishonim 
offering alternative explanation were offering additional layers of 
understanding or alternative, sometimes exclusive interpretations. A most 
notable example we discussed was Ramban.

I just stumbled across a new data point. 

On the Mishnah Nazir 5:5, the Tosafot Yom Tov writes:

	although in the Gemara it wasn't explained thus, since regarding the law
	(din) there is no difference whatsoever (between the interpretation of the
	Talmud and that suggested by the TYT), permission has been granted to
	interpret [differently, according to one's own POV --af], since I do not see
	any difference between the interpretation of Mishnah and of Scripture, for
	permission is granted to interpret Scripture, as our eyes see the
	compositions of interpretations since the days of the Gemara. However, it
	must be that he shall not decide and interpret any law (din) such that it
	would contradict the opinion of the ba'alei hagemara.

KT,
-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

On Mon, December 3, 2007 6:58 pm, I wrote:
: RASoloveitchik suggested that Beis Shammai's shittah of lighting 8
: neiros the first night, followed by 7, etc... was based on the
: connection between Sukkos and Chanukah, and was pocheis veholeich
: because the parim were. In seifer haMakabiim we see that the people
: who had missed aliyas haregel on Sukkos because the BHMQ was tamei
: came with 4 minim on that first Chanukah. Then there's that whole
: chanukas habayis to sukkah connection. From here RAS gets to "ger
: vetoshav anokhi imakhem" and the difference between Yehoshua's kibush
: and the period from Ezra to the Chashmonaim stabilizing the 2nd one.
: Beautiful stuff.

RAF thought he would spare me embarrassment by pointing out off-list
that the connection between Chanukah and Sukkos being Beis Shammai's
motivation is in Shabbos 21b, made by R' Yosi bar Avin or R' Yosi bar
Zevida.

Rather, RAS must have cited the gemara as a ra'ayah to his point.

I am correcting the blog entry as well.

In any case, the notion that Chanukah embodies the "geir vetoshav"
ideal, as does the Sukkah, is STILL one the justifies all on its own
picking up a copy of Logic of the Mind, Logic of the Heart to learn.

(In the future, I ask people to consider the time savings of writing
such corrections to the list rather than my having to do so. I don't
claim to be one of Avodah's better-informed members, you won't hurt my
feelings.)

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv

On the Mishnah Nazir 5:5, the Tosafot Yom Tov writes:

	although in the Gemara it wasn't explained thus, since regarding
the law
	(din) there is no difference whatsoever (between the
interpretation of the
	Talmud and that suggested by the TYT), permission has been
granted to
	interpret [differently, according to one's own POV --af], since
I do not see
	any difference between the interpretation of Mishnah and of
Scripture, for
	permission is granted to interpret Scripture, as our eyes see
the
	compositions of interpretations since the days of the Gemara.
However, it
	must be that he shall not decide and interpret any law (din)
such that it
	would contradict the opinion of the ba'alei hagemara.

KT,
--
Arie Folger
===============================================

Sounds like a version of "Judaism is a religion of deed not creed" - you
can interpret anything anyway you want as long as you don't act
differently from the din?
KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

On Tue, December 4, 2007 9:25 am, Rich, Joel wrote:
: Sounds like a version of "Judaism is a religion of deed not creed" -
: you can interpret anything anyway you want as long as you don't act
: differently from the din?

There are dinim about belief too. The TYT speaks about "din", not
deed. Presumably he would include chovos halvavos. I would say that it
sounds more like "halakhah has hard limits, but the only hard limits
are halakhah".

The current issue of YCT's journal (formerly Edah's) has an article on
the subject of exegesis, in particular looking at traditional peirush
and the limits of something more modern. See
<http://tinyurl.com/yqkr56> "Authority and Validity: Why Tanakh
Requires Interpretation, and What Makes an Interpretation Legitimate?"
by R' Dr Moshe Sokolow. (RDMS is on the staff of YU's Azrieli grad
school, and is in YU administration.)

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv

 
 
From: R'n Ilana Sober: 
>>I once heard "myth" defined as an account of the past that  gives
meaning to the present. Again - no connotation of  truth/falsehood.

Used in this sense, every nation has founding myths. Our  central
founding myths are the stories of the Avot, and especially  Yetziat
Mitzrayim.  Regarding the Avot - we say maaseh avot siman  l'banim....
 
I am not using the term myth to chas v'shalom imply that anything  in
the Torah is fictional, but to convey WHY it is important for us  to
retell and remember these stories.<<
 
 
>>>>>
"When I use a word, it means precisely what I want it to mean" -- *Alice in  
Wonderland*
 
R'n Chana Luntz made a similar point.  I'm sorry but we just can't use  the 
word "myth" about the historical origins of the Jewish people.  The  
connotation of falsehood is just too strong.  There is also a connotation  that the 
person who is using the term is more sophisticated than the people who  invented 
the myths.  When we speak of our founding stories as "myth" there  is a strong 
implication that we are in possession of greater knowledge  and understanding 
than the simple people in the distant past who  actually took these "myths" 
literally.  Using the word "myth" this way  inevitably implies superiority and 
condescension on the part of the  speaker.  This is exactly what the 
Conservative movement does with the  Torah -- calls it "myth" and then when you 
criticize them for that, they turn  around and say, "Oh by using the word 'myth' we 
didn't mean to imply that your  quaint beliefs aren't actually true!"  Pat pat 
on your sweet little  head.
 
From the American Heritage Dictionary:
 
--begin quote--
 
myth  n. 1. A traditional story presenting supernatural beings,  ancestors or 
heroes that serve as primordial types in a primitive view of the  world.  2.  
A fictitious or imaginary story, person or thing.   3.  A false belief.
 
--end quote--
 

--Toby  Katz
=============





**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest 
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071204/833c686a/attachment.html 

 

		<http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com> 


	That is perhaps why a beis din requires multiple points of view
	Ein dan yehidi ela echad.
	And perhaps this explains why I favor relying upon a consensus
of poskim and while I remain skeptical of individual poskim.  Emunas
Chachamim not Emunas Chacham? 
	
	-- 
	Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
	RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
	 =================================================
	FWIW there is a difference between a beis din and use of
consensus of poskim.  The maalah of beit din (as discussed in the
commentaries on horiyot for example) is more along the lines either  of
the delphi technique - the back and forth of joint analysis (or
milchamta shel torah) will arrive at the correct conclusion- or that
there is a hashraat shechina (in particular the gemara there mentions 10
- iirc the ben yehoyada states the special shruya when a minyan is
formed).  While one could stretch these to consensus of poskim who don't
meet, it's at least somewhat a stretch.
	 
	KT
	Joel Rich

THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071204/be4889f3/attachment.htm 

In answering the question why it requires "vechi somru mah nochal" to get the beracha, I once heard that the pre-shemita beracha is only required as a response to vechi somru.  If you don't ask but have bitachon in Divine Providence, the beracha comes in less obvious ways.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com



------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 24, Issue 87
**************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."