Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 144

Thursday, July 29 1999

• Flood
• RE: Sha'ata
• Fasting on Yom Kippur
• revisionism
• Mabul: end of ice age ?
• Re: Mol vs. Mul, Sha'Ata
• Re: R. Zevin on Army Service
• M'ol and mul
• Re: Allegorical interpretation - more sources
• Re: Avodah V3 #143:Revisionism / LOBT
• Re: allegory
• Re: allegory
• Re: allegory
• Re: allegory
• LOBT?

Zvi Weiss>>===> No, it could be "literal" -- simply "incomplete" from the
"scientific" standpoint....<<

What I mean is that the words - while accurate - are not adequately understood 
due to our limitations. Perhaps when OUR understanding of tehcnology advacnes 
enough, the peshat of those words will be more readily understandable, now they 
seem in the realm of utterly fantastic. 

And please do not take my reference to Korahc and the black hole as serious, 
that was intended to be humorous.

Rich Wolpoe

The she'ata form occurs in tanach only in shir hashirim (I think).  In
chumash "asher" is used almost in all cases where a "she-" prefix is
appropriate.

In chumash we do have at the end of parshas breishis "beshagam", which most
meforshim take as the prefix she-, and in shiras devorah we have "ad
shakamti devora".  In both of these cases the shin is vocalized with a
patach.

Moshe 

From: JZUCKESQ@aol.com
 Fasting on Yom Kippur

    A dinner guest in my house recently made a comment that I thought was 
totally off the wall.  My response, however, failed to persuade him that he 
had erred in any way, and did not entirely satisfy me either.  I therefore 
turn to the Avodah list for your comments.

    In the context of a discussion about fasts after the Bais HaMikdash is 
rebuilt, my guest said that it is not certain that we will continue to fast 
on Yom Kippur.  His argument was that the Sanhedrin in those days could rule 
that "t'anu es nafshoseychem" means something other than not to eat or drink 
(such as to wear heavy wool clothing), in which case we would not be 
obligated to fast on Yom Kippur.  He was not saying that this would happen; 
only that it would be within the power of a future Sanhedrin to reinterpret 
the meaning of "t'anu" -- and that we would be obligated to follow that 
future Sanhedrin.  How would you have responded?

Jeff Zuckerman<<

Several comments:

1) Shlomo haMelech uveis dino suspended the fast of Yom Kippur that year when 
teh first BHM was built.  Perhaps your guest was alluding to the possibilty that
the simch of the 3rd BHM would waive/suspend the fast that year, too.  Certainly
it would have a precedent.

2) The Koach of Beis Din haGadol can be quite extensive. I seem to recall 
discussing this in yeshiva many years ago and it was a machlokes Rishonim, but 
I've long forgotten the details.  Again, it would probably be agreed by all that
Sanhedrin could suspend the fast of Yom Kippur, similar to the fact that we have
suspended the boligation to blow shofar on the first day of Rosh Hashono WHEN it
falls out on Shabbos. However, to re-interpret T'anu as something other than 
fasting would be quite a bit more debatable.  

To answer with a question; did earlier Sanhedrins legislate the following:
1) 39 instead of 40 malkos
2) Ayin tachas Ayin as monetary
3) Amoni v'lo Amonis, etc.

If yes, then Sanhedrin has the power to re-interpert droshos
If not, then Sandhedrin is bound by meisroah (eg Halcoho le msohse MiSiani, 
etc.)

Rich Wolpoe
   

> 
> Similar, though much longer labor, is to be found in Rabbi J.J. Schechter's
> article in the first or second Torah U'Maddah Journal decimating the
> revisionism implied by the retraction of the English translation of +ACI-My
> Uncle, The Netziv+ACI- by a charitable organization in Lakewood, which had
> mailed the book as a fundraiser.
> 
Actually R. JJ Schacter's article is on secular learning in Voloshin.
It makes for fascinating reading. Among other points it seems that
R. Chaim Berlin and R. Meir BarIlan had very different viewpoints on
their father, the Netziv.
In later debates this was attributed to several possible mechanisms. Either
that BarIlan was much younger than R. Chaim Berlin and the Netziv had
changed. A second possibility brought up by a psychologist was simply that
studies show that children living in the same house can have very
different descriptionS on what happens even though "the facts" are the same.

Eli Turkel

I just came across an interesting bit of information. Geologists state
that up until 12,000 years ago, all of Canada, part of the USA, all of what's
now Belgium, Holland, Germany, Scandinavica and a portion of Eastern
Europe was under a large ice sheet. About 12,000 years ago, there was a
sudden rise in temperature and the ice began to thaw. Sea levels rose
0.92 meters per century between 12,000 and 4000 BCE during this deglaciation.

8000 years = 80 centuries. At 0.92 meters per century, comes to a whopping
73.6 meters (241 feet !) above what was sea level. Nice flood ending a little
less than 6000 years ago. Add a few hundred years, and you get the time
of Noach !

Maybe what Chazal said about the *boiling* water was the end of the major
thawing of the ice.

BTW there are legends of a *Deluge* from the histories of: Egypt, Greece,
Mesopotamia, mountainous Peru and Mexico !m icy Greenland, and the sandy
Gobi desert in Mongolia.

To imagine that less than 4000 yaers ago, the Sahara desert (North Africa)
was a very green area.

Josh

YGBechhofer wrote:
> I actually posted the question on MJ, but am happy to get a response from
RMFrankel wherever it comes!

I liked the first pshat based on "Mila" very much. I do not have it in
front of me, as I erased it by mistake. Was it your original? <
I can't speak to what MFrankel wrote you, but, at the time, I privately
referred you to the commentary of Ba'al HaTurim ad loc. (D'varim 1:1).

All the best from
Michael Poppers =*= Elizabeth, NJ

RNoah Witty writes that:
<Subject: R. Zevin on Army Service
As memory serves, following the tradition article there was an exchange of
letters in the following 2 or 3 editions.  I think Nissan Wolpin had a
letter defending the Artscroll position and Terry Novetsky responded with a
blistering and pointed response.  It's worth digging up because Novetsky
gave the lie to Artscroll's revisionism.>

as my own memory serves, there may be a conflation of different inyonim
here.  I recall an exchange of letters (though not the perpetrators) in
Tradition alternately defending or sneering at the ArtScroll editorial
choice to publish an "improved" translation of R. Zevin's Moadim Bihalochoh
by omitting a "pro-zionist" parenthetical remark articulating the
possibility that the establishment of the State of Israel might call for
some revision in the halochos related to one who sees the the land
bi'churbonoh. And this revision was slipped in without warning the reader
that they had, for reasons which they deemed cogent, made a (post mortem)
editorial decision to change R. Zevin's book. This brought, properly, an
outraged response from the eagle eyed letter writer afire with a passion for
intellectual honesty and all that.  The R. Zevin letter on drafting yeshivoh
boys (he was for it) was republished in Tradition - with the chidush here
that R. Zevin was identified as the author.  He had published the original
letter many years earlier anonymously, no doubt because he knew what he
could have expected from the yeshiva/charedi establishment of his day.  But
I don't recall any Artscroll vector in this Army service inyon.

Mechy Frankel			W: (703) 325-1277
michael.frankel@dtra.mil	H: (301) 593-3949  

RYGB wrote: <I actually posted the question on MJ, but am happy to get a
response from
RMFrankel wherever it comes!>
oops.  
<I liked the first pshat based on "Mila" very much. I do not have it in
front of me, as I erased it by mistake. Was it your original?>
nope. the maharam brings down this pishat (also tanchumoh). BTW, the maharam
is part of the rishonim suite printed in the new Mossad Harav Kook
(Breuer's) Toras Chayim miqro'os gidolos so you can look it up there. i
recall that the maharam actually brings two sivorohs to connect this posuq
to the miloh.

Mechy Frankel			W: (703) 325-1277
michael.frankel@dtra.mil	H: (301) 593-3949 

On Thu, 29 Jul 1999, The Stokar Family wrote:

> Some more references "kashering" allegorical interpreation of Scripture.
> 
> Louis Ginzberg wrote an article entitled "Allegorical Interpretation of
> Scripture", published in the Jewish Encyclopedia and in a book of his
> essays entitled "On Jewish Law and Lore" (JPS, 1955). Among many other
> sources he cites, I think we should consider the following: 
> 

Arvach arva tzarich.

> [1] Philo, who made extensive use of allegorical interpretation of
> Scripture. Do the anti-allegorists consider him "unkosher" and thus
> irrelevant ? 
> 

Think so. Unkosher is too strong though. Let's just say not glatt :-) .

> [2] Solomon ibn Gabirol, quoted by Ibn Ezra as offering allegorical
> interpretations of the Garden of Eden and Jacob's dream (I Have been
> unable to identify the precise reference; all Ginzburg says is
> "Gabirol's allegorical interpretation as quoted by Ibn Ezra in his
> commentary to Genesis. Does anyone know whre this Ibn Ezra is?) 
> 

No, so it reallly is not relevant. Likely, like the Abarbanel *besides*
the simple pshat he offers allegorical interpretations.

> [3] Saadia Gaon. Book VII of "The Book of Beliefs and Opinions" deals
> with the subject of the resurrection of the dead. Saadia addresses the
> question of whether we should treat the verses that prophesy this as
> literal or as allegorical. He gives four rules which justify a
> non-literal reading of a Biblical passage (the following quotes are
> taken from the Rosenblatt translation published by Yale University
> Press): 
> 

(deleted)

> Following the above quote, Saadia goes on to explain the dangers of
> non-literal interpretions, viz, the allegorization of commandments and
> allegorization of the "narrative portion" (he quotes the examples of an
> (incorrect)  allegorization of Kriyat Yam Suf (Exod. 14:22) and Josh
> 10:13). Although the latter seems to argue against allegorizing the
> Flood (assuming it falls into the category of narrative), I maintain
> Saadia in only against "frivolous"  allegorizing, since he explicitly
> allows allegorizing passages that contradict reason or the senses.
> Vtzarich Iyun. 
> 

RSG sounds pretty much like a proff for us anti-allegorizationalists. Kind
like the Rambam, Moreh 2:47.

> [4] Ginzburg states "First of the conservative allegorists who respected
> the literal word was Jacod b. Abba Mari Anatoli, at the beginning of the
> thirteenth century. In his Malmad ha-Talmidim (Goad for Scholars) he
> allegorizes the story of Noah to the effect that, in order to preserve
> himself against the waters of sin, every man must make himself an ark
> out of his good deeds, and this ark must consist of three stories, the
> mathematical, physical and metaphysical elements (Malmad Hatalmidim
> 12a)". 
> 

Consulted my colleage Rabbi Avrohom Kivilevitz on this one, as I rmembered
us talking about the Malmad in the past, and he reminded me that the
Rashba in the teshuvos we discussed and others specifically comes to note
the folly of the Malmad! Someone with a CD-Rom should do the checking, I
haven't the CD at home.

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

>Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 11:24:45 -0400
>From: "Noah Witty" <nwitty@ix.netcom.com>
>Subject: R. Zevin on Army Service
>
>As memory serves, following the tradition article there was an exchange of
>letters in the following 2 or 3 editions.  I think Nissan Wolpin had a
>letter defending the Artscroll position and Terry Novetsky responded with a
>blistering and pointed response.  It's worth digging up because Novetsky
>gave the lie to Artscroll's revisionism.


If you or anyone else on the list can provide copies of these articles I
would be most grateful.
..
..
..
>
>P.S. LOBT? (let others be there? left out by technicality?)
>

Lack of Better Term

hg

.............................................................................
                             Hershel Ginsburg, Ph.D.
              Licensed Patent Attorney and Biotechnology Consultant
                          P.O. Box 1058 / Rimon St. 27
                                  Efrat, 90435
                                    Israel
              Phone: 972-2-993-8134        FAX: 972-2-993-8122
                         e-mail: ginzy@netvision.net.il
.............................................................................

I have refrained to date from posting anything on this highly charged 
subject, but I feel compelled to make some statement at this time.

RYGB wrote:

<
Yes, it is most certainly different. I must add, you make a mockery
of Chazals - dozens of them - that took the Mabul as a point of reference
for Halachic diiscussions, such as that we recently had in RH.
>

Just as Chazal can take words of the Torah out of their simple context and 
learn halacha from them, after all this is what Midrash Halacha is about, why 
can't they also take allegorical stories and learn practical halacha from 
them?

In all the discussion to date I have not seen anyone "make a mockery of 
Chazals".  The conversation has been, for the most part, intellectual and 
without highly charged emotion.  To make sweeping charges such as these is to 
try and ignite other people's passions where they have not yet been.  

Further he writes:

<
And then he goes on explicitly to say tthat this is not true of passages
such as that which describes the height of Og Melech ha'Bashan! What an
ideal opportunity to allegorize - yet the Rambam takes pains and feels
constrained to explain how this passage is literally true!
>

And yet look how Chazal go overboard in their allegories of Og's height!  

I am not arguing in favor or against allegories (my personal views I keep to 
myself), only showing that there is no consistent school of thought.  Chazal 
allegorize where Rambam does not see need, and I'm sure there were those in 
Chazal who saw Bil'am's conversation with his mule as actual, and yet Rambam 
allegorizes it.

So both sides have what to rely on, and to make sweeping condemnations, while 
it might make the one on the giving end feel good, does nothing to deter the 
recipients from maintaining their beliefs.

EDT
Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

On Thu, 29 Jul 1999 EDTeitz@aol.com wrote:

> Just as Chazal can take words of the Torah out of their simple context
> and learn halacha from them, after all this is what Midrash Halacha is
> about, why can't they also take allegorical stories and learn practical
> halacha from them? 
> 

This is the third post to criticize me. I really intende to be "shomei'a
cherpsai v'eino meshiv" but this is too much. I am unrepentant.

I assume my interlocutors have not been learning Daf Yomi, as, were they
to have learnt through the sugya at the beginning of RH that discusses in
great detail how R' Eliezer and R' Yehoshua deal with the dates in the
Mabul account, they would surely and sppeedily concede that it would seem
but a poor joke to argue about dates in a story that is mere allegory.

Kind of like arguing what date Jack went up the beanstalk.

Or, for that matter, the famous disagreement over Noach as a tzaddik
b'dorosav. Kind of like arguing who was more pretty, Snow White or Vashti. 

Or what the structure of the teiva was. Kind of like arguing what shape
was Cinderella's coach.

Is this, Rabbosai, the way we would like to perceive Chazal or have them
be perceived?


YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

--- "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
<sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:
> I assume my interlocutors have not been learning Daf Yomi, as, were
> they
> to have learnt through the sugya at the beginning of RH that
> discusses in
> great detail how R' Eliezer and R' Yehoshua deal with the dates in
> the
> Mabul account, they would surely and sppeedily concede that it
> would seem
> but a poor joke to argue about dates in a story that is mere
> allegory.

You consistently make the same mistake.  No one says that chazal
allegorized the mabul.  They had no reason to.  Neither, for that
matter, did Rambam have any reason to allegorize the mabul.  The
question arises only in the modern day because of scientific
discoveries.

Kol tuv,
Moshe
_____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com

RYGB writes:
:                  R' Eliezer and R' Yehoshua deal with the dates in the
: Mabul account, they would surely and sppeedily concede that it would seem
: but a poor joke to argue about dates in a story that is mere allegory.

To rephrase Moshe Feldman's reply with my own twist: The question isn't whether
or not Chazal deemed the mabul to be allegory. It's whether they would
allegorize a story that contradicts evidence, or would they resolve the problem
by invoking more nissim. (All this assuming the person considers the evidence
conclusive). If they would in principle, and you think the mabul qualifies
by today's evidence, then you'd have a right to contradict Chazal. No?

Second, the discussion between R' Eliezer and R' Yehoshua is about whether the
mabul was b'middas rachamim (Nissan) or din (Tishrei). This seems to be the
tone of their whole chain of machlokesin. (Such as the "month" of the ge'ulah".
Was either saying moshiach can't come today because it's Av?) It's a greater
chiddush to insist an aggadita is literal than taking an allegorical approach.
Us traditionalists would say that like Pesach, the event actually occured in
the month that represents the appropriate middah.

-mi (devil's advocate)

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 29-Jul-99: Chamishi, Eikev
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 345:21-27
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 14b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Kuzari V 13-16

>P.S. LOBT? (let others be there? left out by technicality?)

Local orthodox baalei tshuva?   (Aren't the rashei teivos on this list
getting a  little out of hand?   Can anyone recommend a course in
touch typing?)

*********************


[ 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         ]