Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 028

Sunday, October 26 2003

• RE: Basics for Philisophical discussions
• Re: Rambam and creation
• Re: Basics for Philisophical discussions
• Hashkofa and Authority
• Re: Nusach Ari
• Re: new birth control?
• Re: Hashgocah Protis - Sifsei Chaim's view of Gra
• Re: Morid haTal
• Re: Rambam and creation
• Re: Ibn Ezra
• Re: Rambam and creation
• Nachash
• Help wanted on Moreh Nevukhim III-38
• Re: Hashkofa and Authority
• Re: Basics for Philosophical discussions

At 01:37 PM 10/25/2003, you wrote:
>> Since I am one of the most adamant in this area, I would like to clarify.
>> We are not branding the allegorizers apikorsoim. We are regarding them as
>> ketanei amanah (an apt term, as it is used WRT Noach)...

>Based on what definition of Emunah? What are the "requirements"?

>Does someone who allegorizes the first chapter in Bereshis ALSO qualify as
>"ketanei amanah"?

Yes. Although with some little effort they may qualify as Apikorsim :-) .

There is a mistake that is common here in Avodah-land, to
understand derashos Chazal as allegorizations. This is, of course,
incorrect. Derashos Chazal are often peshuto shel mikra, as Rashi says in
Bereishis 3:8 - although sometimes they are, indeed, derashos, what the
Ramban calls "sermons." Who is qualified to decide which derashos Chazal
are pshat and which are "sermons?" I do not know. Rashi and other Rishonim
clearly felt competent to do so, and that is probably part of what makes
them Rishonim. This much I do know - there is no "modern" - by that I mean
since the Gr"a - who can be considered qualified. Certainly not present
company. But no one except Chazal has the right to decree allegorizations
(if there is ever a case where they did, none comes to mind).
 
[Email #2. -mi]

>RAF
>>>Yes. You read the text of the Torah, and see how heavily the Torah leans
>>>on any particular difficult passage, and see how much you would alter
>>>the internal coherrence by reinterpreting something. Perhaps I didn't
>>>do a good enough job of describing the method, but I don't think that
>>>it fails the intellectual honesty test.

>RYGB
>> Where is the license to make such judgements procured?

>Where is the requirement for such license detailed??

>If I may cite Rav Lichtenstein (in an article cited by Eli Clark in
>avodah 3:155

Rabbi Lichtenstein himself, kevodo b'mekomo munach, is not a sufficient 
authority to grant such license. Arvach arva tzarich.

>At another level, one may alter the substance of whole areas by examining
>them, legitimately, through a different prism. The great model here
>is Maimonides, whose recourse to the concept of "Torah speaks in the
>language of man [i.e. in human idiom] (Sifrei, Shelah 112)," on the one
>hand, and to the mode of allegory on the other, enabled him to interpret
>so much of Bible and midrash aggadah in a philosophic rather than purely
>literal, popular vein.

>There is no sense that the rambam was relying on a prior tradition that
>those elements were subject to allegory - but the general principle of
>torah speaking in human idiom and that allegorical interpretations are
>permissible (and the rambam's own statement that he would be willing to
>allegorize all of ma'ase breshit is not related by him to any mesora or
>license - nor does he ever suggest that he requires license for any of
>his allegorizations)

I am assuming that both of the paragraphs above emanate from Rabbi
Lichtenstein's pen - or, if not, that Dr. Shinnar is accurately
interpreting para. 1 with his own para. 2. If so, it is, indeed,
deeply troubling to me that Rabbi Lichtenstein may have made such
an assertion. If that is the case, then the RW's rejection of Rabbi
Lichtenstein, something I have never fully understood, is eminently
reasonable and entirely justified. Thank you, at the very least, for
clarifying that point.

Indeed, taking Rabbi Lichtenstein's model further, there is no reason
to accept any part of Judaism as factual, and there is no reason why
someone should take anything at face value, unless he wills himself to
do so. On the contrary, the license to reinterpret and recast anything
and everything ["alter the substance of whole areas by examining them,
legitimately, through a different prism"] leads to only one absolute -
individual relativism.

This perspective is profoundly problematic, as the entire concept of
"emes" no longer exists, or must be radically recast. Indeed, emunah
itself is of dubious value - if anything and everything can be altered by
examination through a different prism, what solidity is there to belief?

>>Since I am one of the most adamant in this area, I would like to clarify.
>>We are not branding the allegorizers apikorsoim. We are regarding them as
>>ketanei amanah (an apt term, as it is used WRT Noach)...

>I (and the rambam) would actually reverse the evaluation - someone whose
>emuna is dependent on the historical truth of the mabul is mikatne emuna
>- the strength of emuna is not measured by how many statements one has
>emuna are true....(this is directly related to the rambam's criticisms
>of those who view it the height of emuna to believe that everything
>is miraculous..)

Let us, please, leave the Rambam out of this. What you cited from MThM
is not relevant, but I feel we argued about this enough in the past and
someone really interested can search the archives.

I have no idea what you define as emunah. It certainly is not the standard
definition. According to the standard definition, belief in Hashem and
His truth as expressed in Torah she'b'ksav understood through the lens
of Torah she'b'al peh, yes, one who feels compelled to allegorize the
Mabul is me'ketanei amanah.

YGB 

OK, let's look at this strange term panentheism:

http://www.kheper.net/paradigms/ways_of_knowing.htm:
    * Panenthesim differs from Panthesim in that "God" both includes and 
transcends the universe.  It is more or less equivalent to Emanationism.
http://www.kheper.net/topics/cosmology/emanation.htm:

Emanation

The word "Emanation" comes from the Latin e-manare, "to flow forth".
The cosmos and finite beings are all seen as having emerged out of the
Absolute Reality through a sort of "out-flowing". Metaphors are with
the ocean (the Absolute) and the waves (the Universe); the Sun (the
Absolute) and the Light that shines from it (the Universe); a fountain
(the Absolute) which overflows (the universe); and so on.

According to Emanationism, Creation occurs by a process of emanation -
"out-flowing". The entire cosmos, and even all the Gods and Godheads
beyond the Cosmos, has come about through emanation. Just as the ocean
forms its surface into waves, so the Absolute forms upon and as Itself
successive manifestations, successive entities. And these in turn create -
or rather, emanate - further entities, and so on, with all these entities
combining and interacting in the extraordinary network of existence.

Each of the levels of reality in the Emanationist Cosmology could
be termed a "World". Here, "World" is a general term meaning any
self-contained realm or universe of existence. One could equally well say
"Universe", "Cosmos", "Sphere", "Realm", "Plane", "horizon", "reality",
"state of existence", "state of consciousness", etc. The term "World"
has been chosen simply because it is a useful general term.

One could think of the relationship between each of these levels as being
like "body and soul", "spirit and matter", or "Creator and creature"
<http://www.kheper.net/topics/cosmology/#[1]>[1], in that each higher
level is the Soul, Spirit, and Creator of the level immediately below
it; and the Body, Matter, and Creature (created being) of the level
immediately above it.

diagram of the relationship between spirit and matter, according to the
emanationist paradigm

The Emanationist position then, is based, not a single Creator-Created
Dichotomy, but rather on a series or "hierarchy" of realities or "Worlds",
arranged "vertically" (inverted commas are used because these terms are
simply metaphoric, and should not be taken literally). Each higher world
"generates" the one below it through a process of emanation, and each
therefore stands in the position of "God" or "Creator" to the level
or grade below it. Thus, Creation is not Creation out of nothing, but
creation out of the being of the higher hypostasis.

Each of the levels or stages in this "spectrum" or "great chain of being"
has its own specific characteristics. So you could speak of the psychic
world (or "astral plane"), the angelic world, the archangelic world,
the Divine world, and so on; hierarchy upon hierarchy, world upon world,
a kind of epiphany or manifestation of the Divine; all looking downwards
to matter, and also looking upwards to the godhead.

Such a Cosmology has to be lived. It cannot be a mere theoretical thing.
It must be an actual Vision of Reality. The Vision of Worlds beyond
Worlds, of hierarchies of Angels or Gods arranged in order upon order,
Light above Light, is a truly magnificent and awe-inspiring one. It is
not abstract speculation. It is contemplative reality.

Notes:

[1] see e.g. L.I. Krakovsky, Kabbalah - The Light of Redemption, pp 19, 
86-7, 125 (Research Centre of Kabbalah, Jerusalem, 1970)]

     Emanation

Emanationism in contrast to other theories
<http://www.kheper.net/topics/cosmology/../worldviews/emanationism.htm>

The Principles of Emanation
<http://www.kheper.net/topics/cosmology/../../realities/emanation/emanation.htm>

Cosmology page
<http://www.kheper.net/topics/cosmology/cosmology.htm>

content and html by M .Alan Kazlev <http://www.kheper.net/aboutme>
page uploaded 28 May 1998, last updated 28 March 2001
html editors used - Netscape Page Composer, then 
<http://www.arachnoid.com/>Arachnophilia

----------

Bottom line: these strange words, panentheism and emanationism are just
pop-Kabbalistic/Easten Mystical ways of depicting the hierarchy of Olomos.
Now, what this has to do with "G-d stuff" is beyond me.

YGB 

RYGB wrote:
> At 03:16 PM 10/23/03, Arie Folger wrote:
>>Yes. You read the text of the Torah, and see how heavily the Torah leans
>>on any particular difficult passage, and see how much you would alter
>>the internal coherrence by reinterpreting something. Perhaps I didn't
>>do a good enough job of describing the method, but I don't think that
>>it fails the intellectual honesty test.

> Where is the license to make such judgements procured?

Please clarify. Do you deny the permissibility of speculating whether
certain verses ought to be interpreted in a non-literal way? There is
nobody who denies that some verses are to be interpreted nonliterally. The
question is only how heavy the burden of proof has to be before we
move away from a literal reading, and what constitutes an appropriate
nonliteral interpretation.

When the Gaon criticizes Rambam for interpreting magic away, he is not
criticizing the general approach, since the Gra himself also uses it,
rather, he is criticizing Rambam's reason for reinterpreting those
particular verses.

Why would you disagree with both of them? (and just about anybody else
who wrote on the matter)

Note: sod is also a form of reinterpretation. Dibra Torah belashon bnei
adam is also a form of reinterpretation.

[Email #2. -mi]

RMB wrote:
> But back to the subject of reliabilism and mesorah... R Arie Folger
> wrote in reply to RYGB's post:
>> You read the text of the Torah, and see how heavily the Torah
>> leans on any particular difficult passage, and see how much you
>> would alter the internal coherrence by reinterpreting something.
>> Perhaps I didn't do a good enough job of describing the method, but
>> I don't think that it fails the intellectual honesty test.

> RAF seems to take a more gradual approach rather than a yes-or-no
> division with a clear line in-between. The reliability of mesorah is
> imperfect, but large. Therefore, if the idea impacts much of mesorah,
> the compounded effect is that of a reliable system.

Actually, I argue for a kind of Autorial intent analysy, where we look
at how the Torah quoted itself, and how it presented itself. Thus, when
the Torah quotes the Exodus repeatedly as a reason for keeping certain
and for keeping all mitzvot, it is clear that the Torah needs YM to have
been real. I would then say that the Torah is also literal in many (I
leave the possibility open of some exceptions) of the details of YM. The
Torah is not an unreliable account, G'd forbid. It is simply an account
that is not always so easy to understand.

OTOH, when we look at the Mabul, see a text which is not quoted often,
and which is not even alluded to often, and we have a plausible way to
interpret it such that it doesn't contradict what we observe (lack of
sediments, too much genetic diversity to have developed in 4000 years,
continuity of culture as attested by archaeological digs. Note that our
views on all these may change in the future. At most, I am presenting a
speculation that the text is not to be interpreted entirely literally),
we could speculate whether the story wasn't meant as a literal account,
or perhaps (my suggestion) it is literal, but we simply haven't delved
sufficiently into the meaning of kol haaretz. As I believe is apparent
from the passage I quoted from the end of Zva'him, kol haaretz isn't
necessarily kol haolam (I am not even sure that the latter choice of
words is the best, but it sufficiently illustrates the question of what
kol haaretz means).

I don't think that this argues for a deficient Massorah (unless popular
understanding of a text counts as Massorah. Note that until recently there
was no reason to question the literalness of the text and its popular
understanding, thus, we may argue that the popular understanding is as
meaningless as lo rainu, which we all know is eino raayah), not even
deficient in minor areas; we simply have to learn to delve into divrei
'Hazal better, in order to understand what needs to remain literal and
what may not require a literal interpretation, and to understand how
much license we have here *in*our*speculations*.

Lastly, I suggest that we draw a line between issues of Talmudic science
and Messorah.

Arie Folger
-- 
If an important person, out of humility, does not want to rely on [the Law, as 
applicable to his case], let him behave as an ascetic. However, permission 
was not granted to record this in a book, to rule this way for the future 
generations, and to be stringent of one's own accord, unless he shall bring 
clear proofs from the Talmud [to support his argument].
	paraphrase of Rabbi Asher ben Ye'hiel, as quoted by Rabbi Yoel
	Sirkis, Ba'h, Yoreh De'ah 187:9, s.v. Umah shekatav.

R' Mechy Frankel wrote:
> In a remark , in this instance not directed at me,  RYGB comments <<I have
> no monopoly, but you are not a scholar or saint of sufficient standing (nor
> am I) to determine who is right, who is wrong, which view should be
> presented, which should not, nor certainly to present your own view.>>

> Now, I have not actually met either RDE or RYGB, or just about anybody else
> in this forum for that matter,  and thus it would be foolish indeed to assay
> a calibration of the saintliness or scholarship of either of these presumed
> worthies from the odd avodah submission...But to suggest that, e.g. if RDE's
> reputation for both were somewhat higher than RYGB seems to grant
> (personally, a natural caution would restrain me from assuming that people
> with whom i'm not familiar are necessarily lightweights)   this would confer
> some authority in a matter of hashqofoh to "determine who is right, who is
> wrong.." or evn to "present you own view" is an intellectually bankrupt
> perspective which perhaps RYGB didn't really mean to promulgate but are
> nevertheless implicit in his words.  and are certainbly reflective of too
> much going on in the public sphere today.

I found this a rather fascinating observation which was actually the
opposite of my understanding of what R' Bechhofer has been doing. While
RYGB has publicly declared that I am his equal as a garnisht with the
same inability to "to determine who is right, who is wrong, which view
should be presented, which should not, nor certainly to present your own
view." And yet he has felt free to pass judgment on what I am allowed and
not allowed to say and do - despite that I am only following my mesora
and am not innovating a new approach of disseminating information! I
have argued primarily on the basis of my mesora - as well as that of
most people on the list [including litvaks, sefardim and chassidim]
that one typically does not provide a survey of all views when teaching
hashkofa. I fail to comprehend the basis of his psak against my views. He
has various asserted that there is a requirement to be intellectually
honest, that clall yisroel has accepted the view of the Besht, that
I have no right to disregard the view of those greater then me. None
of which has been buttressed with any authority other than his own -
which he acknowledges he doesn't have. Thus I accept the basic premise
that in this area - authority is probably the best guideline rather than
sevora such as intellectual honesty. I have not seen a single authority
being quoted by R' Bechhofer who agrees with his psak. Which recognized
gadol - chassidic, litvak, sefardic, modern orthodox etc declares that
when teaching hashkofa that it is wrong to omit views that are not an
accepted part of the mesora of that group?

                                                Daniel Eidensohn

R Davidovich <rdavidovich@cox.net> wrote:
> From: eli turkel <turkel@post.tau.ac.il>
>> In R. Avaraham Yosef's shiur he mentioned that none of the siddurin
>> today are truly Nusach Ari. In particular according the writings of the
>> ARI the nusach for Borech Olenu or Borchenu is like Nusach Sefard and
>> not like Nusach Askenaz or Chabad which claims to be Nusach Ari but has
>> ashkenaz changes to it.

> Correct.

> The way I heard it explained, the Baal Tanya's (or Chabad's)
> description
> for his siddur is that it is "Al Pi Nusach HaArizal", according to
> the
> Nusach, not actually Nusach Arizal itself.

IIRC, when I asked a Lubvitcher friend of mine a few decades ago
about Nusach HaAri he explained that Rabbi Shneur Zalmen from Liadi
had taken Nusach Sefard which was supposed to be the Nusach of the
Ari and "corrected" it. What had happened is that Nusach Sefard had
many differing versions of what this Nusach was, hence all of the
parenteses in Siddurim of Nusach Sefard representing all those
versions. The founder of Lubavitch took it upon himself to ferret out
what he believed to be the actual Nusach of the Ari and that resulted
in what is now called Nusach HaAri.

HM

Elazar M Teitz <remt@juno.com> wrote:
> Regarding the ongoing discussion of the meaning of zera: the g'mara in
> Y'vamos 80b gives as one of the definitions of a saris "kol sheshichvas
> zar'o docheh," explained by Rashi as meaning "she'aino kashur, ela tzalul
> kamayim."  Sounds like semen without sperm, and it's certainly incapable
> of reproduction, yet its called shichvas zera.

The question is what is the Halachic status of spremless semen. That
it has the same nomenclature may be attributed to the fact that there
is... or was... no other name for it. It is like calling a moterless
car, a car. We might still call it that but it never-the-less is not
really a car conceptually.

I do not recall the Gemmarah there but the quote you cite is simply
defining what a Saris is, i.e. that his semen (called Shichvas Zera
for lack of another defining term) does not have procreative ability.
Chazal still may not have realized that this tzalul kamayim liquid
was lacking an entity called sperm, the REAL zera. 

Also, I do not recall that the Gemmarah goes on to state whether the
destruction of such "Zera" has a Din of Hashchasas Zera. If so, then
I concede. If not, then I maintain my position.

HM

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/

R' Gil Student wrote: <<< HP is Hashem intervening in the world.
According to the Rambam, HP exists in a limited form. Those who do
not receive HP, including any individual animal, are left to "mikreh",
a term whose standard meaning is chance. This is not Hashem directing
through indirect means but is nature, with its rules and randomness. >>>

This fits with the notions of Determinist Physics, wherein I could predict
where every molecule will be a century from now, if only I had enough
information about their current state. If I had sufficently detailed facts
about this tree's health, I could tell which leaf will be the next one
to fall, and if I knew enough about the weather and air flow, I could
also tell exactly which path it wil fall by, and where it will land.

That is nature, a specific set of natural laws which govern macroscopic
physical events. They often appear to be random, but that only because of
the many factors hidden to us. When I flip a coin, it may seem to have 50%
odds of landing heads-up, but in actuality, once it has left my hand,
the outcome has already been determined, based on the air currents,
the shape and elasticity of the table, the angle of attack, and so on.

But according to Quantum Physics, those laws of nature are the illusion,
and the coin's falling really *is* random. What would Rambam say about
that?

According to Quantum Physics, the actions of every subatomic particle are
truly random and impossible to predict. One cannot say of any subatomic
event that it will occur or won't occur, but that there is a specific
*probability* that it will occur.

Anyone who knows anything about probability can tell you that if a certain
event has a 50% chance of happening, and you repeat it a million times,
it will almost certainly occur about 500,000 of those times. But it
is also true that it will almost certainly *not* occur on *exactly*
500,000 of those occasions. There is a standard deviation which must be
expected. It will probably happen between 499,950 and 500,050 of those
times (or maybe a different range, I'm not expert in those formulas).

My point is that under Quantum Physics, the flipped coin does have a
truly random chance of landing heads or tails. What does that do to our
discussion of Hashgacha (Pratis or otherwise)?

Suppose we're waiting for a subatomic event. Maybe it will occur,
and maybe it won't. Who or what decides? Under Determinism, this would
have been easily predictable by looking at the other factors. But under
Quantum Physics, there ARE NO other factors.

Now, if there's nothing in this world which causes it to occur (or not
occur), and I can't accept that there might be an effect which has no
cause whatsoever, then it must be that there is a cause which is *outside*
of this physical world. I am led to conclude that (if Quantum Physics
is true) it must be HaShem's personal and direct intervention in that
sitation which determines whether the event occurs or not. Such events
can and do occur several gazillion times a day. This is not consistent
with the Rambam.

Or maybe not. It might not be HaShem Himself Who makes these decisions,
but it might be one of His agents of some sort. This agent might be one
which has some sort of independent decision-making ability, or the agent
might be an automatic device of some kind, with no independent abilities.

For example, there might be some sort of heavenly list of all such
subatomic events, and then this non-independent agent will execute them
automatically in a NON-random manner as they come up, such as by going
down the list and decreeing "#1 will occur, #2 not, #3 will, #4 not" and
so on. Our physicists will perceive this as totally random because they
are not privy to the list (which includes events which the physicists
aren't looking at), but the truth is that it is totally deterministic,
in a supernatural sort of way.

Wow, as I mulled this post over Shabbos, I was sure that I was going to
show the Rambam to be incompatable with Quantum Physics, but I think the
opposite has happened. Even under Quantum Physics, it is possible for
HaShem to have set up a set of laws of nature such that He can choose
to stay totally out of the decision-making process whenever He so chooses.

Akiva Miller

Sorry, I was not completely clear. RAY claimed that in South America
that rain is plentiful and the main problem is floods. Hence, he said
the psak was during the entire year to say Morid haTal even during the
Israeli winter and even for the communities that don't say Morid Hatal
usually (i.e. ashkenaz). For Australia it was clear.

Anyone on this list from Argentina, Brazil etc?

Thanks,
-- 
 Eli Turkel,  turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 10/26/2003
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University

On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 11:11:50PM -0400, Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
: http://www.kheper.net/paradigms/ways_of_knowing.htm:
:     * Panenthesim differs from Panthesim in that "God" both includes and 
: transcends the universe.  It is more or less equivalent to Emanationism.

Less.

Atzilus means that the universe is caused by Hashem but not through an
maker-made relationship.

Panentheism means the universe is, at least very deep down, made of G-d.

I bounced the question off RJLove. He wondered if the Ba'al haTanya
read Kant. RJL believes that the Tanya is saying that tzimtzum was
the creation of beings that don't realize they're G-d. That it's purely
phenomenological rather than neumenal. On the level of the thing-in-itself
there is only G-d. It's the phenomenon, the thing-as-experienced,
from which Hashem was metzamtzeim.

We also spoke about the Black Sea flood. It is both too early and too
local to be the mabul -- except to those critics who go with a "legend
grew around core facts" approach to the bible.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
micha@aishdas.org        you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org   happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                        - Dale Carnegie

Look in the Toras Chaim edition published by Mossad HaRav Kook. This
edition includes the short and long editions and Ibn Ezra's thesis on
Parsahanut. The older Mikros Gdolos edition of Devarim also includes
Ibn Ezra on Koheles. In Ibn Ezra's commentary on Koheles 5:1, there is
a fascinating critique on the Piyutim of Kalir. For some reason, the
otherwise beautiful Maor edition of the Mikros Gdolos did not include
the Chamesh Megilos which were generally included in almost every prior
edition of the Chumash.

Steve Brizel

At 09:56 AM 10/26/03, Micha Berger wrote:
>: http://www.kheper.net/paradigms/ways_of_knowing.htm:
>:     * Panenthesim differs from Panthesim in that "God" both includes and
>: transcends the universe.  It is more or less equivalent to Emanationism.

>Less.
>Atzilus means that the universe is caused by Hashem but not through an
>maker-made relationship.

>Panentheism means the universe is, at least very deep down, made of G-d.

You are defining panenthesim your own way, then. This is the only 
definition of it that I found.

In any event, the Tanya does not say the universe is made of G-d and it
is heretical to say so.

YGB

What level did the pre-sin Nachash exist at?  Was he a mdaber??

KT
Joel

Hi,

I was learning some MN today (actually, trying to figure out his position
on certain issues tangentially related to hashga'hah) and was completely
lost when reading the first paragraph of MN III-38. I am using the Kafi'h
edition. Anybody can help here?

Arie Folger

At 09:27 AM 10/26/03, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
>I found this a rather fascinating observation which was actually the
>opposite of my understanding of what R' Bechhofer has been doing. While
>RYGB has publicly declared that I am his equal as a garnisht with the
>same inability to "to determine who is right, who is wrong, which view
>should be presented, which should not, nor certainly to present your own
>view." And yet he has felt free to pass judgment on what I am allowed and
>not allowed to say and do - despite that I am only following my mesora
>and am not innovating a new approach of disseminating information! I
>have argued primarily on the basis of my mesora - as well as that of
>most people on the list [including litvaks, sefardim and chassidim]
>that one typically does not provide a survey of all views when teaching
>hashkofa. I fail to comprehend the basis of his psak against my views. He
>has various asserted that there is a requirement to be intellectually
>honest, that clall yisroel has accepted the view of the Besht, that
>I have no right to disregard the view of those greater then me. None
>of which has been buttressed with any authority other than his own -
>which he acknowledges he doesn't have. Thus I accept the basic premise
>that in this area - authority is probably the best guideline rather than
>sevora such as intellectual honesty. I have not seen a single authority
>being quoted by R' Bechhofer who agrees with his psak. Which recognized
>gadol - chassidic, litvak, sefardic, modern orthodox etc declares that
>when teaching hashkofa that it is wrong to omit views that are not an
>accepted part of the mesora of that group?

I made clear in my essay that my benchmark is: "Perakim b'Machasheves 
Yisroel" by R' Shaul Yisraeli zt"l. I believe that the Beis Yechezkel, by 
R' Moshe Tzuriel shlita is a similar work. I am not an expert on current 
seforim, but these are two giants in machashovo who wrote books that were 
melaket and explain. This, BTW, is an exact parallel to halachic 
literature. We are in the dor of the Likkutim, not of the Teshuvos.

YGB 

At 03:38 AM 10/26/03, Arie Folger wrote:
>RYGB wrote:
>> At 03:16 PM 10/23/03, Arie Folger wrote:
>>>Yes. You read the text of the Torah, and see how heavily the Torah leans
>>>on any particular difficult passage, and see how much you would alter
>>>the internal coherrence by reinterpreting something. Perhaps I didn't
>>>do a good enough job of describing the method, but I don't think that
>>>it fails the intellectual honesty test.

>> Where is the license to make such judgements procured?

>Please clarify. Do you deny the permissibility of speculating whether
>certain verses ought to be interpreted in a non-literal way? There is
>nobody who denies that some verses are to be interpreted nonliterally. The
>question is only how heavy the burden of proof has to be before we
>move away from a literal reading, and what constitutes an appropriate
>nonliteral interpretation.

Yes, I "deny [you and I] the permissibility of speculating whether certain 
verses ought to be interpreted in a non-literal way."

>When the Gaon criticizes Rambam for interpreting magic away, he is not
>criticizing the general approach, since the Gra himself also uses it,
>rather, he is criticizing Rambam's reason for reinterpreting those
>particular verses.

>Why would you disagree with both of them? (and just about anybody else
>who wrote on the matter)

Huh? Run that by me again, I do not understand.

Let me paraphrase a great American political quote: "I know the Rambam and 
the Gra. You [and I] are no Rambam and no Gra."

>Note: sod is also a form of reinterpretation. Dibra Torah belashon bnei
>adam is also a form of reinterpretation.

Both are from Chazal. Not from katlei kanya b'agma. shu'alim ketanim 
mechablim keramim.

...
>Actually, I argue for a kind of Autorial intent analysy, where we look
>at how the Torah quoted itself, and how it presented itself. Thus, when
>the Torah quotes the Exodus repeatedly as a reason for keeping certain
>and for keeping all mitzvot, it is clear that the Torah needs YM to have
>been real. I would then say that the Torah is also literal in many (I
>leave the possibility open of some exceptions) of the details of YM. The
>Torah is not an unreliable account, G'd forbid. It is simply an account
>that is not always so easy to understand.

And your precedent in sources al taharas ha'kodesh is...?

>I don't think that this argues for a deficient Massorah (unless popular
>understanding of a text counts as Massorah. Note that until recently there
>was no reason to question the literalness of the text and its popular
>understanding, thus, we may argue that the popular understanding is as
>meaningless as lo rainu, which we all know is eino raayah), not even
>deficient in minor areas; we simply have to learn to delve into divrei
>'Hazal better, in order to understand what needs to remain literal and
>what may not require a literal interpretation, and to understand how
>much license we have here *in*our*speculations*.

>Lastly, I suggest that we draw a line between issues of Talmudic science
>and Messorah.

I have made this statement in the past and I make it again. Science is in 
flux, constantly reassessing and reinterpreting. Torah is an eternal 
verity. To believe otherwise is to be me'ketanei amanah.

YGB 

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


[ 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         ]