Avodah Mailing List
Volume 03 : Number 130
Sunday, July 18 1999
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 22:53:25 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject: Re: Allegory and the Rashba
Let me note that I am of course in full accordance with the Akeidah, not
that he needs my concurrence. I think R' Tzadok and others have taught us
to look for the deeper layers of meaning (although not necessarily the
same types of deeper meanings the Akeidah had in mind) - as an expansion
of the Mikra.
On Sat, 17 Jul 1999, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> 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]
>
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: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 08:55:34 +0300
From: Ben Waxman <bwaxman@foxcom.com>
Subject: Praying over har habeit
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
------_=_NextPart_001_01BED0E2.2819DC10
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="windows-1255"
On Tisha b'av there is a minyan at the Mishmar Hagivol station which
overlooks Har Habiet. The station is over Har habiet. (Where ezxactly I
don't know). It is the closest one can get to the Kodesh Kodeshim. I know
some folks who go there. Erev Tisha B'av they do take a hot shower, trim
their nails, check their bodies, and then go to a mikveh.
Who permits and who forbids?
Ben Waxman
Tel: 972-2-589-9822
Fax:972-2-589-9898
------_=_NextPart_001_01BED0E2.2819DC10
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="windows-1255"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dwindows-1255">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2448.0">
<TITLE>Praying over har habeit</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>On Tisha b'av there is a minyan at the Mishmar =
Hagivol station which overlooks Har Habiet. The station is over =
Har habiet. (Where ezxactly I don't know). It is the =
closest one can get to the Kodesh Kodeshim. I know some folks who =
go there. Erev Tisha B'av they do take a hot shower, trim their =
nails, check their bodies, and then go to a mikveh.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Who permits and who forbids?</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Ben Waxman</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Tel: 972-2-589-9822</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Fax:972-2-589-9898</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01BED0E2.2819DC10--
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 01:19:18 +0200
From: "Shlomo Godick" <shlomog@mehish.co.il>
Subject: Non-lyrical music (formerly Torah im Liberal Arts)
Micha B. wrote:
>What about non-lyrical music? Isn't it as low in possible kefirah as chess?
I recall that Janis Joplin and other rock singers of the sixties and
seventies were quite open about the motivation of
the rhythms and beat of rock music - namely, to stir
up the basest animal instincts in man (they phrased it far less delicately).
With this in mind I cannot help being astounded at the crassness of
"Jewish" rock tunes by Ben David et al. For those of us not fortunate
enough to have been born frum, and still bearing aural memories of this
garbage, listening to some of the "music" played at Jewish weddings
can be pure torture.
Lyrics aside, the medium here definitely is the message.
Kol tuv,
Shlomo Godick
Rechasim, Israel
Go to top.
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 14:27:54 +0200
From: "Stokar, Saul (MED)" <STOKASA@euromsx.gemse.fr>
Subject: Allegorical Intrepretations
Caveat: I have tried to be careful about the language I used in the
following post. I did not intend to insult anyone personally or to take
their closely-held views lightly. I hope I have not done so unintentionally.
Recently, one of the members of Avodah offers us his source for the
prohibition to allegorize the stories of the Tanach. He states:
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.
Later on, the same writer asks:
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?
David Glasner referred to the latter remark as "perhaps a tad hostile". For
me, the remarks fall well beyond the pale of polite conversation and honest
inquiry. In which post did anyone even suggest that Noah was "just playing
with a toy teiva in his bathtub with plastic figures of animals" ? To put
words into the mouth of your opponent that he/she would never dream of using
and then argue with the misquoted statement is hardly the sign of striving
for the truth. In my opinion, the umbrage the writer must have felt when he
detected the so-called "ludicrous and dangerous ... Megaleh Ponim ba'Torah
shelo k'halacha" is no excuse for this.
To respond to the question at hand, in my opinion it is vitally
important to examine the lesson that the Torah was teaching us in the story
of the Flood. The story of a world-wide flood was widely known in the
ancient Middle East - see all the variations on the Gilgamesh story (the
parallels with many details of the Torah's version are striking) - and it is
possible that the ancient Israelites were already familiar with this story
before they were told the Torah's version (either at Matan Torah or
beforehand). To the best of my knowledge, a comparison of the Torah's
version and the Gilgamesh version is not on the curriculum of most Orthodox
yeshivot. However, in my humble opinion, there is a tremendous amount to be
gained from such a comparison. The Torah narrative differs from these other
versions is a number of important details. For example, only in the Torah's
version is the hero saved because he was righteous; in the other versions,
he is saved either because he is the god's favorite (because he offers the
god sacrifices) or is simply chosen arbitrarily. Again, only in the Tanach
version is the earth's population (at least the humans) destroyed because of
their evil deeds; in the Gilgamesh versions, the earth is destroyed because
of petty jealousies amoung the gods. The differences (and parallels) go on
and on; they are small but very significant.
Much of the contemporary Orthodox commentatory I've seen on the
story of Noah (and the rest of the Tanach) deals with the story on a
realistic level. How could the plants have survived? What was the Tzohar?
How did all the animals fit in the Ark? Where did the water go? In addition,
a small coterie of religious scientists devote much of their time and effort
into thinking up "scientific" explanations for the events described in the
Torah (e.g. Prof. Schroder's interpretations of the 6 days of creation). To
all these I (and plenty of other religious scientists I have met) say: Who
cares about all this? Who cares whether there really was a world-wide flood
or not? To the people receiving the Torah, G-d provided them with an
alternative understanding of the widely-held belief in a catastrophic flood,
one which, instead of teaching idolaltry and anarchy, preaches the lessons
that:
[1] G-d knows what happens on earth
[2] G-d cares about what happens on earth
[3] G-d intervenes in what happens on earth
[4] G-d punishes the wicked and rewards the righteous
Perhaps, had the Torah been given in 1999, G-d would have chosen different
stories. I do not find anything scandelous in this, although I have little
doubt that a number of readers of this list find the statement unacceptable.
As far as I can tell, the only historical event that is "off-limits" is
giving of the Torah at Sinai, since allegorizing that story automatically
allegorizes the Halacha. In my opinion, as long as allegorizing is not used
to allegorize one iota of Halacha, who cares?
(As before, I have no doubt that a number of Avodah readers believe that
such a statement is way beyond the pale, but I would like to hear how many
people believe that it is comfortably within the pale of Orthodox Judaism.
However, I am afraid that the issue is not really open to debate i.e. any
source that supports allegorizing will be taken as proof that the author
himself is not really acceptable (i.e. like Sforno! see Vol 3 # 124)) To
simply state that the distinction between allegorizing stories and
allegorizing Halacha is a "dakus'dike chilukim between a classic Megaleh
Ponim and Nidon Didan" is not a reasoned argument - it's merely an
unsupported statement of personal belief.
To move to a different example, one connected to "Inyana D'Yoma
(BaAvonoteinu HaRabim)" consider the Yerushalmi's explanation of Jeremiah
52:6-7 (which dates the breaching of the walls of Jerusalem to 9 Tammuz and
not 17 Tammuz), viz. the walls were actually breached on 17 Tammuz (which is
one of the reasons we fast on that day); however, in the confusion of those
catastrophic days, the people mistakenly believed that the walls were
breached on 9 Tammuz, so that was the date Jeremiah recorded in his book. Of
course, "literalists" may respond that only Talmudic sages had license to
stray from the literal meaning of the text. We may not. The question here
is, were the Sages of the Yerushalmi stating a "Masorah" here (and, in this
case, why did the Sages of the Bavli offer a different explanation) or were
they teaching us something about the bounds of acceptable "parshanut"?
Allow me to adopt Eli Clark's example, signing off with the prayer
"She-nir'eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu"
Saul Stokar
Go to top.
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 10:23:01 EDT
From: Joelirich@aol.com
Subject: Re: Non-lyrical music (formerly Torah im Liberal Arts)
In a message dated 7/18/99 5:41:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
shlomog@mehish.co.il writes:
<<
I recall that Janis Joplin and other rock singers of the sixties and
seventies were quite open about the motivation of
the rhythms and beat of rock music - namely, to stir
up the basest animal instincts in man (they phrased it far less delicately).
With this in mind I cannot help being astounded at the crassness of
"Jewish" rock tunes by Ben David et al. For those of us not fortunate
enough to have been born frum, and still bearing aural memories of this
garbage, listening to some of the "music" played at Jewish weddings
can be pure torture.
Lyrics aside, the medium here definitely is the message.
Kol tuv,
Shlomo Godick
Rechasim, Israel
>>
I once heard a shiur which quoted the Pat Hashulchan(a student of the Gra) on
Shir Hashirim as saying " Kol Hachamaot kulam nitzrichim l'torateinu
u'klallim ba chachmat hamusic" and the Gra as saying " ki rov taamei hatora
vsodot shirei halivim vsodot tikunei zohar e efshar lyada biladah. val yada
yicholim bnai adam lamut bkolot nafsham bniumuta v'yicholim lhachayot meitim
bsodota hagnuzim btora"
Given our seeming lack of a mesora of music from the Bet Mikdash, Perhaps any
music that motivates in the right direction works. I recently attended a
wedding in Boro Park where the band played Eric Clapton's "My darling you
look wonderful tonight" (instrumental version) as the dinner music. To the
best of my knowledge no one else recognized it or was offended by the musical
quality.
She-nir'eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu,
Joel Rich
PS I always thought that Stairway to Heavan was about the sulam mutzav artza
:-)
Go to top.
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 11:16:22 EDT
From: C1A1Brown@aol.com
Subject: Re: Rashba on allegory, proof from B"B 15
>>>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. <<<
I think you are moving afield of the issue. Would Rashba object to sifrei
Chassidus which interpret Avraham as a paradigm for chessed and yitzchak as a
paradigm for yirah and the sippurei haAvos as reflecting middos of avodas
HAshem? As others have noted, the issue is not allegory as a method of
derush, but as allegory to the EXCLUSION of factual interpretation.
Since no one has brought up this gemara yet...
See the kashe of the gemera in B"B 15a to interpreting Iyov as a mashal - the
fact that his name, location, etc. are given is seen as evidence to the fact
that he really existed. Although there is a de'ah that rejects this line of
reasoning as conclusive with respect to Iyov, it seems to me to be a
convincing argument with respect to the mabul story. Iyov, with its many
chapters of poetic argument, leaves room to reject a handful of name/place
descriptions in favor of interpretation as a mashal; the short story of the
mabul filled with details of dates, dimensions of the teivah, locations,
people, etc. does not. Without going into the issue of mesorah, the flood
allegorization is simply a bad way to read the text.
-CB
Go to top.
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 10:47:16 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject: Re: Allegorical Intrepretations
On Sun, 18 Jul 1999, Stokar, Saul (MED) wrote:
> 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?
>
> David Glasner referred to the latter remark as "perhaps a tad hostile".
> For me, the remarks fall well beyond the pale of polite conversation and
> honest inquiry. In which post did anyone even suggest that Noah was
> "just playing with a toy teiva in his bathtub with plastic figures of
> animals" ? To put words into the mouth of your opponent that he/she
> would never dream of using and then argue with the misquoted statement
> is hardly the sign of striving for the truth. In my opinion, the umbrage
> the writer must have felt when he detected the so-called "ludicrous and
> dangerous ... Megaleh Ponim ba'Torah shelo k'halacha" is no excuse for
> this.
>
Excuse me, Dr. Stokar, but the reference was to "Reuven Shimon"'s
original post on MJ and to R' Spero's essay in Tradition, not to RDG's
post. I believe RDG understood that.
> Perhaps, had the Torah been given in 1999, G-d would have chosen
> different stories. I do not find anything scandelous in this, although I
> have little doubt that a number of readers of this list find the
> statement unacceptable. As far as I can tell, the only historical event
> that is "off-limits" is giving of the Torah at Sinai, since allegorizing
> that story automatically allegorizes the Halacha. In my opinion, as long
> as allegorizing is not used to allegorize one iota of Halacha, who
> cares? (As before, I have no doubt that a number of Avodah readers
> believe that such a statement is way beyond the pale, but I would like
> to hear how many people believe that it is comfortably within the pale
> of Orthodox Judaism. However, I am afraid that the issue is not really
> open to debate i.e. any source that supports allegorizing will be taken
> as proof that the author himself is not really acceptable (i.e. like
> Sforno! see Vol 3 # 124)) To simply state that the distinction between
> allegorizing stories and allegorizing Halacha is a "dakus'dike chilukim
> between a classic Megaleh Ponim and Nidon Didan" is not a reasoned
> argument - it's merely an unsupported statement of personal belief.
>
I am very sorry, but the evidence is against your position. i have shown,
and R' Daniel Eidensohn subsequently to me, how megaleh ponim ba'Torah was
applied by the Rishonim to allegorization of the Torah. R' Yitzchok
Zirkind demostrated that the Rambam, not only in the Moreh but in the Yad
Beis ha'Bechira 2:2 states that all these episodes are "masores b'yad
ha'kol". The Sfornu himself, would only extend allegorization to the
Nachash, and c"v not to the entire Gan Eden story. While your argument is
eloquent in its emotion, it is in diametric opposition to Chazal and
Rishonim. I will, here, refrain from resorting to emotion, but it may
easily be mustered on the side of Mesorah.
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: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 13:17:22 EDT
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject: Re: Allegorical Intrepretations
In a message dated 7/18/99 8:29:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
STOKASA@euromsx.gemse.fr writes:
> To respond to the question at hand, in my opinion it is vitally
> important to examine the lesson that the Torah was teaching us in the story
> of the Flood.
I don't think anybody is arguing that, the issue is the reinterperting it as
"only" a Mashal, IOW that it did not happen C"V.
> The story of a world-wide flood was widely known in the
> ancient Middle East - see all the variations on the Gilgamesh story (the
> parallels with many details of the Torah's version are striking) - and it
is
> possible that the ancient Israelites were already familiar with this story
> before they were told the Torah's version (either at Matan Torah or
> beforehand).
Since it did happen, there is no reason to think that the Bnei Yisroel heard
it in the exact form as it says in the Torah, from their father Yisroel, who
heard it from his father etc.
>To the best of my knowledge, a comparison of the Torah's
> version and the Gilgamesh version is not on the curriculum of most Orthodox
> yeshivot.
As I highly doubt (based on the sources provided last week), that it is
permissible to learn it.
> However, in my humble opinion, there is a tremendous amount to be
> gained from such a comparison.
All lessons can be learned in direct form from the Torah Hakdosha.
> the earth is destroyed because
> of petty jealousies amoung the gods. The differences (and parallels) go on
> and on; they are small but very significant.
especially significant, in the fact that this deals with Avodah Zora.
> Much of the contemporary Orthodox commentatory I've seen on the
> story of Noah (and the rest of the Tanach) deals with the story on a
> realistic level. How could the plants have survived? What was the Tzohar?
> How did all the animals fit in the Ark? Where did the water go?
As
In addition,
> a small coterie of religious scientists devote much of their time and
effort
> into thinking up "scientific" explanations for the events described in the
> Torah (e.g. Prof. Schroder's interpretations of the 6 days of creation). To
> all these I (and plenty of other religious scientists I have met) say: Who
> cares about all this? Who cares whether there really was a world-wide
flood
> or not? To the people receiving the Torah, G-d provided them with an
> alternative understanding of the widely-held belief in a catastrophic
flood,
> one which, instead of teaching idolaltry and anarchy, preaches the lessons
> that:
>
> [1] G-d knows what happens on earth
> [2] G-d cares about what happens on earth
> [3] G-d intervenes in what happens on earth
> [4] G-d punishes the wicked and rewards the righteous
>
> Perhaps, had the Torah been given in 1999, G-d would have chosen different
> stories. I do not find anything scandelous in this, although I have little
> doubt that a number of readers of this list find the statement
unacceptable.
> As far as I can tell, the only historical event that is "off-limits" is
> giving of the Torah at Sinai, since allegorizing that story automatically
> allegorizes the Halacha. In my opinion, as long as allegorizing is not
used
> to allegorize one iota of Halacha, who cares?
> (As before, I have no doubt that a number of Avodah readers believe that
> such a statement is way beyond the pale, but I would like to hear how many
> people believe that it is comfortably within the pale of Orthodox Judaism.
> However, I am afraid that the issue is not really open to debate i.e. any
> source that supports allegorizing will be taken as proof that the author
> himself is not really acceptable (i.e. like Sforno! see Vol 3 # 124)) To
> simply state that the distinction between allegorizing stories and
> allegorizing Halacha is a "dakus'dike chilukim between a classic Megaleh
> Ponim and Nidon Didan" is not a reasoned argument - it's merely an
> unsupported statement of personal belief.
>
> To move to a different example, one connected to "Inyana D'Yoma
> (BaAvonoteinu HaRabim)" consider the Yerushalmi's explanation of Jeremiah
> 52:6-7 (which dates the breaching of the walls of Jerusalem to 9 Tammuz and
> not 17 Tammuz), viz. the walls were actually breached on 17 Tammuz (which
is
> one of the reasons we fast on that day); however, in the confusion of those
> catastrophic days, the people mistakenly believed that the walls were
> breached on 9 Tammuz, so that was the date Jeremiah recorded in his book.
Of
> course, "literalists" may respond that only Talmudic sages had license to
> stray from the literal meaning of the text. We may not. The question here
> is, were the Sages of the Yerushalmi stating a "Masorah" here (and, in this
> case, why did the Sages of the Bavli offer a different explanation) or were
> they teaching us something about the bounds of acceptable "parshanut"?
Go to top.
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 13:36:45 EDT
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject: Re: Allegorical Intrepretations
Sorry, I hit the send key prematurely,
In a message dated 7/18/99 8:29:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
STOKASA@euromsx.gemse.fr writes:
> To respond to the question at hand, in my opinion it is vitally
> important to examine the lesson that the Torah was teaching us in the
> story of the Flood.
I don't think anybody is arguing that, the issue is the reinterpreting it
as
"only" a Mashal, IOW that it did not happen C"V.
> The story of a world-wide flood was widely known in the
> ancient Middle East - see all the variations on the Gilgamesh story (the
> parallels with many details of the Torah's version are striking) - and
it is
> possible that the ancient Israelites were already familiar with this
story
> before they were told the Torah's version (either at Matan Torah or
> beforehand).
Since it did happen, there is no reason to think that the Bnei Yisroel
didn't hear
it in the exact form as it says in the Torah, from their father Yisroel,
who
heard it from his father etc.
> To the best of my knowledge, a comparison of the Torah's
> version and the Gilgamesh version is not on the curriculum of most
Orthodox
> yeshivot.
As I highly doubt (based on the sources provided last week), that it is
permissible to learn it.
> However, in my humble opinion, there is a tremendous amount to be
> gained from such a comparison.
All lessons can be learned in direct form from the Torah Hakdosha.
> the earth is destroyed because
> of petty jealousies amoung the gods. The differences (and parallels) go
on
> and on; they are small but very significant.
especially significant, in the fact that this deals with Avodah Zora.
> Much of the contemporary Orthodox commentatory I've seen on the
> story of Noah (and the rest of the Tanach) deals with the story on a
> realistic level. How could the plants have survived? What was the Tzohar?
> How did all the animals fit in the Ark? Where did the water go?
As all this should prove that it was excepted as fact, not Mashal, and they
wanted to explain this fact.
>To the people receiving the Torah, G-d provided them with an
> alternative understanding of the widely-held belief in a catastrophic
flood,
So did it happen or not? If it didn't happen what need is there to give
"alternative understanding"? does Torah give "alternative understandings" to
all fictitious lessons?
> [1] G-d knows what happens on earth
> [2] G-d cares about what happens on earth
> [3] G-d intervenes in what happens on earth
> [4] G-d punishes the wicked and rewards the righteous
This is already learned from Cain and Hevel, Odom Horishon and the Eitz Hadas.
> As far as I can tell, the only historical event that is "off-limits" is
> giving of the Torah at Sinai, since allegorizing that story automatically
> allegorizes the Halacha.
What about Yetzias Mitzrayim, or the creation? what about allegorizing
"parts" of Kabolas Hatorah?.
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 00:58:36 +0300
From: Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il>
Subject: Re: Rashba on allegory, proof from B"B 15
C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:
> >>>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. <<<
>
> I think you are moving afield of the issue. Would Rashba object to sifrei
> Chassidus which interpret Avraham as a paradigm for chessed and yitzchak as a
> paradigm for yirah and the sippurei haAvos as reflecting middos of avodas
> HAshem? As others have noted, the issue is not allegory as a method of
> derush, but as allegory to the EXCLUSION of factual interpretation.
I gather my last posting was not as clear as it should have been. Let me try
again. The sources I quoted would all agree that the pshat describes historical
events. What I had hoped to convey is that there seem to be additional parameters
to acceptable drash or allegory - even where it doesn't impinge on halacha and
even when it doesn't exclude the pshat. In particular the Rashba objects to
allegory taken from Greek or scientific frameworks. The Tashbatz is concerned
that by focusing on the allegory the pshat will be discarded or minimized.
Their common objection seems to be that any conceptualization which serves as a
vehicle for *introducing* alien ideas and truncating the richness of Torah is
problematic. For example it is possible to see parallels between kabbalistic
ideas and psychoanalysis or between Kabbala and the theology of other religions.
To use concepts such as oedipal complex or kharma does more them simply describe
ideas - it creates an equivalency and thus makes Torah no more than these
explanation. Even translating Torah into English creates problems of distortions.
This was the problem of Mendelson. On the surface it would seem that Mendelson
and Hirsch did the same thing (i.e., translating Torah and explaining Torah to be
congruent with secular culture). One major difference was that Mendelson opened
the door to exit from Yiddishkeit while Hirsch opened the door to return.
Obviously there are times when the cost benefit analysis will indicate the
desirability of utilizing non Torah conceptualization. For example the Maharal
utilizes the terminology of Greek philosophy. Others used the concept of four
elements etc.
The same problem occurs when oriental religious concepts are used to *explain*
quantum physics. For some the religious model is helpful - but for others it is a
gross distortion.
In sum - drash is accepted by all. The nature of drash varies not only in
technique but as to *source*. Approaches which *introduce* or seems to validate
non Torah ideas must be used with caution and there are some who would reject
them as too dangerous for a particular population. This is clearly part of the
problem of using scientific theories and data as the standard to judge our mesora
or even to explain away apparent discrepancies (Schroeder).
Daniel Eidensohn
Go to top.
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 20:23:44 +0100
From: Chana/Heather Luntz <Chana/Heather@luntz.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Normative Mesorah and Allegory
In message , Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer
<sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> writes
>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.
I think it was imperative that you provided sources. Up until you did,
it certainly wasn't clear to me how seriously you were taking this. I
don't know if you are aware, but about 20 years ago here in England, the
masorati movement split off from Orthodoxy on the issue of Torah min
haShamayim. To summarise inadequately a very complicated story, a
particular rabbi who did not espouse Torah min HaShamayim as we
understand it, was deemed unacceptable for the rabbinical position he
was seeking, and he left Orthodoxy to found the masorati movement. I
was not in England then, and am sure other people on the list have a
better understanding of what went on, but from what I understand, the
Orthodox establishment, particularly the gedolim, dayanim etc here, took
a stand which ensured that people holding such views were made to
understand that their position was not compatible Orthodoxy, and so it
remains.
If you are right that the allegorisation that is occuring is megale
panim betorah shelo kehalacha a similar campaign must surely be
necessary. One would therefore expect at least a kol koreh from the
moetzes gadolei hatorah (instead of or in addition to the one on the
internet) and other similar authorities.
However, if anything, the opposite is the case. My impression is that
allegorisation and non literalisation is "pushed" much more in the more
charedi circles than in modern orthodox ones. The reason for that is
the kiruv movement. In general, the chosen method for kiruv work among
the more charedi sections of our community tends to be seminars,
lectures and shiurim, many of the focusing on certain "contraversial"
issues. To give you an example, the key kiruv seminar here in England,
one that is done jointly by all sections of the "right wing" (but not
the modern orthodox, who have their own seminar, Lishma) is called
Encounter (sub-title Judaism encounters modernity). The typical speaker
is Or Sameach/Eish Hatorah etc (ie yeshivishe kiruv movement). However,
while these seminars and the follow up shiurim that are offered
throughout the year are specifically targeted at baalei teshuva, because
of the lack of alternative shiurim, particularly for women, they often
have significant attraction for FFBs as well.
The problem is that, if you are right, then a lot of the kiruv work
being done by Or Sameach/Eish HaTorah etc etc is not kiruv work to Torah
at all, but to minus. And not just of baalei teshuva, but of FFBs as
well. Every time one of these kiruv organisations have a weekend or a
seminar, the kind of statement you object to is made about how Torah can
be harmonised with modern science, and they are constantly trotting out
people with scientific and frum credentials to prove the point. And the
"harmonisation" inevitably involves a deviation from the pshuto shel
mikra, at least in the details, if not in the general thrust, and there
is a stretching of the pshat (often in very inventive ways).
Specifically with regard to the flood, I believe it was one of these
types of seminars which first alerted me to the midrashim that say that
either the whole world bar Eretz Yisroel was covered, or just Eretz
Yisroel was covered (and not the rest of the world). That is not
*exactly* allegorisation, but once you adopt one of these midrashim
(particularly the latter) as being the emes, the approach to the story
of Noach perforce becomes far closer to a pnimus message (after all, a
flood over the whole of Eretz Yisroel, while probably pretty dramatic to
the participants, does not, in this day and age of tzatumis flooding
Bangladesh, carry quite the same resonance as a flood in which the
entire world is covered).
And yet, these movements have the haskomos of authorities in the right
wing (and certainly at the Encounter conference, there can be a whose
who of rabbonim attending) many of whom have had no hesitation in making
it clear that they do not approve of organisations like Edah, or for
that matter, R' Rackman's beis din.
So it seems to me there are only two conclusions. Either the right wing
gadolim are asleep on the job, and only YGB has spotted the fact that we
have serious minus in our midst, or it is not a problem. The question is
certainly interesting (far more interesting to me than allegorisation
and harmonisation itself, but then, I have always had a bent towards
halacha rather than aggada), and hopefully when I have a bit more time,
I will look up the teshuvas haRashba and other sources quoted. But given
the response (or more critically lack of it) from authoratative right
wing sources, I would be seeking to read the sources to try and
understand why today it is *not* regarded as a problem, rather than
trying to stand up against the halachic olam.
>YGB
>
>Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
>Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
>ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila
>
Kind Regards
Chana
--
Chana/Heather Luntz
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 ]