Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 062

Thursday, November 21 2002

• Naftoli Herz Wessely
• re: contemporary 'Litvish'er' Yeshivos vs. Volozhin
• musar - other derochim - derech haGR"A (?), Telshe, etc.
• Re: Mussar
• Re:Living in Yerushalayim
• RE: Shittat harambam
• Re: Astrology Mareh Mekomos
• RE: Astrology
• Re: Astrology
• Re: Astrology
• Re: Astrology Mareh Mekomos
• Re: Astrology Mareh Mekomos
• corpeality of G-d
• Re: corpeality of G-d
• RE: Rambam and education
• Re: Rambam and education

From: "SBA" <sba@iprimus.com.au>
> From: "Jonathan Baker" <jjbaker@panix.com>
>> 5) attacks on reprinting of 'sefer hamiddos' by Naftoli Hertz Wessely
>> (sp.)
 
> PMI, who is Naftoli Hertz Wessely (sp.)

One of Mendelssohn's circle, of the first generation of maskilim,
when it was still a movement among observant Jews. Widely regarded as
the greatest Hebrew poet of his age, for his epic poem Shirei Tiferet,
on the Exodus.) Many of his earlier writings (Gan Na'ul, on the roots
of Hebrew words and how their grammatical use reveals the details of
the Oral Law; the Vayikra volume of Mendelssohn's Biur) defend rabbinic
ideas against the anti-rabbinic culture that he felt dominated non- Jewish
attitudes towards Jews. He wrote an extensive commentary to Avot, Yein
Levanon, which takes as its basic model the "three pillars" of Torah,
Avodah, and Gemilut Chasadim as basic personality types - the one who
concentrates on learning, on doing lots of mitzvos, or on helping others -
and then breaks down each mishnah and analyzes how it addresses each of
these three personality types. This work has a haskamah from the Noda
Biyehuda, among others, which speaks highly of his previous works Gan
Na'ul and on the Wisdom of Solomon. He is known to have studied with R'
Yonatan Eibeshitz, but I can't find anything that says he got smicha,
although he seems to have been something of a prodigy, learning Gemara
at the age of 5.

Unfortunately, most of the real biographies are in German. All I can
find are a few articles.

His later works address educational philosophy. His pamphlet "Divrei
shalom v'emet" proposes a) mathematics and geography; b) more Hebrew and
Tanach for boys' education, i.e., not just Gemara. It also included
some unfortunate language about those rabbis who didn't agree with
his educational program, that led to something of a break with most
of the rabbinate, although there was some kind of reconciliation.
His book Sefer haMidot continues talking about education, but from the
other direction, downplaying chochmo yevanit - secular philosophy - as
unnecessary, detrimental, dangerous, etc. Not necessarily forbidden,
once one has filled his stomach with Torah (as Rabban Gamliel is known to
have learned it), but not for the masses, and certainly not for children.

(Sources: Edward Breuer, "Naphtali Herz Wessely and the Cultural
Dislocations of an Eighteenth Century Maskil", in NEW PERSPECTIVES ON
THE HASKALAH, eds. Feiner and Sorkin, 2001; Israel Zinberg, HISTORY OF
JEWISH LITERATURE vol. VIII: The Berlin Haskalah, Ch. 3 (written 1930s,
tr. 1976); Jewish Encyclopedia article on Naftali Hirz Wessely).

> 2) In Volozhin all of Sha"s was learned. The Alter of Slobodka instituted
> the focus of study on 'Yeshivish'er mesechtos' (making of a godol p. 516,
> volume I, book one).

IIRC, I heard (on tape) from R'SY Weinberg that until R' Chaim, you
had to know shas to be able to "learn". R' Chaim was mechadesh a derech
halimud that allows one to shteig without knowing shas

In the shmooze he implied that this had a impact on yahadus comparable
to the (impact of the) GRA and BESHT

again this is strictly "IIRC" - been a while since I heard this...

kol tuv
Sender Baruch

A derech that seems good to me would be to learn sefer Even Sheleima
and Mishlei im pirush haGR"A.

Is such a derech followed anywhere ? If not, why not ?

Also - A Litvish'er machshovo / 'mussar' derech is the Telshe 'shiurei
daas' derech.

Mordechai

On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 02:36:24PM +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
: My original point - which seems to have gotten lost in the screaming
: was that Mussar was initially opposed by the yeshiva world and then for
: **pragmatic** reasons it became accepted....

And for similarly "**pragmatic**" reasons we need to support it. 

The forces toward assimilation have only become greater since. If we
needed mussar to hold onto what we had in the 19th and early 20th cent,
lo kol shekein it's critical today!

On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 11:26:38AM +0000, R' Steven Brizel
<Zeliglaw@aol.com> wrote:
: RYBS felt that R Chaim rejected Mussar because it was for those who made
: people depressed...

And R' Wolbe's concern was that it would lead to ga'avah! After all, one
is accepting to go lifnim mishuras hadin, adopting hanhagos that aren't
strictly required -- how does one resist not thinking themself an
"adam gadol"? He has a solution, but that's a different discussion.

Mussar is about "shteiging" a sulam of growth. Yes, it requires being
aware of how low on the ladder on is so far. But not to beat oneself
up about it -- rather, to know what step must be taken next!

To put it another way, Slabodka's vision of mussar isn't about berating
oneself for having too much ka'as, but about learning savlanus and
equinimity.

:              ... and made them feel that the Gemara was insufficient
: as a means of coping with the trials and tribulations of life. RYBS
: recalled that R Chaim called Musar castor oil for the very sick...

(Of course RCSoloveitchik would question the need for anything but
halachah. But...)

In hachi nami!

The Alter of Novardok, in the intro and first ma'amarim of Madreigas
ha'Adam (which is as far as I got), agrees that mussar wouldn't be
necessary in an ideal society. In the intro he likens us to someone who
saw an airplane before. Someone might tell us that little dot up there
contains numerous people, but how can the viewer believe it? The
Alter notes that we have too grown far away from Torah to study
halachah and see the humanity within.

As the Alter puts it in the first ma'amar (Tequfos ha'Olam) the gap
between yeshiva and kehillah caused by the haskalah as the cause of
this distance.

To recast it in R' Dr Haym Soloveitchik's terms: There is a gap between
the textual tradition and our mimetic background. Since we lack the
culture providing the right values, attitudes, and reactions, we need
to consciously change ourselves to provide them. /That/ is mussar.

RSB, continued:
:                                                                  The CI's
: critique was that it was useless to talk about the wonders of Shabbos,
: Kashrus and Dinim Bein Adam LaChavero without knowing the halachos...

Agreed. But why would one assume an either-or?

-mi

PS: Mordechai "Phyllostac" has me pegged quite well. I happen right now
to be learning one se'if of Even Sheleimah daily, am in the middle of
the Gra's peirushim (there are three collections in the usual printed
volume) on Mishlei, and both RYGB and I have a connection to Telzher
derekh.

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
Fax: (413) 403-9905             - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

From: "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
>1. Is the additional kedusha only in the Old City, or even if samuch
> v'nireh (compare laws of mukaf choma)?

Yes the additional kedusha would only be in the Old City and in parts of
the Silwan (which is the original lower Jerusalem), and probably parts
of Mount Zion. Yerushalayim can only be added to by a melech and navi,
and offering korbonos. The kedusha is related to the permissibility
of eating kodoshim there such as maser shayni and kodshim kalim. ( I
looked in Rav Tukachinsky's sefer on Yerushalayim and the bias HaMikdash
and he does not say that this din applies specifically within the walls
of Yerushalayim; but I believe that the kedusha only applies within
walls). The laws of somuch v'nireh do apply to other issues such as
kriyas migilah on Purim. That does not mean that there is no preference
to live in the New City of Jerusalem since it is closer to the mokom
kadosh. Especially since one of the reason given for aliyah Lregel is to
be infused with the kedushah of the placeand people of Yerushalayim and
I certainly think that that applies to the New City of Jerusalem as well.
However there may be some who would argue that it applies better to Bnei
Brak today.

Kol Tov
Ezriel

At 01:59 PM 11/18/02 -0500, Shinnar, Meir wrote:
>This has been an education about some modern ideas, athough it has shed
>little light on the rambam.

On this we can agree! Dittos!

...
>RYGB wrote
>: Look again, from the *beginning* - he rejects Aristotle on the basis of
>: pesukim in Navi and - were Aristotle to have proof he would regard the
>: pesukim in Bereishis as metaphor - but he cannot because of the Nevi'im.

>Again, a unique and novel way of understanding the rambam. The rambam
>rejects Aristotle because Aristotelian causality would make all divine
>intervention and miracles impossible - but is willing to accept the
>possibility of a Platonic interpretation of eternity - the rejection
>is precisely because there is no logical proof of the second opinion a
>la Plato, rather than from neviim. If there was, he would be willing to
>reinterpret, even though there is no mesora.

Plato's kadmus does not stand in contradiction to ikkarim - that is why he 
does not need to reject it from that standpoint! (Plato's kadmus pertains 
to the world of forms, not the world of substance). This point allows me to 
cut out a lot of what you have below (which I did).

To reiterate, in different formulation for context, what I wrote to RET: Do 
you believe that the Rambam developed this ikkar on his own and then 
decided it was fundamental to Judaism?!

>2) Is astrology false? The rambam suggests a svara that anything that is
>forbidden is false - astrology, kishuf, etc. This svara is consistent
>with the rambam's general shitta on taame hamitzvot, but does not seem
>to be shared by any other rishon, gaon, or member of hazal - and this
>svara is the basis of the issue.

Right. And the Rambam asserted that this svara is inseparable from the issur.

>However, this is not a halachic issue, as the rambam views those who think
>differently as fools, but doesn't consider such thought to be assur.
>Therefore, the whole discussion is not on the halachic realm, but on
>the hashkafic. Furthermore, there is no source prior to the rambam
>(perhaps hovot halevavot from Marc SHapiro - I don't have those editions,
>and don't know how extensive his rejection of astrology and witchcraft
>is) which held that, and (almost?) no one after him or before him held
>by that svara.

Right. Who claimed it was Halachic? But since you would have it that all 
Chazal that the Rambam saw he understood as you do, that astrology has 
validity, he would hold all Chazal to be fools, right?

>(By the way, initially you insisted that the rambam's position is
>completely based on mesorah - but then change and say that he was Yachid
>bdoro and mimoshe ad moshe - which is it?)

My good friend, you have this wonderful tactic you deploy consistently in 
our debates: The claim that I have shifted my position in some minute 
manner and therefore I am inconsistent and ipso facto incorrect. It does 
get tiresome.

In this case, in any event, you are wrong: What I was saying is that even 
lu ye'tzuyar that no other Rishon espoused this viewpoint in writing, that 
the Rambam did espouse it is enough for us to assume that this was a 
legitimate perspective that cam down b'mesorah to him, as the Rambam is a 
source in and of himself without need for reference to parallel RS"G's et al.

>You have asserted that issues that relate to core issues of hashgacha
>and interaction with the beria have different rules. I am sure that you
>sincerely believe that, but the rambam nowhere makes that distinction,
>and indeed, seems to use his allegorical interpretations - so my question
>remains - outside of this being a core belief for you, where do we have
>evidence for this position?

It is very simple, actually. The Rambam believes, as we all do, that Chazal 
had access to the sodos of the Beriah - via ther mesorah from Nevi'im and 
via Chacham adif me'Navi. How, then, could they have committed - en masse - 
the grievous error of assuming astrology can foretell events and predict 
outcomes if it, indeed, cannot?

At 11:51 AM 11/18/02 -0500, Gil Student wrote:
>Let me see if I understand the debate here. We all agree that Rambam
>(among others) held that Chazal in general did not believe in astrology.

The debate has nothing to do with the Ramban. It is whether the Rambam 
found his shittah in Ma'amarei Chazal, according to his understanding of 
them (me); or actually found no Ma'amarei Chazal to that effect, but only 
asserted that if they were reasonable people they must agree with him; and 
if they did not; well then they were fools (them).

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

RDE wrote:
<< His assertions regarding R'
Saadiya Gaon are not convincing either.

The following seems to undermine his assertion.

1) RSG was the first to write a commentary on Sefer Yetzira. Prof A
Altman in his article on astrology in Encyclopedia Judaica takes this
as evidence that RSG was a believer in astrology.>>

I somehow found the article "Early phylosophical commentaries on the Sefer 
Yetzirah: som comments" by Raphael Jospe of the Open University in Israel 
(appeared in volume 149 of Revue des etudes juives, number 4, fall 1990) 
quite convincing. In there he argues that RSG's commentary on SY is anything 
but mystical, and that RSG chose to comment on it because there was no chance 
to convince the public to leave that work on the shelve. So instead, RSG 
interpreted the entire work as a philosophical treatise, and in ter alia also 
stated that it wasn't written by Avraham Avinu.

Arie
-- 
It is absurd to seek to give an account of the matter to a man 
who cannot himself give an account of anything; for insofar as
he is already like this, such a man is no better than a vegetable.
           -- Book IV of Aristotle's Metaphysics

> No, but... The Torah is still emes. If it makes an implication
> that is physical, I would think it obvious that the physics is
> good physics.

I wouldn't -- because the Torah speaks in loshon bnei adam.

The sun sinking into a pool of mud, for example, is clearly part of TSBP - it
makes *more* than an "implication" of physics -- and it's clearly wrong if takes
as a simple pshat on celestial mechanics.

>
> Since aggadita has no pesaq process, any of the conclusions
> derivable from what was given at Sinai might be the one that
> best jibes with the physics. Even if it's a yachid like RYmA
> on the age of the universe.

If one looks hard enough one can find *anything* -- that's one of the criticism
of Bible Codes, for example, or Gematria.

So we have to ask if TYmA had a mesorah for his opinion, or was it a chiddush.
If he had a direct mesorah, why only him, and why so late?

(and yes, I realize the question is problematic)

> If they all agree on some point, IOW, had it been true that there
> is nothing in TSBP to indicate an old universe, how could a
> ma'amin have believed otherwise? It's one thing to say the Torah
> isn't aimed at explaining natural history, another to say it
> makes false claims on the subject.

But the Torah is making NO claims one way or the other.

(Actually -- most of mesorah assumes a young universe -- which, of course, is
why most of the chareidi world rejects the *idea* of an old universe and equates
science with kefira)

> If mesorah, TSBP, makes a statement about physics, rather than
> chazal using physics to explain some nequdah, I assume it's emes.
> (Yes, that's a blurry and debatable line -- determining what is
> from mesorah, and what is added to explain mesorah.)

When the Navi says (indirectly) PI = 3, do we accept that? If we follow pshat
then we would have to.

>
> Another nequdah: if there is no indication in TSBP that something
> is anything but a historical claim, can we say otherwise? Isn't

If confronted by hard physical evidence to the contrary then we would have to
assume the Torah is speaking allegorically.

Doesn't the Rambam say that there can be no conflict between Torah and
Science -- and any apparent conflict is caused by our lack of understanding of
Science OR Torah?

(Tying it into astrology -- if the above Rambam is correct, then the Rambam
would hold that, given hard evidence that astrology doesn't work, we would have
to assume that the Torah's (apparent) acceptance of astrology is a result of our
incorrect learning, and we would have to re-learn those sections of Torah in
such a way that they don't conflict.)

> pure allegory rare enough to be implied to be absent unless
> the mesorah explicitly gives reason to believe otherwise?

But the mesorah tells us that the Torah speaks in lashon bnei adam -- i.e.
allegory. When it says that, it seems to be stating a clal in learning.

Akiva

On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 10:56:10AM +0200, Akiva Atwood wrote:
: > No, but... The Torah is still emes. If it makes an implication
: > that is physical, I would think it obvious that the physics is
: > good physics.

: I wouldn't -- because the Torah speaks in loshon bnei adam.

You're quoting a saying about TSBK; I'm speaking of all of Torah,
including TSBP. Therefore this and all your other comments about
peshat being outside science are misplaced.

So if we have a mesorah telling us -- directly or by providing material
from which one can be mechadeish -- that the statement is meant idiomatic,
I am willing take it that way. Not because it contradicts contemporary
theory. There must be some /internal/ ra'ayah that that's what the Torah
meant, and not simply megaleh panim baTorah.

This is also why I don't find that ra'ayah from the Moreh very
convincing. He is discussing whether to take Bereishis 1 literally,
for which there is plenty reason WITHIN Torah to say no. (Actually,
looking at meqoros that predate the scientific challenge, there are
more who assume ma'aseh bereishis isn't literal than is.) So, his
theoretical willingness to be meyasheiv it with philosophy had it
been necessary doesn't parallel. Perhaps it's only because there is
validation within Torah for that possibility.

See also  Moreh chelek B pereq 15. The Rambam rules out using natural
philosophy to trump what we know from nevu'ah and mesorah.

: So we have to ask if TYmA had a mesorah for his opinion, or was it a chiddush.
: If he had a direct mesorah, why only him, and why so late?

What about indirect mesorah -- he was given material from which he
deduced the age he gives. Or (or should I say "such as") it was
proposed as a means to resolve what would otherwise be a setirah.

: > If they all agree on some point, IOW, had it been true that there
...

: But the Torah is making NO claims one way or the other.

Thus my subjunctive tense "had it been true that..."

: (Actually -- most of mesorah assumes a young universe -- which, of course, is
: why most of the chareidi world rejects the *idea* of an old universe and equates
: science with kefira)

I disagree. I think the current trend toward such belief is a re-action.

But that's irrelevent. This isn't halachah, there is no "azlinan basar
ruba". I'm objecting to the belief that the Rambam would be mechadeish
to answer a she'eilah from natural philosophy with no need or maqor from
within Torah. A da'as yachid addressing a she'eilah about Torah itself
qualifies as a maqor from within.

: (Tying it into astrology -- if the above Rambam is correct, then the Rambam
: would hold that, given hard evidence that astrology doesn't work, we would have
: to assume that the Torah's (apparent) acceptance of astrology is a result of our
: incorrect learning, and we would have to re-learn those sections of Torah in
: such a way that they don't conflict.)

Why? How do you know it's not the evidence or the theory explaining it
that isn't flawed? Do you reject the literal occurance of ma'amad har
Sinai based on current archeological theory? Of course not!

To put it another way: if belief in astrology is a flawed understanding
of Torah, we'd be able to find those flaws when learning Torah. And many
rishonim, who lived without external forces pushing for its rejection,
did see reasons within TT to reject astrology.

Otherwise, I have more confidence in mesorah than in the idea that we
have final and complete theories on how the world works.

I'm curious to know how others avoid the slippery slope from astrology or
ma'aseh bereishis (for which one has meqoros within TT), to the mabul,
to migdal bavel, to ma'amad har Sinai. Each of us have some point at
which they hold bowing to scientific theory is okay, and some point at
which it isn't. I gave you my criterion. How do /you/ define the line?

-mi

PS: If everyone could please be clear in the future about whether they're
discussing (or their ra'ayah is) rejecting the astrology itself, saying
it's false, vs rejecting the permissability of consulting it.

-- 
Micha Berger                 I slept and dreamt that life was joy.
micha@aishdas.org            I awoke and found that life was duty.
http://www.aishdas.org       I worked and, behold -- duty is joy.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                            -  Rabinranath Tagore

> Here's the citation I meant:
> "We should not consult astrologers or others, and, in any case, should
> not expect their predictions to come true, but should respond to their
> predictions by saying "hakol biy'dei shamayim", for He changes the
> celestial order as He desires ..."
>
> Admittedly he goes on to attribute plausibility to their presictions
> for non-Jews.


This position that the words of the astrologer do not have to come true is
the standard position of the rishonim. The astral influences are there, they
can be ascertained accurately by astrology - but since the celestial order
can be changed by proper merit one should focus on avodas HaShem and not be
concerned with astrology. See the 11th drasha of the Ran where he explains
this in detail.  Tosfos Nidah 16b notes that moral qualities can also be
determined by mazal in apparent contradiction to the gemora Nidah 16b. "But
we see that Chezkiyahu saw that he would have children that would be no
good - therefore it is decreed before a person is born that they would not
be yirei Shamayim? It is possible to answer that he was being shown the
future [but not that it was predetermined]. Furthermore there are many
things which are dependent upon mazal (Shabbos 156) 'A person born under
Tzedek will be a tzadik one who is born on Shabbos will be called
holy...Furthermore there are many things which are in the hands of Heaven
[mazel] which [will happen because] G-d does not want to change the path of
the mazalos."

I can bring many more sources in the rishonim that all say that mazel is a
valid science but that the impact can be changed (ain mazal) or sublimated
(yeish mazal). Therefore a Jew should be concerned with temimos and have
bitachon and not with astrology.

In sum, sources that say astrology is prohibited or should not be consulted
or that it's prediction might not come true because the celestial order can
be changed by merit - do not indicate a rejection of the validity of the
science of astrology. The Rambam is the only one who clearly rejects the
validity of astrology.

                                                Daniel Eidensohn

> 1) RSG was the first to write a commentary on Sefer Yetzira. Prof A
> Altman in his article on astrology in Encyclopedia Judaica takes this
> as evidence that RSG was a believer in astrology.>>
>
> I somehow found the article "Early phylosophical commentaries on the Sefer
> Yetzirah: som comments" by Raphael Jospe of the Open University in Israel
> (appeared in volume 149 of Revue des etudes juives, number 4, fall 1990)
> quite convincing. In there he argues that RSG's commentary on SY is
anything
> but mystical, and that RSG chose to comment on it because there was no
chance
> to convince the public to leave that work on the shelve. So instead, RSG
> interpreted the entire work as a philosophical treatise, and in ter alia
also
> stated that it wasn't written by Avraham Avinu.

So at best you can say that RSG was not enthusiastic about astrology.
Whether that was because the intellectual climate of his day did not allow
him to condemn it or that he was more focused on other issues can not be
settled from the available data. The fact remains that only the Rambam
unequivocally rejected the validity of astrology.

                                                        Daniel Eidensohn

On Wednesday 20 November 2002 04:55, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> So at best you can say that RSG was not enthusiastic about astrology.
> Whether that was because the intellectual climate of his day did not allow
> him to condemn it or that he was more focused on other issues can not be
> settled from the available data. The fact remains that only the Rambam
> unequivocally rejected the validity of astrology.

Notice how I tried to stay out of the debate. You (as in all the participants) 
are very erudite in the matter and I enjoy reading, too. My post was simply 
intended to weaken your statement using RSG's commentary on SY and rav Aryeh 
Kaplan's statement about it as evidence in favor of RSG being in favor of 
astrology. IOW, I find RAK less than convincing on this particular matter.

Kol tuv,

Arie

>Even with regard to the statement that G-d has no body - Rambam
reinterpreted pesukim based on his own logic. He does not claim that
this is based on a masoretic tradition. In fact others attacked him 
on this issue because they felt that chazal did not agree with him

You mean the Rambam made up his own theological principle and then
declared it as an ikkar of Judaism?! >

That seems to be the opinion of Raavad and some other rishonim.


--
 Eli Turkel, turkel@math.tau.ac.il on 11/20/2002

On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 02:58:15PM +0000, Eli Turkel wrote:
:>> Even with regard to the statement that G-d has no body - Rambam
:>> reinterpreted pesukim based on his own logic. He does not claim that
:>> this is based on a masoretic tradition...

:> You mean the Rambam made up his own theological principle and then
:> declared it as an ikkar of Judaism?!

: That seems to be the opinion of Raavad and some other rishonim.

I disagree. The Ra'avad argues that the Rambam's position is not
an ikkar. But he agress that it /is/ emes, and /is/ based on
mesorah.

While the Rambam may suggest his own nimshalim for things like "yad
Hashem", he didn't introduce the idea that the pesuqim were idiomatic.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 I slept and dreamt that life was joy.
micha@aishdas.org            I awoke and found that life was duty.
http://www.aishdas.org       I worked and, behold -- duty is joy.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                            -  Rabinranath Tagore

RMB [on Areivim, a discussion about why girls get a more rounded
chinuch than boys in many communities. -mi]
> Another is bragging rights: parents like to know and be able to tell
> others how much gemara their son learned. Since, as the Rambam and
> Tosafos argue from different directions, shas should be the centerpiece
> of one's learning as an adult, shas is bragging material. (The fact that
> the Rambam insists this is only after a strong foundation in the basics
> ends up ignored.)

WADR, this is another reinterpretation of the Rambam to conform with
later norms (a recurrent theme).

The rambam does put "gmara" at the center of one's learning, but the
meaning of the word gmara is not shas, and actually includes (and
perhaps is even primarily) philosophy - ("vehainyanim hanikrim pardes
bikhlal hagemara hen - hilchot talmud torah, 1:12) - and one needs to
study first heassur vehamuttar ( hilkhot yesode hatora 4:13), but that
is quite different than studying gmara and the shakla vetarya - which
was not the center of his curriculum, and questionable to what extent
it even was a necessary part of his recommended curriculum.

 WHile there is a letter to R Pinchas Hadayan where he denies saying that
one shouldn't study gmara, and mentions that he actually spent some time
teaching gmara, none of his writings suggest that this is the centerpiece
of one's learning. Indeed, when he recommended a curriculum to his
student for whom he wrote the more nevuchim, he recommended studying the
rif and the mishne torah (in addition to philosophy) - not the gmara
(don't have at work - will give citation on request). Similarly, his
introduction to the Mishne Torah is well known, and without getting into
a discussion of what was actually meant - (R Kafih in his edition of the
mishne torah understands him kipshuto - that relying on the gmara, while
possible, was reserved for the rare individual who can master the gmara,
while most would do better relying on the mishne torah), quite clearly,
even if one does not interprete kipshuto, shas does not figure as the
centerpiece of learning for most. The Ibn Tibbons (whom I believe rav
avraham the son of the rambam said truly understood his father) and their
circle in Provence actually set up a circle where gmara wasn't taught -
only halacha lemaase and philosophy.

The fact that this curriculum never caught on is one thing, but we
should be clear about the rambam's shitta.

Meir Shinnar

On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 05:51:07PM -0500, Shinnar, Meir wrote:
: WADR, this is another reinterpretation of the Rambam to conform with
: later norms (a recurrent theme).

Not the Rambam, but the mishnah he's quoting.

: The rambam does put "gmara" at the center of one's learning, but the
: meaning of the word gmara is not shas...

As the person who originally said it was a tanna, it would be anachronistic
to think he referred to shas.

:                                   ..., and actually includes (and
: perhaps is even primarily) philosophy ...

Here's where I disagree, and why I think shas *be'iyun* IS one plasusible
qiyom of the "gemara" the Rambam understood the tanna to be speaking
of. His description in 1:11, where he introduces the quote is far
more oriented toward LAMDUS than philosophy; "lehavin acharis davar
meireishiso..." is ambiguous, but what about "hei'ach hu ikkar hamidas,
vehei'ach yotzi ha'assur vehamutar"?

Li nir'eh from Hilchos Dei'os, he considers the ikkar chiyuv to study it
to be ahavas Hashem, not TT. Which is why in the halachah you site (TT
1:12) he tacks it on AFTER the core definition given in 1:11. But then,
that simply means that one is meqayeim "gemara" with aggadita be'iyun too.

Yes, to assume that shas is the "gemara" in question rather than one
possible text with which gemara can be learned, would be a redefinition.
The Rambam defines gemara as being mechadeish beyond devarim shelamad
al pi hashemu'ah. Which is why I specified be'iyun. Learning shas as
one would any other seifer, without adding your own havanah, wouldn't
qualify.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 I slept and dreamt that life was joy.
micha@aishdas.org            I awoke and found that life was duty.
http://www.aishdas.org       I worked and, behold -- duty is joy.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                            -  Rabinranath Tagore

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


[ 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         ]