Avodah Mailing List

Volume 24: Number 82

Thu, 29 Nov 2007

• 1. Re: Kashrus Question (Daniel Israel)
• 2. what did we learn for 350 years? (AY & CB Walters)
• 3. Re: Fables and Lies (T613K@aol.com)
• 4. Re: C: we don't rely on manuscripts of Rishonim to overturn psikei halacha (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 5. Re: what did we learn for 350 years? (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 6. Re: Apikores? (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 7. gravity (Eli Turkel)
• 8. new rishonim (Eli Turkel)
• 9. Re: Fables and Lies (Chana Luntz)
• 10. Re: C: we don't rely on manuscripts of Rishonim tooverturn psikei halacha (Rich, Joel)

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 12:59:47 -0700 "Prof. Levine" 
<llevine@stevens.edu> wrote:
>One person who is involved in the supervision of a donut store 
told 
>me that they actually visit the store on Pesach. If they did not, 
>then they would have to kasher the place after Pesach, he wrote.
>
>So I have to ask (again), "These donuts that are manufactured on 
>Pesach under supervision are kosher for whom? What does this 
>supervision on Pesach mean?" I presume that the sign saying the 
>store is under supervision is not removed on Pesach.

I am very confused by your continuing to ask this question.  It 
seems to me you have answered it yourself.  So perhaps you need to 
restate the question to clarify what is actually bothering you.

The basic problem here seems to be the word, "kosher."  
M'd'oraissa, there is no such thing as "kosher."  There is basar 
v'chalav, n'veilah, terumah, chometz, etc., all of which make it 
assur to eat something.  Each are separate dinim.  Furthermore, 
something is not kosher for someone; it is simply a violation of 
one or more issurim to eat, or not.

The donuts are chometz, which is prohibited for Jews on Pesach, but 
which violate none of the other issurim regarding food (and are 
therefore permissible to eat not on Pesach).  If by "kosher for 
whom?" you mean to ask "who is allowed to eat them because of the 
certification, the answer is clearly, nobody.  But if you mean 
supervised for what purpose, the answer is in order that the donut 
shop doesn't need to be rekashered after Pesach.

My chometz dishes are also kosher all Pesach, even though I can't 
cook with them.  I seal them up, rather than leaving them with a 
non-Jewish neighbor because in that case I would keep having to 
make surprise inspections to make sure my neighbor didn't cook with 
them.  Ditto with the donut shop.

Assuming the shop is owned by a non-Jew, there is no reason to 
require him to close, and there is every reason to continue 
certifying.  If there was some real danger of Jews thinking that 
the donuts were mutar on Pesach, maybe we would at least remove the 
sign, or put up one saying that they are not, but I don't think 
this is a real chashash.

--
Daniel M. Israel
dmi1@cornell.edu

The Geonim say that from the chasimas hatalmud by R' Ashi until the Behag was 350 years.

Now, AFAIK, the Behag was the first post talmudic sefer, he was probably from the early gaonim/late saboraim.

But what the saboraim doing in the intrerim - why do we have zero seforim from them, when we have an unbroken chain both before that, and afterwards?

It is known that some of what we call the Gemoro was actually written after R' Ashi, by the saboraim (eg the entire first daf and a half of Kidushin), but presumably this is the exception not the rule.

I have heard that all the connecting words, such as "meisvei, toh shema, kasha" etc found in the gemoro are of savoraic origin; originally the bavli looked like the yerushalmi - without the connecting words, where the kashia ends and the teretz starts, etc. If so, then to say the Talmud was closed by R' Ashi, just means the halochos, and not necessarily the leshonos.

Is this theory accepted as true? Even if so, 350 years is an awfully long time for this - longer than the period from R' Akiva until R' Ashi - spanning all Amoraim and much Tanoim too...

Any ideas?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Get a free email address with REAL anti-spam protection.
http://www.bluebottle.com/tag/1

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071128/931829a4/attachment-0001.html 

 
 
From: "Chana Luntz" _chana@kolsassoon.org.uk_ 
(mailto:chana@kolsassoon.org.uk) 


 

>>Um, Ayleh Rzk'rah is a myth, not a lie. ....
I quote from "A short
History of Myth" by Karen Armstrong  p7-8:

"Today the word "myth" is often used to describe something that  is
simply not true. ... Since the eighteenth century, we have developed  a
scientific view of history; we are concerned above all with  what
actually happened.  But in the pre-modern world, when people wrote  about
the past they were more concerned with what an event had meant....  


An experience of trancendence has always been part of the  human
experience.  We seek out moments of ecstasy ... Like poetry  and music,
mythology should awaken us to rapture, even in the face of death  and the
dispair we may feel at the prospect of annihiliation.  If a myth  ceases
to do that, it has died and outlived its usefulness.....

....Our modern alienation from myth is unprecedented.  In  the pre-modern
world, mythology was indispensible.  It not only helped  people make
sense of their lives but also revealed regions of the human mind  that
would otherwise have remained inaccessible ... "

I tend to think  there is still quite a bit of value in these studies,
because they are able  to explain in modern language something that I
think we moderns sometimes  forget, which is how to more fully understand
some of our own  texts.

>>>>>
I totally reject the formulation "Eilah Ezkarah is a myth." 
 
I reject this whole line of thought, that all our midrashim and so on are  
the same as Greek and Roman myths, all human creations "like poetry and music"  
and so on.  
 
The person who wrote the book about myth from which R'n CL quotes clearly  
does not believe in G-d or in anything Out There besides the amazing workings of 
 the human brain, which seeks the "experience of transcendence" and  
"ecstasy."  He does not believe there is an Afterlife (death =  "annihilation") , but 
thinks "myth" helps us overcome despair.  And  look at this passage:  "In the 
pre-modern world, mythology was  indispensable.  It...helped people make sense 
of their lives."  There  is the most incredible condescension there, on the 
part of a modern  person with scientific training who does not need mythology 
to make sense  of our lives, but nevertheless thinks that mythology is sweet 
and  meaningful on an emotional, creative level. 
 
"In the pre-modern world, mythology was indispensable."  In actuality,  in 
the pre-modern (non-Jewish) world, it would not have been possible to  say, 
"Mythology is indispensable" because they didn't think they /were/ teaching  
"mythology" -- i.e., made-up stories.  They believed their founding stories  were 
true.  Mythology is pretty stupid and useless if you consciously  think, "These 
things I believe in are just myths."  Only /we/ looking back  at the ancients 
can say, "They believed in myths, and they just couldn't  have survived 
without their comforting stories."
 
If you consciously considered your own beliefs to be "just  myths", that 
would render your entire belief system redundant and  stupid.  It would be absurd 
for ancient Greeks and Romans, and al  achas kamah vekamah for Jews, to say, 
"Well most of what's in our traditional  texts is just myth."
 
I never, never use the word "myth" when discussing midrashim or  piyutim.  
Regardless of this passage in a textbook, the word "myth" will  always carry 
connotations of 1. falsehood  2. created by people  3.  not historically based  
4.  not scientifically based     5.  childish, primitive    6.  something  that 
modern man has outgrown and can afford to smile at indulgently.
 
 
When I teach that some midrashim are not necessarily meant to be taken  
literally, I never say "this is not true" or "this is a myth."  Words are  powerful 
and must be used with care.   Never do we want our children  to smile 
indulgently at the foolish false beliefs of the primitive and childlike  Tannaim and 
Amoraim, considering themselves to be in possession of superior  knowledge and 
wisdom to that of those who came before us.
 
I don't think Chazal /meant/ for all the midrashim to be taken literally,  
and they indeed might be smiling indulgently at /us/, for taking them so  
literally!  But nor do I believe that these stories are "myths."
 
The story of the Asarah Harugei Malchus, in particular -- even though  
discrepancies have crept in -- is based on totally true history and nothing  
mythological at all.   You cannot compare the stories of Roman  persecution of great 
Torah leaders to, say, the Romulus and Remus founding  stories of Rome.
 
As I wrote those words I remembered that Chazal themselves also mentioned  
that very story, which Rashi somewhere quotes.   Nevertheless I do not  believe 
that Chazal believed in the literal historicity of the Romulus and Remus  
story, which, as told by the Romans, WAS myth, but as told by Chazal  was--midrash.





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



**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest 
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071128/9674ffa0/attachment-0001.htm 

R' MB:
> IIRC (from discussion in volume 12) , the CI had a much more
> rationalistic explanation.
> 
> Who knows what girsaos haven't been found? Maybe there is a good
> reason why this copy was the one that ended up in genizah? If we open
> up the door to changing halakhah on these grounds, ein ladavar sof!

He also, IIRC, had another rationalistic reason - if we are stacking
Rishonim against each other, and by adding Kisvei Yad we change the balance
in Psak, Mei'heicha Teisi that there weren't other Rishonim who held like
the first Psak? Maybe we will find those manuscripts tomorrow! IOW, by
admitting new Shitos that hadn't played a role previously in Psak, we make
the whole structure of Psak (such as it is, see last few hundred posts :-)
) unstable.

KT,
MYG

R' AY & CB Walters:
The Geonim say that from the chasimas hatalmud by R' Ashi until the Behag
was 350 years.

Now, AFAIK, the Behag was the first post talmudic sefer, he was probably
from the early gaonim/late saboraim.
---



KT,
MYG

> R' Zev Sero wrote:
> <Because now we know better.  Many rishonim lived before the discovery
> > of the Zohar, and all lived before the AriZal and the Baal Shem Tov,
> > so they were missing information.  The AriZal was taught by Eliyahu
> > Hanavi, and the Baal Shem Tov by Achiyah Hashiloni, and therefore
> knew
> > things that had been completely forgotten in previous generations.
R' Marty Bluke: 
> There is a famous statement of the Chazon Ish that we don't rely on
> manuscripts of Rishonim to overturn psikei halacha. In other words,
> even if we know for sure that the psak is based on an erroneous girsa
> it doesn't matter, that version was accepted by the mesora. The
> statement above about how we now know better completely contradicts
> this Chazon Ish.


OTOH, the Mishnah Berurah - who often quotes Rabbeinu Chananel - seemingly
disagreed with the Chazon Ish.

KT,
MYG 

> Why will it happen anyway? Who said that there would be gravity without the
> RBSO decreeing that it be there every second? It seems pretty clear L'chol

Actually, the Rambam says exactly that (Sh'moneh P'rakim Ch. 8):>>

According to general relativity gravity is not even a force but a warp
in space-time
it really is part of the essential fabric of the universe not
something to be constantly imposed.

-- 
Eli Turkel

<<Who knows what girsaos haven't been found? Maybe there is a good
reason why this copy was the one that ended up in genizah? If we open
up the door to changing halakhah on these grounds, ein ladavar sof!

IIRC, R' Moshe Bleich (in Tradition, not Avodah) quoted the CI that he
/would/ switch the text to Ben Asher's -- if it were found. Which
seems to fit the "who said this girsa is any better idea?" rather than
the "siyata diShmaya one". Here, it's siyata diShmaya that we don't
have the text the Rambam (et al) said was a better idea.>>

Everyone quotes this CI (and SR) but I have my doubts about how
widely it is really used. As an old example  it is reported that the
GRA went through Europe in his youth looking for old manuscripts.
I believe that the recent editions of Rambam, Tur and SA based on
early manuscripts have been generally accepted. I find it hard to
believe that anyone would keep something in these sifrei psak if it
was found that it didnt appear in the original version.

More to the point it is a question of time. There was a time that
the complete R. Chananel on Shas was new (tidbits mentioned in
other rishonim). Today it is considered a standard rishon.
There are stories that RYBS saw chidushei Ramban and Rashba
for the first time in America. He still used them for shiurim.
There was a time that Tosafot HaRosh and Ritva were considered
among the recent manuscripts. However, these are again standard tools in
most yeshivot.

One simple example is public megillah reading for women (by men).
Some prohibited it based on a korban netanel quoting tosafot. However,
other documents showed he misunderstood tosafot. Hence, IMHO
no posek uses that argument anymore against public women readings.

-- 
Eli Turkel

RTK writes:

> I totally reject the formulation "Eilah Ezkarah is a myth."
> 
> I reject this whole line of thought, that all our midrashim and so on are
> the same as Greek and Roman myths, all human creations "like poetry and
> music" and so on.
> 
> The person who wrote the book about myth from which R'n CL quotes clearly
> does not believe in G-d or in anything Out There besides the amazing
> workings of the human brain, which seeks the "experience of transcendence"
> and "ecstasy."  He does not believe there is an Afterlife (death =
> "annihilation") , but thinks "myth" helps us overcome despair. 

Actually, the author - who is in fact a she, is a devout Roman Catholic (the
introduction mentions that her first book "Through the Narrow Gate"
described her seven years as a nun in a Roman Catholic order").  One of the
reason I rather like her book is because it is unquestionably written from a
theistic (if not completely our theistic) perspective.

 And look
> at this passage:  "In the pre-modern world, mythology was indispensable.
> It...helped people make sense of their lives."  There is the most
> incredible condescension there, on the part of a modern person with
> scientific training who does not need mythology to make sense of our
> lives, but nevertheless thinks that mythology is sweet and meaningful on
> an emotional, creative level.

I don't think if you read the book in its totality is it condescending at
all.  Here is a passage from towards the end:

P141 "We must disabuse ourselves of the nineteenth century fallacy that myth
is false or that is represents an inferior mode of thought.   We cannot
completely recreate ourselves, cancel out the rational bias of our
education, and return to a pre-modern sensibility.  But we can acquire a
more educated attitude to myth making.  We are myth making creatures and,
during the twentieth century, we saw some very destructive modern myths.
These myths have failed because they do not meet the criteria of the Axial
Age.  They have not been infused with the spirit of compassion, respect for
the sacredness of all life, or with what Confucius called "leaning".  ...
We cannot counter these bad myths with reason alone, because undiluted logos
cannot deal with such deep-rooted, unexorcised fears, desires and neuroses.
This is the role of an ethically and spiritually informed mythology."

> "In the pre-modern world, mythology was indispensable."  In actuality,  in
> the pre-modern (non-Jewish) world, it would not have been possible to say,
> "Mythology is indispensable" because they didn't think they /were/
> teaching "mythology" -- i.e., made-up stories.  They believed their
> founding stories were true.  Mythology is pretty stupid and useless if you
> consciously think, "These things I believe in are just myths."  Only /we/
> looking back at the ancients can say, "They believed in myths, and they
> just couldn't have survived without their comforting stories."
> 
> If you consciously considered your own beliefs to be "just myths", that
> would render your entire belief system redundant and stupid.  It would be
> absurd for ancient Greeks and Romans, and al achas kamah vekamah for Jews,
> to say, "Well most of what's in our traditional texts is just myth."
> 
> I never, never use the word "myth" when discussing midrashim or piyutim.
> Regardless of this passage in a textbook, the word "myth" will always
> carry connotations of 1. falsehood  2. created by people  3. not
> historically based  4.  not scientifically based    5.  childish,
> primitive    6.  something that modern man has outgrown and can afford to
> smile at indulgently.

That is precisely the attitude that thinkers like the author of this book
want to disabuse people of.  I am not suggesting that you would say such a
thing to the children you are teaching. As you say, the word myth does carry
these connotations (according to this author, since the nineteenth century)
but carry them they do.  

It may be, therefore that the word myth has become too difficult to use (in
the same way that one cannot, today, use the word "gay" instead of the word
"happy", particularly when teaching children).  But if we have no other
words, then we may have to, in a discussion like this one, revert to using
such words and explaining what we mean by them, or what was meant to be be
meant by them, instead of what modern parlance tells us we are supposed to
understand by them.
 
> 
> When I teach that some midrashim are not necessarily meant to be taken
> literally, I never say "this is not true" or "this is a myth."  Words are
> powerful and must be used with care.   Never do we want our children to
> smile indulgently at the foolish false beliefs of the primitive and
> childlike Tannaim and Amoraim, considering themselves to be in possession
> of superior knowledge and wisdom to that of those who came before us.

Yes, but note that this is precisely what happened, in effect, to RAM.  He
believed (and may still believe) the modern understanding that truth is
contained fully in historical fact (and felt Judaism was superior to
Xtianity based on this).  Then he realised that the Asarah Harugei Malchus,
as set out in the Yom Kippur davening, did not meet this criteria, and it
caused him great pain.  If he had never been set up for the fall in this
way, by assuming that the modern chronological understanding was the only
true way of understanding things, he would not now be finding himself in the
position of criticising the Yom Kippur liturgy and those who put it together
- when he discovers that the formulation as there written does not
correspond with chronological fact as demanded by modernity.

> I don't think Chazal /meant/ for all the midrashim to be taken literally,
> and they indeed might be smiling indulgently at /us/, for taking them so
> literally!  But nor do I believe that these stories are "myths."
> 
> The story of the Asarah Harugei Malchus, in particular -- even though
> discrepancies have crept in -- is based on totally true history and
> nothing mythological at all.   You cannot compare the stories of Roman
> persecution of great Torah leaders to, say, the Romulus and Remus founding
> stories of Rome.
> 
> As I wrote those words I remembered that Chazal themselves also mentioned
> that very story, which Rashi somewhere quotes.   Nevertheless I do not
> believe that Chazal believed in the literal historicity of the Romulus and
> Remus story, which, as told by the Romans, WAS myth, but as told by Chazal
> was--midrash.

Well this writer would ask whether the myth of Romulus and Remus was infused
with the criteria of the Axial Age (by which she inter alia, means the
Naviim).  Obviously we would put it somewhat differently.  The question is,
is such a myth infused with Torah and emes or sheker and the sitra achra (or
whatever particular formulation you feel comfortable with).  If on some
level with torah and emes, then Romulus and Remus could presumably be told
by Chazal as a midrash, if not, then obviously not.

> --Toby Katz

Regards

Chana

He also, IIRC, had another rationalistic reason - if we are stacking
Rishonim against each other, and by adding Kisvei Yad we change the
balance in Psak, Mei'heicha Teisi that there weren't other Rishonim who
held like the first Psak? Maybe we will find those manuscripts tomorrow!
IOW, by admitting new Shitos that hadn't played a role previously in
Psak, we make the whole structure of Psak (such as it is, see last few
hundred posts :-)
) unstable.

KT,
MYG
==================================================================
The structure of psak issue is dead on imho.  It would seem to me that
if the goal is to reach amita shel torah as the posek understands it,
then the posek (iiuc this was R'YBS approach) needs to learn through all
the relevant sources and if he reaches an understanding that is his
psak. In such a case girsaot, approaches of recently rediscovered
rishonim etc. would all be input to be weighed as appropriate. If one
leans more towards the count up previous authorities on similar cases,
then the new information is a wrench in the process.

I spoke about this once to someone outside the system but in the world
of law who mentioned that the CI approach has the advantage of not
causing a reanalysis of precedent, such reanalysis could be an
unattractive result to some(time consuming, reducing previous authority,
obviating the advantage of knowledge of results of previous cases) if
required.

KT
Joel Rich 
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 24, Issue 82
**************************************

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

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

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

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