Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 91

Wed, 05 Mar 2008

• 1. Re: history (T613K@aol.com)
• 2. Re: history (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: history (Richard Wolpoe)
• 4. Re: ashkenaz and sefard (Richard Wolpoe)
• 5. Re: history (Richard Wolpoe)
• 6. Re: origins of AZ (Richard Wolpoe)
• 7. Re: Roast lamb (Richard Wolpoe)

 
 
RMM writes:
>>I believe one of RSG's Hirhurim blogs compared  Avraham's keeping the
613, to a mural he (RSG) once saw of the Levi'im  singing in the Beit
haMikdash wearing streimels and kaftans- how do you show  a little
Chassidic boy that the avot were good frum Jews? They wore  streimels!
And so how do we know Avraham was a good Jew? He was so good that  he
kept the Torah before G-d even told him!

It's evidently very  possible that it is anachronistic and was never
intended to be anything  but.

Now, I wonder, to what extent did Chazal realize when they were  being
anachronistic? Is that they didn't care about historical accuracy,  but
nevertheless knew when they were being anachronistic, or did  they
genuinely lack a real historical sense b'klal? Now, since  ancient
people in general were less historically critical than we  are
nowadays, my question boils down to : given Chazal had less  critical
historical sense than we do, to what qualitative sense was this  the
case, between 0 and 100 percent of  ours.<<






>>>>>
I didn't see that particular blog of RGS's but I totally reject the  premise 
that Avraham didn't really keep the Torah at all and that Chazal "of  course" 
were being anachronistic when they said he did.  I therefore also  reject your 
question -- "Did they know they were being anachronistic and went  ahead and 
told us stories anyway, or were they so ignorant, as all ancient  peoples 
were, that they had no idea of historical chronology?"  
 
I believe that when the Torah was given on Har Sinai it included many  laws 
that were already being kept by the ancient Hebrews -- the descendants of  
Avraham Avinu.  I believe that the Avos actually did keep the Torah -- not  in all 
its details and certainly not the derabbanans. but they kept basic  
d'Oraisas.  They rested on Shabbos, didn't eat pork or milk with meat, ate  matza on 
Pesach.  Admittedly they didn't have the mechanism for determining  dates and 
Rosh Chodesh that came along later, but somehow or other they did have  months 
and dates.  In the time of Noach we see already that there are  months and 
dates.
 
You write that "ancient people in general were less historically  critical" 
thus seeming to lump Chazal in with those uncritical, naive ancient  people to 
whom we moderns naturally feel quite superior.  We are oh so much  more 
intellectually sophisticated than those ancient people.
 
This is not at all the proper way to look at Chazal. 
 
Now I am not one of those who take every midrash literally -- and that's  
because I don't believe they were all /meant/ to be taken literally.  I  think 
that people who read Chazal literally in each and every instance are being  a 
bit naive and are actually making Chazal smaller than they were.
 
In certain cases, Chazal make statements about medicine and science that  we 
now know to be inaccurate, but in my view Chazal never claimed that every  
such statement was part of Torah in the sense of "handed down on Sinai."  I  
understand such statements to show that Chazal took a very positive attitude  
toward the acquisition of the best of contemporary knowledge -- "Chachma bagoyim  
ta'amin."
 
But we must never "cut Chazal down to size" by assuming that they were  just 
regular people, no smarter than us, that they were primitive, childlike,  
superstitious and naive in their way of viewing the world.   That is  the 
Conservative, not the Orthodox, way of analyzing the teachings of  Chazal.
 
Now after all this, some people might still want to make a case  that Avraham 
Avinu didn't "really," literally, keep the Torah.  They  would then want to 
create some plausible lesson or paradigm that Chazal tried to  impart when they 
said he did.  ("He kept moral laws" or "He worshipped one  G-d" or I don't 
know what.)   My understanding is that they did mean  it literally and that 
Avraham did keep at least some of the laws, which he knew  about prophetically.    
But even those who want to come to  some non-literal understanding must not 
speak condescendingly  about Chazal.  We are all whippersnappers in comparison 
to them.  
 
Our religion depends on our accepting the authority of  Chazal.   
 

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





**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money & 
Finance.      (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080304/6e7c33b2/attachment.htm 

Here's my argument, with an example quote. (Unfortunately the Rambam
was handiest, although the Rambam's hashkafah isn't really in the center
of today's mainstream.) Peirush haMishnayos, intro to pereq Cheileq,
a little before the list of iqarim. The Rambam lists 3 katim WRT aggadic
stories:
1- Those who assume they are all historical claims, see them as foolish,
and reject the Torah;
2- Those who assume they are all historical, and therefore reduce the
Torah and believe such foolishness;

and then in the Vilna Shas 123 amudah 4 (ie 123b 2nd column) "vehakat":
    And the third kat, and they -- as H' "Lives" -- are very few,
    until it isn't proper to call them a "kat" except in the way it's
    said that the sun is a species and it is unique, and they are those
    people for whom the greatness of the Chachamim z"l is clear. And
    they are the best of all of them, WHICH WE FIND IN *ALL THEIR WORDS*
    TEACH ABOUT TOPICS OF GREAT TRUTH.

    They know that they [Chazal] a"h don't speak foolishness (?), and it
    is known as true to them [those in the 3rd kat] that their [Chazal's]
    words have to them a nigleh and a nistar. And they, IN ALL THAT THEY
    SAY OF DIVARIM HANIMNA'IM THEY SPOKE OF THEM IN A WAY OF RIDDLE AND
    PARABLE For this is the way of the great sages. Therefore the greatest
    of sages started his book and said to understand mashal umelitzah,
    derech chachamim vechidusam...

(This was handy because I pulled it out of posts of mine from vol5
and vol13.)

IOW, my proof doesn't rest on which items the Rambam considers credible
as history or not. Rather on his explanation of why it's appropriate for
him to make such determinations. That it's all about the mashal umelitzah,
and not about the nigleh at all.

These various rishonim and acharonim may argue on the detail, which
happened to happen, and which didn't. But they all agree that one can
make such decisions because Chazal simply weren't engaging in history and
therefore tell history and other stories making no explicit distinction
between them.

The Ramchal in his maamar on the subject, not only says this of historical
narrative, but goes so far as to apply the same rule to scientific
statements that appear in aggadita.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You will never "find" time for anything.
micha@aishdas.org        If you want time, you must make it.
http://www.aishdas.org                     - Charles Buxton
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 7:32 PM, <T613K@aol.com> wrote:

>
> Now, I wonder, to what extent did Chazal realize when they were being
> anachronistic? Is that they didn't care about historical accuracy, but
> nevertheless knew when they were being anachronistic, or did they
> genuinely lack a real historical sense b'klal?
>
>
> *--Toby Katz
> =============*
>

fwiw Arhsh shows an anachronism wrt bittul hametz & bedikah.  He notes that
at the mishnah level, bittul was not yet a given and this changes the
dynamic of what is implied, iow w/o bittul a safek is a s'orraisso, while
with bittul a safek us derabbavnan [the tur makes this explicit hilluk]

also fwiw from the mishnah there is [apparently] no such thing as krias
megillah at night.  this is a memra of RYBL.  this can be understood that
megillah in a kfar is pushed backto yom haknissah this will not help wrt
the evening k'riah...

also the Rosh [and tosafos] learn that lechem mishna is required at the
Seder, but this might have bee na Gaonic enactment re:  YT, and only existed
in Almud on Sahbbbos. hence Behag is mechaleik between  Seder  on Sahbbos [3
matzos] and seder on weeknight] 2 matzos.   Was Behag ware of the
anachornism, or was he BEFORE the Gaonic Takkanah?

it seems some poskim are more aware of the chronology then others.



-
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avo
dah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080304/81448473/attachment-0001.html 

On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 9:25 PM, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 03:14:25PM +0100, Eli Turkel wrote:
> : Ashekanzic Liturgy kept Kallir from Israel and Meshulam Ben Kalonymos
> : of Lucca Italy. IT is fairly well-established fact that Ashkenaz
> : ,looked up to Italy and Italy to Israel in terms of Minhaggim etc.
>
> Well, the piyutim from MbK might indicate something. But the baalei
> Tosafos identified R Eliezer haKalir with R' Eliezer ben RSbY, whereas
> Sepharadim did not. That would be sufficient to explain why Ashkenazim
> would use his work more than Sepharadim, without positing ancestry.
>

Backwards.  it was ALREADY axiomatic how impoartant Kallir ws before the
attribution to being a Ba'alei Tosafos!




>
> It's very hard to posit ancestry off something as flimsy as use of
> piyutim.


hardly flimsy at all it is a major contoversy in Tur wher he qutoes Remah
[with a HEH!}  This is a pivotal difference betwen Ashkenzic and Sepahrdic
litrugy,. the idea of hefkse for Yotzros.
All Ashkneazic Rishonim  accepted it as OK.  Sephardim rejectdd it



> Things like berakhos endings are somewhat stronger. And the
> increasing number of cases where Ashkenazi norms end up fitting midrashei
> halakhah or the Y-mi more closely than the Bavli seems to fit scientific
> method -- confirming the hypothesis by further experiment.
>
> : The usual claim is much stronger. That ashkenaz ie German Rhineland
> : Jewry actually came there from Italy and that Italian 800 CE Jews came
> : there from EY.
>
> Much of them. Not all. My understanding is that Ashkenaz is understood
> to be a richer mix of EY Jews than Sepharad.


I am not concerned with the  ANCESTRY, just the LEGACY. Ashkenaz by and
large folowed EY norms.  Sehaprad  - based upon Babylonian objections did
not [not all objections were Talmudic some were Gaonic]



> Not exclusivity. This iswhy RGMhG links back to the gaonim.
>
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha
>

This is not a perfect 1 to 1 mapping. E>G> Rashi was more Bave-centric than
most Ashekanzic Kadmonim

I'm not sure about RGMhG because aiui he puts a higher  value on Midrrahs
Rabbaetc. than did others and that is EY-Centric


-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080304/cdbb6866/attachment-0001.htm 

On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 3:32 PM, Michael Makovi <mikewinddale@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> Now, I wonder, to what extent did Chazal realize when they were being
> anachronistic? Is that they didn't care about historical accuracy, but
> nevertheless knew when they were being anachronistic, or did they
> genuinely lack a real historical sense b'klal? Now, since ancient
> people in general were less historically critical than we are
> nowadays, my question boils down to : given Chazal had less critical
> historical sense than we do, to what qualitative sense was this the
> case, between 0 and 100 percent of ours.
>
> Mikha'el Makovi
>

When I was a young boy and the old Jews learned Gmara in Yiddish they had a
little ssmile when they read Hazal's like this.  IMHO they wer clsoe to the
history of HOW TO LEARN HAZAL! that is be ready to keep one's tongue planted
in one's check [at least at  times]

I think Westerners [including Americans and yes English and Germans] take
Hazal-isms much too literally.  let's face it - Westerners simply don't get
that Middle Eastern mindset.  {That's why I like Tosafos so much, they were
very Westernized and I can relate to them much better.]

Perhasp the Talmud should have had emoticons!  :->


-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avo
dah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080304/e0d229eb/attachment-0001.html 

On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 5:18 PM, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:

>
> My Hindu co workers speak of belief in a single Deity who is so
> incomprehensible that man perceives it as millions of gods. This is
> different in philosophy to the Rambam's description of AZ's
> beginnings. But then, Hinduism is influenced by Benei Qeturah, and
> thus probably isn't the most raw of AZ.
>
> .
> SheTir'u baTov!
> -micha ("Mitchel", belaaz)
>
> --
> Micha Berger
>


I'm not an expert in Hinduism but from my superficial POV it is EXACTLY what
Rambam was addressing.   Namely - the problem of a God that is SO remote and
out-of-touch that the intermediaries became an almost essential crutch.

The Mishkan/Kruvim might have been an alternative "crutch" so to speak - IF
you hold is was an alternative to the eigel masecah [viz. Rashi -As opposed
to the RambaN who holds tht the mishkan was always a prt of the divine
plan.]

My grandparents refused to have their photos taken. I guess I have inherited
a similar iconoclastic streak Or maybe coming from new England I ahvea
puritanical streak at any rate I would prefer that shuls be devode of ALL
such pictures.   The only imagery that is my  personal comfort zone are
osiyyos and words [such as Sjhivis etc.]   IOW if you needed a visual crutch
of G-D then put up a YKVK in big letters.

If you want decorations on the Parroches I would put pesukkim [e.g ki
Mitziyyon or Toras Hashem Temimah etc.   I am totally il-at-ease with any
other pictures designs etc.  I ma surprised in our age of Humra that we do
not take the passuk of ...temnuah  zulasi kol... more seriously...






Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080304/de032854/attachment.htm 

On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 5:39 AM, Elazar M. Teitz <remt@juno.com> wrote:

>
>     As for the prohibition extending to tz'li keidar, even though it isn't
> kasher for korban pesach: it's no different than beef or fowl, which are
> likewise not kasher for the korban, and yet are included in the minhag not
> to eat roasted on leil haseder.
>
> EMT
>

Nice try but the gzeira his on ZLI regardless of WHAT is roasted!  [you can
make a case taht meat w/o a body is confusable!]

Zli Keidar is not halachically rosasting and AFAIK the  Magen Avraham is the
earliest sources to say ti is! I would back down if there were several
Rishonim who pointed this out.

The Aruch hashulchan pulls no punches, and baruch Shekivanti. My sarcastic
comments earlier on had to do with the fact that people today sometimes seem
to check their brains at the door and just accept what is written w/o
question.   this is waht Rav Gorleick just to eshew as 'frum Torah" kinda of
just saying Amein to waht is said w/o any internalization of the  principles
and concepts.

At Times I fell like I am the last of the old Litvisher-style analysts...

It is not just an Ashkenazic Sepharidc split on the issue of Zli.  it is
ALSO a split between Ashkenazic acharonim and Sephardim about how you kvetch
a humra to a Minhag!  I don't think Sephardim object to the minhag of not
eating Zli - how could they  it is in the Mishnah!  The point is they would
see Zli Keidar as a silly Ashkenazic contrived humra w/o rational purpose in
this context.  [this is what Sephardic hachahmim have said to me in person!]


And fwiw, I did NOT just jump on their bandwagon when they decried this
humra. Aderabba, I was quie defensive of the idea until I looked into it
myself and did a smidgeon of research, In Yoreh Die'ah it is obvious that
zli kediar is in no way Zli. and it is not yotzei Zli for Korban Pesach!
Only fater realizing that the obejctions to this humra on the Minhag held no
water [pun intended of course!] that I raised my objections.  B"H the Rauch
hshuclhan did the same about 100 years ago. And my other  point was it
should not require a GADOL to see the obvious.

If people want to be machmir upon themselves - Tavo Aleihem Brachah but to
codify this as halachah is imho an egregious abuse of Halachic reasoning.

My point is that people shouldn't be hypnotized or sleepwalk into these
matters. They should evaluate them- i.e. do the research and check the
sources.

Many humras make sense. Exmple: As Mashgiach I in theory can allow a Gentile
to light fires for RE-heating the already cooked. As a Policy, most
Hashgachos prefer to not let the Gentile light ANY fires. it's a humra that
is tiotally rational, you do not want the Gentils making hair-splitting
deidcsions in a busy kitchen so you make it a point to be machmir to make th
mashgiach light EVERY first -So this is not only a humra I can tolerate, I
heartily endorse it! But OTOH sometimes Humros do NOT make sense. Zli keidar
is imo such a case.


Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-a
ishdas.org/attachments/20080304/205cd3fc/attachment.html 

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 91
**************************************

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..."