Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 208

Tue, 30 Nov 2010

• 1. Re: Self Esteem (Akiva Blum)
• 2. remaining in learning (Eli Turkel)
• 3. fasting for rain (Eli Turkel)
• 4. Re: fasting for rain (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Local, Non-Global or Global Flood (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: Local, Non-Global or Global Flood (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Local, Non-Global or Global Flood (Meir Shinnar)
• 8. Re: Just one Hashem in Heaven (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 9. Re: yibum (was:Tamar's theatrics) (T6...@aol.com)
• 10. Re: self esteem (Zev Sero)
• 11. chassidishe yomtovs (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 12. Re: Local, Non-Global or Global Flood (Arie Folger)
• 13. Re: Local, Non-Global or Global Flood (Zvi Lampel)

 


  _____  

From: avodah-boun...@lists.aishdas.org
[mailto:avodah-boun...@lists.aishdas.org] On Behalf Of Prof. Levine
Sent: Tuesday 30 November 2010 12:12 AM

 
 What I find strange about R. Dessler is that his father made sure that he
had a secular education, since his father had studied in Kelm where secular
studies were part of the yeshiva curriculum.

 
So? What do Rav Desslers observations have to do with the decisions of his
father?
 
Akiva

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101130/3f9db22b/attachment-0001.htm>

<<Avraham Yosef, Rav of Cholon and son of Rav
Ovadia Yosef,  "addressed R? Amsalem?s remarks
directly saying 'Anyone who says that only those
who are destined to become truly great in Torah
should be sitting and learning is an
apikores.  Those who learn Torah are the true
soldiers who are fighting on the front lines and
protecting us.  Without their learning, we have
no continuity, there is no life to our
soul.  Furthermore, those who live a life of
poverty in order to learn Torah remove themselves
from the gashmius of this world and are able to
attain a higher level of spirituality.'">>

What is disturbing about this quote is the use of the word "apikores"
As has been been discussed on the list there are various opinions
about the subject.
As Prof. Levine has noted Rav Breuer and the original Frankfurt community had a
different approach. We have already seen the quote from Maharal about treating
other opinions. Why is it that everyone expressing an different opinion is an
apikourus?

I note that the Shas newspaper called  R. Amsalem Amalek which was later
retracted by Yishai. We seem to have lost  the ability for any
rational conversation.

-- 
Eli Turkel

<<BUT, since at this point every beis din carries the same chiyuv to make
such a call to their tzibbur, does it make a difference which BD's decree
they are following?>>

It obviously does since every beit din has their perspective of when to add the
prayer for rain and when to fast as per the remarks of R. Moshe Lichtenstein
who did not feel that rain today is as critical as in the days of chazal.

-- 
Eli Turkel

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 09:51:32AM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: It obviously does since every beit din has their perspective of when to add the
: prayer for rain and when to fast as per the remarks of R. Moshe Lichtenstein
: who did not feel that rain today is as critical as in the days of chazal.

RMF's opening question was that the halakhah (SA OC 575:2) gives a
mandatory line, one that we apparently aren't following even if your BD
did declare yesterday a taanis. R"C Kislev came and went a while ago,
and this is one day, not baha"b.

I was answering RBW's question about how that halakhah would apply
without a centrla beis din. Since the criterion given is pretty objective,
it would in effect be all-or-nothing.

Afterwards I went back to the original question:
:> As for RMF's question... Does the fact that import-export is common,
:> albeit costly, and that agrarian income is only a small piece of Israel's
:> overall economy, give BD more room to wait for rain before declaring
:> taanios?

It would seem from RML's position that the answer is "yes".

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness
mi...@aishdas.org        which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost
http://www.aishdas.org   again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH

On 29/11/2010 10:08 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 07:15:01PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
>> Since when is "yamim" meaning year the plural of "yom"?
>>
>> At any rate, the Radak does not say what you claim he says.  Surely
>> you must at least recognise that.
>
> The Radaq's Seifer Shorashim makes this comment about yamim under the
> entry "yom'. I have no idea how could can reach the conclusion that he
> isn't discussing the word yom.

I "reach" that conclusion by reading his words.  It's right there.  You
even linked to it.  How can you deny it?  He's done with "yom", he's
now defining "yamim"; if "yom" could mean a year he'd've said so while
defining "yom".  Note that "yamim" *always* means either "days" or
"year"; it never means a week or a month or a decade or a century or
any other period.


> Or are youy engaging in misdkirectio by objecting to my use of an example
> the Radaq doesn't give ("yamim achadim") in language as though he doesn't
> make the same overall point?

Not at all.  "Yamim achadim" can easily mean "several years"; the plural
of "yamim" in the sense of "year" is "yamim", because "yamimim" would
sound silly.



> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 07:26:28PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
>>> You still ignore issues like the use of "yom" in Bereishis 2:4 to describe
>>> that the previous pereq told us took a week -- or an unstated amount
>>> of time plus a week.
>
>> Fine.  No, it doesn't.  Rashi is very very clear on this.  It means
>> the first day and not a minute longer...
>
> Yes, the pasuq is very clear that Adam was made on "yom asos H' Elokim
> eretz veshamayhim", named the animal on that yom, gets a wife on that
> day, eats from the eitz hadaas on that day.

That is absolutely not true.  All of those things happen *after* that
day.   At least according to Rashi.

> Look at the events that
> pasuq introduces. Fine, it's literally the first yom... but was Adam
> formed from the mud on the first day?

No, he wasn't.


> Rashi still doesn't mention yom in his commentary -- no yom, no "not
> a minute longer". What Rashi does speak of is the haskhalah, which is
> beri'ah yeish mei'ayin before everything in place. There is no indication
> this was on day 1 rather than before day one -- and in fact Rashi on
> 1:1 says (like the Ramban) that is was before. Not even during any yom
> of the previous pereq.

Again, no he doesn't.  You're making stuff up that just isn't there.
Rashi on 1:1 says that *this* pasuk says nothing at all about the
order of creation.  Not because it couldn't have, but because we know
from elsewhere that the order was different.  That is the reason he
gives, and it's the only reason.  Not because of some mystical time
dilation.

You need to open Rashi and read it again without any preconceptions,
the way the ben chamesh lamikra would read it.  The ben chamesh has
never learned the Ramban, and doesn't know about hyle or relativity
or anything like that.  He reads "bereishis boro", and naturally thinks
it means that these are the things Hashem created first.  So Rashi tells
him no, it doesn't mean that, it means that they were created for the
sake of two "reshises".  He doesn't like that, so Rashi tells him if he
wants to avoid drush then he'll have to read it as if it said "bereshis
bero".  He then asks why he can't just read it simply, that at the very
beginning, before anything else happened, Hashem created shamayim and
aretz?  What's wrong with that.  And Rashi explains what's wrong; not
that the grammar won't work, or that there's something fundamentally
wrong with the concept, but because later pesukim tell us that these
weren't the first things created.  If not for that then we *could* and
*would* read it that way, and spare ourselves the reliance on drush or
the twisting of "bara" into "bero".

So the first pasuk tells us nothing at all about the order of
creation.  It *doesn't* tell us that everything was created on the
first day.  But when Rashi continues with the order of the six days
he several times warns us that certain things weren't really created
on the days the chumash tells us, but were really created on the first
day.  How he knows that, he doesn't tell us.  Then we get to 2:4, and
finally he tells us how he knew it: because it says "beyom asos",
which teaches us that they were all created "barishon".  Without this
"beyom" we would *not* say that, and we would say that each thing was
created on the day that the chumash says it was.  It's *only* this
"beyom" that tells us otherwise, and made us read the previous chapter
as talking about when the already-created things were set in place.
(Note that he does *not* say "barishona", which would mean "at the
beginning", but "barishon", on the first day.)


> So, Rashi says "yom asos shamayim va'aretz" is the period that includes
> the time period from before the yom echad, before tohu vavohu (again, see
> 1:1). And we know from the parsashah whose events it describes that we
> are now being told that yom is when man is created and commits the first
> cheit. The the only way to understand that is if the "yom" is a period
> previously described as taking a week.

Again, this may be the way other meforshim read it, but not Rashi.
Rashi reads 2:4 as telling us that eretz veshamayim were created on the
first day; the rest of the chapter is *not* about that day, but about
what happened on the sixth day.


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                      - Margaret Thatcher

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 07:14:10AM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> I "reach" that conclusion by reading his words.  It's right there.  You
> even linked to it.  How can you deny it?  He's done with "yom", he's
> now defining "yamim"; if "yom" could mean a year he'd've said so while
> defining "yom"...

Or, that he couldn't find a case that was clear enough to use as an
example in lashon yachid. Bottom line is the Radaq's entry is "yom".

...
>> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 07:26:28PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
>>>> You still ignore issues like the use of "yom" in Bereishis 2:4 to describe
>>>> that the previous pereq told us took a week -- or an unstated amount
>>>> of time plus a week.
>>
>>> Fine.  No, it doesn't.  Rashi is very very clear on this.  It means
>>> the first day and not a minute longer...
>>
>> Yes, the pasuq is very clear that Adam was made on "yom asos H' Elokim
>> eretz veshamayhim", named the animal on that yom, gets a wife on that
>> day, eats from the eitz hadaas on that day.
>
> That is absolutely not true.  All of those things happen *after* that
> day.   At least according to Rashi.

Read the pasuq Rashi is defining. It says "On the yom which G-d created
shamayim and aretz" there was a gan in eden, Hashem made a figure out
of mud, breathed a soul into it, discussed animal names, created a wife...
The "bayom" under discussion is ABOUT those events you are saying are
not during it.

...
> Again, no he doesn't.  You're making stuff up that just isn't there.

Blustering again. Really makes your argument for you.

> Rashi on 1:1 says that *this* pasuk says nothing at all about the
> order of creation.  Not because it couldn't have, but because we know
> from elsewhere that the order was different.  That is the reason he
> gives, and it's the only reason.  Not because of some mystical time
> dilation.

He also says that beri'ah preceded placement, and that the yom of 2:4
is that of beri'ah, not the week of placement.

Sorery, you're just ignoring my arguments and projecting that back,
meanwhile talking about lies and making stuff up. I quit.

Anyone following this discussion who really cares about Rashi says
can look at the latter part of the Rashi on 1:1, where he discusses
implications about sequence, as well as the Rashi on 2:4, where he
discusses the yom of the detailed story of the creation of man, and draw
your own conclusions.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and
mi...@aishdas.org        this was a great wonder. But it is much more
http://www.aishdas.org   wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "mensch"!     -Rav Yisrael Salanter

>Me
> : No, the language is deliberate to clarify the issue - because the
> : issue is how much credit do we ascribe to knowledge obtained by other
> : means - and realizing hashem reveals himself in different ways.

RMB
> The problem I have is that "revelation" (to my mind) refers to the
> spectrum of bas qol, ruach haqodesh, nevu'ah, MRAH's nevu'ah...
> that which we refer to as the unique national *revelation* at Har Sinai.

ibn ezra lo nitna hatorah la'asher en da'at bo, vehamalach ben ha'adam
velokav hu sichlo..
It's also related to the rambam's shitta that studying physics and
metaphysics is talmud torah..

> ? ?"'Chokhmah bagoyim' -- taamin,
> ? ?'Torah bagoyim' -- al taamin."

> There is an epistomological difference between that we know through
> Inspired Sources and which we know through science. Yes, they have much
> in common -- both tell us about the Borei. But they aren't fully in
> common. It's not that chokhmah and Torah are really the same thing; not
> if we're talking "which are we more sure of?" questions. They shouldn't
> just be blurred into one under any label for this kind of conversation.

They do have a difference - but one has to be sure what is the
difference.  One argument is a la yeshayahu leibowitz - that
revelation (in your sense..) is primarily in the connative sphere -
while the other is in the cognitive sphere...(some of RYBS's
understandings of the limitations of science point in a similar
direction).  Not that mesora has no cognitive content - clearly it
does - but that its primary focus is connative - and its cognitive
content is frequently phrased in veiled terms..

> :> The question becomes which do you consider more sure?

> "Gives credibility" yes. I didn't say all-or-nothing statements. I said
> "gives far too much relative surety". And our limitations are in common
> whether speaking of chokhmah or Torah, so there is no reason to think
> error is more likely to be in one area than the other on that account.

> I presume you accept anything in the scientific domain that is well
> supported and doesn't raise experimental problems. That, for you, is
> sufficient proof for accepting a scientific theory. You wouldn't reject
> it because it doesn't fit mesorah, for example.

but it DOES FIT mesora - because mesora contains within it the
understandign that our understanding is limited.

> So, if something in mesorah is well supported within TSBP and doesn't
> raise problems internal to Torah, why not afford it the same credibility?
> Why does science stand in the face of a conflict with mesorah, as long
> as it's sound on scientific grounds, but TSBP doesn't stand in the face
> of a conflict with science, as long as it's sound on mesoretic grounds?

because mesora itself doesn't agree with you....

> That is the lopsidedness toward giving more credance to science that I
> see in your position.

> :> I am okay with theories that grow up around both, and thus knowledge
> :> obtained by what you call "one of Hashem's other ways of revelation
> :> to us" IS included in this kind of debate.

> :> But to assume we got the Torah wrong when the Torah itself has no hint
> :> of such...

> : Here is where we differ - because my argument is that the torah
> : itself, by giving credibility to other evidence and reason, and by
> : informing us of the fallibility of our understanding, gives us more
> : than a hint that such changes are possible. ?It is this refusal to see
> : what is immanent in the torah that is a problem ...

> Yes, such changes are possible. But I would expect to find flaws in
> the mistaken understanding of the Torah that wouldn't work qua Torah.

Why?? it is this limited uinderstanding of torah that reflects, IMHO,
a lack of emunah

> Either that, or one must accept that Torah is incomplete, less than
> temimah. So, shemesh begiv'on dam can change from its old meaning --
> I'm just demanding a higher threshold for doing so.

higher threshold in terms of scientific acceptability - fine
remember the rambam is explicit (ma'amar techiyat hametim)that the
reason that he can allegorize is not that there is a specific mesora
about this  item - but that there is a general mesora that one can do
so..

> ...
> :> If during the event people have conflicting experiences, is it such a
> :> big chiddush to suggest the same is true after the event? We who don't
> :> rise up to the level of experiencing nissim don't live in a universe
> :> where their evidence exists.

> : The maharal's theory of nissim works fine as applied to individual nissim
> : - but certain parts of the torah are, by pshat, meant to be very public
> : events that had an impact on the outside world rather than private events
> : - eg, the flood. Interepreting them as private events is one that has
> : the same problem that you suggest initially - it is driven by "external"
> : evidence rather than internal.

> I suggest you learn the Maharal. You are assuming a consistency to reality
> that the Maharal is saying fails for miracles. Not internal/subjective
> vs external/objective. But conflicting realities. If even within physics,
> different frames of reference can have conflicting descriptions of reality
> (Was the train ever entirely inside the tunnel?), why can't metaphysics
> assert the same thing on a grander and more fundamental scale?

I have actually learned the maharal a long time ago.  However, we are
not dealing with those directly experiencing the nissim - but their
aftermath. Eg, for the flood - when it says vayimach et kol hayekum -
did that just happen in the perception/sphere/? of the people at that
time, or did it actually happen?

In the end, the difference between your version of the maharal
approach (it happened but not in our physical world) or allegorical
approach is actually quite small..

> : Therefore, whether one tries to reconcile that "external" evidence by
> : i) allegory
> : ii) theory of nissim as private events
> : iii) theory that events occured as a prophetic revelation, rather than
> : in the external world (as in one previous go round)
> : iv) flood was local

> v) I have no way yet to reconcile the data. The data is too compelling
> to let go, but still appears to conflict. Good enough for the conflicts
> between Quantum Mechanics and Relativity. Heck, we use QM to design chips
> which compute relativistic effects of the GPS sattelite in order to correct
> for it and no my location. And yet the two conflict fundamentally when you try
> to model gravity.

> Why not accept all the data as compelling and postpone the answer?

There is a difference between saying we have a conflict between our
understanding of the torah and science - and postponing resolution -
as you are proposing here - and sayign that therefore our
understanding of torah is correct, and science must be wrong - as you
said earlier.

> Actually, this isn't true of (ii), since the Maharal proves his point that
> this is how nissim work from things like the medrash about makas dam,
> "shemesh beGiv'on dam" (and only in Giv'on) and other cases. Which is
> why I proposed the possibility. He gives mesoretic basis to a theory
> of miracle which -- with no appeal to anything but what I called above
> "Torah" (in cotrast to "chokhmah") -- would imply something about
> the mabul.

Again, all the examples that he gives reflect nissim whose primary
impact was on those experiencing them (BTW midrashic undestandings of
the global impact of shemesh begivon dom is rejected here.). Who is
the person experiencing the flood as a nes?
(again, I don't have a problem using the maharal to reconcile - just
pointing out that the driving force to use this mode comes from what
you view as external to the mesora - and the difference between this
and the other approaches is not that great..

Meir Shinnar

R' Shmuel Weidberg wrote on Areivim:

: It has always bothered me when we say that Hashem is in heaven,
: because as far as science is concerned up contains outer space. And it
: seems that it is meant literally when we say that Hashem is up,
: because we say that the Shechina does not come below ten tefachim.

And it never bothered me to say that HaShem is in heaven, because "heaven"
is not the same thing as "sky". Outer space is part of the sky, but I
understand heaven and shamayim to be the metaphysical world, which has
nothing to do with science.

I admit that Chazal considered the planets and stars to be part of
shamayim, but I feel that this was merely because it fit their
understanding of what is "not part of this world". As our understanding of
"this world" advances, so too does our understanding of the nature of
shamayim. For now, I'm satisfied to consider our world as
three-dimensional, and shamayim as four-dimensional or higher. (Or, if you
want to include time, then as four and five respectively.) If someday the
physicists show our world to be more than that, then I'll just set shamayim
another bump further up.

As far as the Shechina not coming below ten tefochim, that's not a problem
at all, because the Shechina is just one aspect of Hashem. The terms are
not interchangeable. Hashem is equally everywhere and everywhen, but His
Presence (whatever that means) is more present (whatever that means) in
some places and times than in others.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
How to Stay Asleep
Cambridge Researchers have developed an all natural sleep aid just for you.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4cf5012044fa64635d9st06vuc

 
From: "Simi Peters" _famil...@actcom.net.il_ 
(mailto:famil...@actcom.net.il) 
l

>> See the Malbim's commentary on Torah on the mitzva of  yibum.  He 
distinguishes between a yibum-like custom that pre-dated  matan Torah 
(Yehuda 
and Tamar), the mitzva of yibum after matan Torah, and  hakamat shem 
be'nahala (Rut and Boaz). <<

Kol tuv,
Simi  Peters 

 
>>>>
I haven't looked at Malbim there but I did assume that the people of Canaan 
 must have had some yibum-type laws or customs.  I still wonder, though,  
under which law did Yehuda condemn Tamar to death (and to death by  burning)? 
 
 
Rashi says Tamar was subject to death by burning because she  was the 
daughter of a kohen (Shem) but Shem was not a Jew, he was a  pre-Jew, and even if 
he kept the Torah voluntarily, surely the Torah was not  binding on him or 
his children.  So surely you couldn't condemn them to  death under Torah 
laws that they kept only voluntarily.
 
Under Noahide law is there a law of yibum?  Is a widow awaiting yibum  
guilty of adultery if she has relations with another man -- under Noahide  law?  
Surely not.  
 
Yet if all this is happening under Jewish law, then how can a father-in-law 
 do yibum?  That must be OK under Noahide law or custom, not Jewish  law.  
 
But then we come back to, is a widow awaiting yibum subject to the death  
penalty under Noahide law?  I conclude that Yehudah sentenced Tamar to  death 
under Canaanite law of the time -- not Noahide law.  
 
I know this subject has been much discussed by our meforshim.  I can't  
claim to have studied the issue exhaustively but the answers that I have seen  
have not been fully satisfying.
 
 


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



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




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101130/9d2ab0ea/attachment-0001.htm>

On 30/11/2010 2:48 AM, Eli Turkel wrote:

> I wonder if "artscroll" type gedolim stories contribute to this phenomena
> but setting up standards for perfect gedolim that very few can obtain.
> Once in high school most students realize they are not up to the standards
> in these books.
> Perhaps a better model would be the Netziv who was not a child prodigy
> but became a gadol relatively later in life by emphasizing hasmada.

Ein hachi nami, but what do you do if the subject of your biography really
was an illuy?Pretend he wasn't?!

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                      - Margaret Thatcher

http://www.mahnishmah.com/system/scripts/modules/admin/pages
/show_page.cgi?p=16164 
  as i am more familiar  with the L  minhagim,  they have  a lot of  'yom 
tovs'  in kislev ,  but  not  this one.   but  they  celebrate  rosh 
hashana lechassidus  on 19 Kislev
i have 2  questions  ---   does  any other  chassidus   celebrate  19 
kislev  as  the  RH of chassidus?  or  when the word  chassidus is used, 
it is meant   that L  is  the  chassidus  referred to
                                               are there ANY   days  that 
most or  all  chassidus celebrate  as a yom tov  common  to chassidus , ie 
 something  litvishe  wouldnt  be celebrating  ?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101130/4e4cc17b/attachment-0001.htm>

RZS wrote:
<<True, we're not talking about literal vs. allegory; but about literal
(i.e.,  peshat) meaning. But there are rules for determining correct
literal meaning as well. Rav Saadia Gaon, the Rambam and the Ikkarim
explicitly, and others implicitly, maintain the meaning of the word must
be its primary meaning, unless it transgresses one of the rules you
mentioned. There is a hierarchy of meanings that must be followed:
Preferably primary; with cause (such as those you listed), non-primary.>>

Another way of looking at it is from G"d's perspective. Why would you
limit G"d to expressing Himself only in the most simple manner? His
Torah is complex, why should it be written according to the rules laid
out in elementary school? Great writers surely don't stick to those
rules, and express themselves with all the wealth of expressions the
human communicative canon offers. Wouldn't it make sense for us to
allow - kaveyakhol - G"d at least as much freedom?

So if the question is whether we are free to reinterpret words at
will, to the point of making Torah almost arbitrary, I agree with you
that it cannot be that we have such licence. OTOH, if the question is
whether the Torah may express itself in those types of figurative
speeches and utilize the non-primary meaning of a word, the answer
must surely be a resounding yes.

The challenge then becomes distinguishing possible truth from fancy.
Nothing new here.
-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Basler Gymnasium experimentiert mit Chawrut?-Lernen
* Where Will We Find Refuge ... from technology overload
* Video-Vortrag: Psalm 34
* We May Have Free Will, After All
* Equal Justice for All
* Brutal Women of Nazi Germany
* Gibt es in der Unterhaltungsliteratur eine Rolle f?r G"tt?

On 11/30/2010 12:49 PM, Arie Folger wrote:
> RZS [should be RZL--ZL] wrote:
>> ... Rav Saadia Gaon, the Rambam and the Ikkarim
>> explicitly, and others implicitly, maintain the meaning of the word must
>> be its primary meaning, unless it transgresses one of the rules you
>> mentioned....

> Another way of looking at it is from G"d's perspective. Why would you
> limit G"d to expressing Himself only in the most simple manner...

Another way of looking at it? I'm quoting our baalei mesorah as to the
correct way of looking at it.

> why should it be written according to the rules laid out in elementary
> school?

Pardon me? I'm invoking serious pronouncements by Geonim and Rishonim
as to the correct way to go about understanding G-d's words!

> Great writers surely don't stick to those rules, and express
> themselves with all the wealth of expressions the human communicative
> canon offers. ...

The Geonim and Rishonim were appreciative of, and expanded upon the
wealth of expression and the additional and deeper meanings of the
pesukim within and beyond peshat. That doesn't change the rules about
establishing the basic peshat and what it engenders.

Please consider the implications of what you are saying in regards to,
say, blanket interpretation of the entire Torah as allegory, both in
its narratives and its halachos.

On 11/30/2010 12:49 PM, Arie Folger wrote:
> So if the question is whether we are free to reinterpret words at
> will, to the point of making Torah almost arbitrary, I agree with you
> that it cannot be that we have such licence. OTOH, if the question is
> whether the Torah may express itself in those types of figurative
> speeches and utilize the non-primary meaning of a word, the answer
> must surely be a resounding yes.

I didn't give enough attention to this caveat. Nevertheless, as far as 
your saying,
> if the question is whether the Torah may express itself in those types
> of figurative speeches and utilize the non-primary meaning of a word,
> the answer must surely be a resounding yes
-- I must reiterate that the circumstances under which we may understand
"whether the Torah may express itself in those types of figurative
speeches and utilize the non-primary meaning of a word," is precisely
what the the rishonim and geonim were concerned about and which they
defined. And which I quoted.

Zvi Lampel


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 208
***************************************

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..."