Volume 35: Number 95
Wed, 26 Jul 2017
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Professor L. Levine
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 13:47:36 +0000
Subject: [Avodah] Washing Clothes During the 9 Days
The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis
Q. I am picking up my Bar Mitzvah boy from camp during the Nine Days. All
of his clothing is in need of washing, otherwise he'll have nothing clean
to wear. Under the circumstances may I wash his clothing during the Nine
Days? (A Subscriber's Question)
A. Rama (OC 551:3) tells us that the Ashkenazi minhag is not to launder
clothing during the Nine Days. However, the Mishna Berura (ibid. 29) in the
name of the Eliyah Rabah (ibid., Shaar Hatziyun 33) rules that if one has
only one garment, or many garments which all require cleaning (see Piskei
Teshuvos Vol. 6 p. 80:21), it is permitted to wash and do the laundry up
until the week in which Tisha B'Av falls.
In a case that one is permitted to do laundry, you may wash whatever
clothing you will need for the duration of the Nine Days. In the past, one
was only allowed to wash one garment at a time, as needed. But in our
generation, when the push of a button can wash an entire load, this
restriction does not apply (see Shu"t Minchas Yitzchok 8:50, Shu"t Yabia
Omer 7:48 and Shu"t Be'er Moshe 7:32). However, one is not allowed to add
clothing needed for after the Nine Days (Piskei Halachos ibid. end of 21).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170725/073d0bc6/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 2
From: Micha Berger
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 15:40:03 -0400
Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 01:05:59PM -0400, Zev Sero via Areivim wrote:
: On 25/07/17 12:18, Prof. Levine via Areivim wrote:
:> Even today there are people who are willing to believe fantastic
:> stories that could not possibly be true. Some years ago there was
:> the story of the so-called talking fish. There were people who
:> did indeed believe it. I once discussed this story with a
:> neighbor and pointed out that it had been debunked. She replied,
:> "But it could have happened." I decided not to say more.
: You are not required to believe that this story did happen, but you
: *are* required to believe that it could have happened. To claim
: that He Who gave man a mouth cannot give one to a donkey or a fish
: is apikorsus.
Not 100%, it depends on the modality of the words "could" and "possibly"
here.
Yes, HQBH could do anything, the question of whether "anything" includes
the paradoxical I will leave for the rishonim to argue.
But there are things we know He wouldn't do. Such as rewarding sin.
(And don't quibble about rewarding it in the short term for some other
purpose, later punishment, or whatever. There is an iqar that overall
net-net-net, sin is punished.)
And if someone believes that HQBH wouldn't give a fish the power to talk
during an era of hesteir panim, I would not label them an apiqoreis. In
fact, I would be inclined to agree.
And therefore, the story "could not possibly be true" if we limit our
possibilities to the world of things that don't defy what we believe
about Retzon haBorei.
Quoting the rest not because I have what to say about it, but
because it more belongs on Avodah than on Areivim:
: The set of true events is necessarily an infinitesimal subset of the
: set of possible events, which is in turn an infinitesimal subset of
: the set of conceivable events. Whether a talking fish is in the
: first set is a question of evidence, and skepticism is appropriate,
: but whether it's in the second set or only in the third set is a
: question of emunah.
: I have not heard that the story was in fact debunked, and I wonder
: whether this is true, but if so it doesn't surprise me. Such
: stories are more likely to be hoaxes than true...
:> There are people today who insist on taking midrashim literally
:> even though both RSRH and Reb Yisroel Salanter said that they were
:> not to be taken literally.
: What if they did say this? No matter how often you pretend they are
: the definitive voices of Judaism, and all Jews must accept their
: opinions, it won't be any truer.
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice,
mi...@aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Go to top.
Message: 3
From: Micha Berger
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 11:59:25 -0400
Subject: [Avodah] Menorah on Arch of Titus
One of the arguments against the menorah on the Arch of Titus harasha
being The Menorah taken from the Heikhal is the base. It has an octoganol
base. If it even had three feet, they were short extensions of that base
that didn't show up in what's left of the relief. Maybe small balls. There
is no indication of any. Either way, 3 feet on an octagon lacks symmetry
-- 3 of 8 sides or corners had a foot? But the bigger problem is that
it has representational art on it. The Menorah would not have reliefs
of sea lions, hippocamps, dragons, eagles (their garland, maybe), etc...
(Of course then there's the whole curved arm vs alakhson thing, but
we've discussed that enough times before.)
Which is why I was surprised to see this quote from Josephus. I would
think it would be mandatory reading for any discussion of the subject,
but it was new to me.
So I'm sharing.
But for those that were taken in the temple of Jerusalem, they
made the greatest figure of them all; that is, the golden table,
of the weight of many talents; the candlestick also, that was made
of gold, though its construction were now changed from that which
we made use of; for its middle shaft was fixed upon a basis, and the
small branches were produced out of it to a great length, having the
likeness of a trident in their position, and had every one a socket
made of brass for a lamp at the tops of them. These lamps were in
number seven, and represented the dignity of the number seven among
the Jews; and the last of all the spoils, was carried the Law of
the Jews ...
- Jewish War (VII.5.5)
I don't know if the basis is the change in construction or -- like the
branches -- just a description of the original. Brass neiros?
But it could be read as:
the menorah also, that was made of gold (though its construction
were now changed from that which we made use of, for its middle
shaft was fixed upon a base), and the small branches were produced
out of it to a great length...
Which would solve the above problems.
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice,
mi...@aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Go to top.
Message: 4
From: Micha Berger
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 12:50:58 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 05:11:46PM -0400, Zev Sero via Areivim wrote:
: On 25/07/17 16:48, Allan Engel wrote:
: >That would be obvious and would hardly need saying, as many
: >midrashim contradict each other.
:
: And that is all the Rambam is saying. He's *not* making some bold
: statement against medroshim-as-history. He's defining who's an
: apikores, and including those who reject midroshim, so he has to
: specify that this doesn't mean one must make ones head explode by
: accepting every single medrosh as literally true. Some are
: literally true, some aren't, and one must use ones best judgment
: about which is which.
:
: This implies that on many specific medroshim there will be
: legitimate differences of opinion, and therefore one can't dismiss
: someone as an apikores merely because he holds a specific medrosh to
: be non-literal; one must inquire further and find out *why* he holds
: so, because he might have a legitimate reason.
I think you misrepresent the Rambam. The original is here
<http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/mahshevt/rambam/hakdamat-2.htm#3> (scrolled
to the right place in the intro to Cheileq), but given that the list
STILL can't do Hebrew, here's a translation from Merkaz Moreshet haRambam
<https://www.mhcny.org/qt/1005.pdf> (paragraphing theirs). I do not know
how you can read the following and conclude anything but his insistence
that midrashic stories are NOT history, and that
1- people who think otherwise and therefore believe nimna'os are
aniyei daas, yeish lehitzta'er aleihem lesikhlusam;
2- people who think these stories are meant to be historical, realize
they can't be, and yi'agu al divrei chakhamim; and
3- the wise few know that all they say about devarim hanimna'im were
said bederekh chidah umashal.
I see nothing at all there about machloqes, only about learning nimshalim
and not taking impossible meshalim as historical fact.
Here is the section in full:
You must know that the words of the sages are differently interpreted
by three groups of people.
The first group is the largest one. I have observed them read their books,
and heard about them. They accept the teachings of the sages in their
simple literal sense and do not think that these teachings contain any
hidden meaning at all. They believe that all sorts of impossible things
must be. They hold such opinions because they have not understood science
and are far from having acquired knowledge. They possess no perfection
which would rouse them to insight from within, nor have they found anyone
else to stimulate them to profounder understanding. They, therefore,
believe that the sages intended no more in their carefully emphatic and
straightforward utterances than they themselves are able to understand
with inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the sages
only in their literal sense, in spite of the fact that some of their
teachings when taken literally, seem so fantastic and irrational that
if one were to repeat them literally, even to the uneducated, let alone
sophisticated scholars, their amazement would prompt them to ask how
anyone in the world could believe such things true, much less edifying.
The members of this group are poor in knowledge. One can only regret their
folly. Their very effort to honor and to exalt the sage sin accordance
with their own meager understanding actually humiliates them. As God
lives, this group destroys the glory of the Torah of God say the opposite
of what it intended. For He said in His perfect Torah, "The nation is a
wise and understanding people" (Deut. 4:6). But this group expounds the
laws and the teachings of our sages in such a way that when the other
peoples hear them they say that this little people is foolish and ignoble.
The worst offenders are preachers who preach and expound to the masses
what they themselves do not understand. Would that they keep silent about
what they do not know, as it is written: "If only they would be utterly
silent, it would be accounted to them as wisdom" (Job 13:5). Or they
might at least say, "We do not understand what our sages intended in this
statement, and we do not know how to explain it." But they believe they
do understand, and they vigorously expound to the people what they think
rather than what the sages really said. They, therefore, give lectures to
the people on the tractate Berakhot and on this present chapter, and other
texts, expounding them word-for-word according to their literal meaning.
The second group is also a numerous one. It, too, consist of persons who,
having read or heard the words of the sages, understand them according
to their simple literal sense and believe that the sages, understand
them according to their simple literal sense and believe that the sages
intended nothing else than what may be learned from their literal
interpretation. Inevitably, they ultimately declare the sages to be
fools, hold them up to contempt, and slander what does not deserve to
be slandered. They imagine that their own intelligence is of a higher
order than that of the sages, and that the sages were simpletons who
suffered from inferior intelligence. The members of this group are so
pretentiously stupid that they can never attain genuine wisdom. Most of
these who have stumbled into this error are involved with medicine or
astrology. They regard themselves as cultivated men, scientist, critics,
and philosophers. How remote they are from true humanity compared to
real philosophers! They are more stupid than the first group; many of
them are simply fools.
This is an accursed group, because they attempt to refute men of
established greatness whose wisdom has been demonstrated to competent
men of science. If these fools had worked at science hard enough to know
how to write accurately about theology and similar subjects both for
the masses and for the educated, and if they understood the relevance of
philosophy, then they would be in a position to understand whether the
sages were in fact wise or not, and the real meaning of their teachings
would be clear to them.
There is a third group. Its members are so few in number that it is
hardly appropriate to call them a group, except in the sense in which
one speaks of the sun as a group (or species) of which it is the only
member. This group consists of men whom the greatness of our sages is
clear. They recognize the superiority of their intelligence from their
words which point to exceedingly profound truths. Even though this
third group is few and scattered, their books teach the perfection
which was achieved by the authors and the high level of truth which
they had attained. The members of this group understand that the sages
knew as clearly as we do the difference between the impossibility of
the impossible and the existence of that which must exist. They know
that the sages did not speak nonsense, and it is clear to them that the
words of the sages contain both an obvious and a hidden meaning. Thus,
whenever the sages spoke of things that seem impossible, they were
employing the style of riddle and parable which is the method of truly
great thinkers. For example, the greatest of our wise men (Solomon)
began his book by saying: "To understand an analogy and a metaphor,
the words of the wise and their riddles" (Prov. 1:6).
All students of rhetoric know the real concern of a riddle is with its
hidden meaning and not with its obvious meaning, as: "Let me now put forth
a riddle to you" (Judges 14:12). Since the words of the sages all deal
with supernatural matters which are ultimate, they must be expressed in
riddles and analogies. How can we complain if they formulate their wisdom
in analogies and employ such figures of speech as are easily understood
by the masses, especially when we note that the wisest of all men did
precisely that, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit? I have in mind
Solomon in Proverbs, the Song of Songs, and parts of Ecclesiastes.
It is often difficult for us to interpret words and to educe their true
meaning from the form in which they are contained so that their real
inner meaning conforms to reason and corresponds with truth. This is
the case even with Holy Scriptures. The sages themselves interpreted
Scriptural passages in such a way as to educe their inner meaning from
literal sense, correctly considering these passages to be figures of
speech, just as we do. Examples are their explanations of the following
passages: "he smote the two altar-hearths of Moab; he went down also and
slew a lion in the midst of a pit" (II Sam. 23:20); "Oh, that one would
give me water to drink of the well of Bethlehem" (ibid. 23:15). The
entire narrative of which these passages are a part was interpreted
metaphorically. Similarly, the whole Book of Job was considered by many
of the sages to be properly understood only in metaphoric terms. The
dead bones of Ezekiel (Ezek. 37) were also considered by one of the
rabbis to make sense only in metamorphic terms. Similar treatment was
given to other passages of this sort.
Now if you, reader, belong to either of the first two groups, pay no
attention to my words nor to anything else in this section. You will not
like it. On the contrary, it will irritate you, and you will hate it. How
could a person who is accustomed to eating large amounts of harmful
food find simple food in small quantities appealing, even though they
are good for him? On the contrary, he will actually find them irritating
and he will hate them. Do you not recall the reaction of the people who
were accustomed to eating onions, garlic, fish, and the like? They said:
"Now our soul is dried away; there is nothing at all; we have naught
save this manna to look to" (Num. 11:6).
But if you belong to the third group, when you encounter a word of the
sages which seems to conflict with reason, you will pause, consider it,
and realize that this utterance must be a riddle or a parable. You will
sleep on it, trying anxiously to grasp its logic and its expression, so
that you may find its genuine intellectual intention and lay hold of a
direct faith, as Scripture says: "To find out words of delight, and that
which was written uprightly, even words of truth" (Eccles. 12:10). If
you consider my book in this spirit, with the help of God, it may be
useful to you.
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice,
mi...@aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Go to top.
Message: 5
From: Professor L. Levine
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 17:36:59 +0000
Subject: [Avodah] Showering During the 9 Days
Please see
http://tinyurl.com/ycghuo2q
YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170726/9b63ab13/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 6
From: Zev Sero
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 13:34:24 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash
On 26/07/17 12:50, Micha Berger wrote:
> I think you misrepresent the Rambam. The original is here
> <http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/mahshevt/rambam/hakdamat-2.htm#3> (scrolled
> to the right place in the intro to Cheileq), but given that the list
> STILL can't do Hebrew, here's a translation from Merkaz Moreshet haRambam
> <https://www.mhcny.org/qt/1005.pdf> (paragraphing theirs). I do not know
> how you can read the following and conclude anything but his insistence
> that midrashic stories are NOT history, and that
> 1- people who think otherwise and therefore believe nimna'os are
> aniyei daas, yeish lehitzta'er aleihem lesikhlusam;
> 2- people who think these stories are meant to be historical, realize
> they can't be, and yi'agu al divrei chakhamim; and
> 3- the wise few know that all they say about devarim hanimna'im were
> said bederekh chidah umashal.
On the contrary, I think you are misrepresenting him. Using your own
translation, he explicitly criticises those (on both sides) who imagine
that Chazal's words are *only ever* meant literally, and have no meaning
*but* the literal, so that if one rejects the literal reading of any
maamar Chazal one must reject it altogether, because there is nothing
else. Given this false choice, the righteous fools accept the literal
reading even if it poses terrible difficulties, while the wicked fools
reject the maamar altogether, and therefore also its authors. The wise
understand that there's a lot *more* going on in a maamar Chazal than
just the surface reading, and therefore *if the context indicates* that
the surface reading was not intended to be accepted one may reject it
without rejecting the whole maamar, just as Chazal themselves did with
pesukim.
--
Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name be a brilliant year for us all
Go to top.
Message: 7
From: Micha Berger
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 14:31:44 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 01:34:24PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: On the contrary, I think you are misrepresenting him. Using your
: own translation, he explicitly criticises those (on both sides) who
: imagine that Chazal's words are *only ever* meant literally, and
: have no meaning *but* the literal...
The first kat are criticized for believing the literal version.
Not for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper meaning, but for
understand[ing] the teachings of the sages only in their literal
sense, in spite of the fact that some of their teachings when taken
literally, seem so fantastic and irrational that if one were to
repeat them literally seem so fantastic and irrational that if one
were to repeat them literally, even to the uneducated, let
alone sophisticated scholars, their amazement would prompt
them to ask how anyone in the world could believe such
things true, much less edifying.
Even the uneducation should know they're not literraly true. No? And
he attacks them for
expound[ing] the laws and the teachings of our sages in such a way
that when the other peoples hear them they say that this little
people is foolish and ignoble.
"Yeish lahem dibah veharichuq min haseikhel..."
When it comes to the 2nd group, yes, they could reach the same dismissive
attitude whether the problem is their believing that Chazal taught us to
believe the absurd, or that Chazal taught us stories rather than anything
of depth.
However, the Rambam doesn't criticize their assuming that the literal is
silly. He criticizes their assuming that Chazal meant the literal and
therefore that their teachings are silly.
But the third kat, like the first, is more clearly about the need to
sometimes abandon the litaral:
The members of this group understa nd that the sages knew as clearly
as we do the difference between the impossibility of the impossible
and the existence of that which must exist. They know that the sages
did not speak nonsense, and it is clear to them that the words of
the sages contain both an obvious and a hidden meaning.
If the literal is impossible or nonsense, which the Rambam believes is
a meaningful category -- and not "anything is possible to G-d" -- then
this third kat rejects it. To resume where I left off:
Thus, whenever the sages spoke of things that seem impossible, they
were employing the style of riddle and parable which is the method
of truly great thinkers.
And he adds further down:
But if you belong to the third grou p, when you encounter
a word of the sages which seems to conflict with reason, you
will pause, consider it, and realize that this utterance must
be a riddle or a parable.
Unreasonable literal readings point to maamarei chazal that have
only nimshal meaning, and the Rambam would not want us to believe the
fantastic, irrational or unbelievable.
Nor is the Rambam alone; RDE's Daas Torah has pages of sources about the
historicity or ahistoricity of medrash. RDE posted a summary here years
back.
R/Prof Y Levine would shortly be pointing us to RSRH's position,
if this didn't forestall him:
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/hirschAgadaHebrew.pdf
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/hirschAgadaHebrew.pdf
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice,
mi...@aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Go to top.
Message: 8
From: elazar teitz
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 21:13:46 +0300
Subject: Re: [Avodah] alma vs. almah
In a get,we go to extremes of spelling to avoid any possible
misunderstanding, even if the correct reading and a possible misreading
differ only in nikkud. That's why "v'dein" is written without the yud:
with a yud could be misread as "v'din," so that the sentence would be
misinterpreted as "the din is that you should have a get from me," rather
than the true intent, "v'dein," meaning "this shall be your get from me."
(Parenthetically, the same spelling was carried over to the k'suba,
misleading many readers under the chuppa to pronounce it as "v'dan," rather
than the correct "v'dein.") Likewise, the word indicating the right to
remarry is written "l'hisnasva," with a hei, rather than the standard
"l'isnasva" with an alef, lest it be misunderstood as two words, "la
t'nasva," meaning "she should not remarry."
If we are this concerned about mistaken readings even when the word
is written correctly, certainly we should be concerned if a different word
is written which actually changes the meaning, even if such was not the
intent. Thus, I think that reading philosophical or theological meaning
as a basis for the objection to the appearance of a hei in place of an
alef is farfetched.
EMT
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170726/c2b7d21f/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 9
From: Micha Berger
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 15:10:29 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] alma vs. almah
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 09:13:46PM +0300, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote:
: In a get,we go to extremes of spelling to avoid any possible
: misunderstanding, even if the correct reading and a possible misreading
: differ only in nikkud. That's why "v'dein" is written without the yud...
There are even long vavs in teirukhin, shevuqin, and peturin so that
they aren't read as teirikhin (etc) as a theoretical statement. Which
is beyond just haqpadah in spelling (AhS EhE 126:57(
This came from AhS Yomi, I'm aware of the issues raised in the rest of
the siman. Although, since I didn't bother giving more context, perhaps
others overestimated my case.
: Thus, I think that reading philosophical or theological meaning
: as a basis for the objection to the appearance of a hei in place of an
: alef is farfetched.
As I said, I thought it might be.
What got me started was that unlike the other cases, RYME (se'if 61)
didn't sound so sure that leber'ias almah "toward the creation of the
young lady" was a plausible misread. Perhaps in this context, "almah"
(hei) would be read as being from olam; it is only "yoseif soveil leshon
na'arah milashon olam". "Veyish makhshirin beshe'as hadechaq" as the
Rama says.
Harbei gedolim allow the gett beshe'as hadechaq when you can't get
another, even when it's not a risk of igun.
So, without context "almah" is only more likely to mean na'arah, and
with context it's less likely. I therefore started thinking that maybe
the only reason why halakhah considers the misread plausible enough to
consider at all is because notzrim count from the date of a mythical
virgin birth -- leberi'as almah.
(Which is far from reading in philosophical or theological meaning.
More like positing a din reflecting the metzi'us caused by social
context.)
But I am perfectly willing to accept the idea that while I find the
notion pretty, it's too far of a stretch. I just wrote this long post
to explain what I saw aethetically in it.
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice,
mi...@aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Go to top.
Message: 10
From: Zev Sero
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:21:39 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash
On 26/07/17 14:31, Micha Berger wrote:
> The first kat are criticized for believing the literal version.
> Not for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper meaning,
He explicitly says *yes* for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper
meaning. It's right in his words.
"They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple literal sense
and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden meaning at all.
[...] They, therefore, believe that the sages intended no more in their
carefully emphatic and straightforward utterances than they themselves
are able to understand with inadequate knowledge. They understand the
teachings of the sages only in their literal sense".
That's *why* they're so attached to the surface meaning that they can't
let it go even when the context indicates otherwise -- because they're
unaware there *is* any other meaning, so they think if they reject it
they'd be rejecting the maamar itself ch"v, and they don't want to do
that. The third group understand that there is more going on, and
therefore it's acceptable, *when the context calls for it*, to say that
a specific maamar *has* no surface meaning, and thus trying to make
sense of its words as a straight narrative is futile.
> If the literal is impossible or nonsense, which the Rambam believes is
> a meaningful category -- and not "anything is possible to G-d" -- then
> this third kat rejects it.
Nonsense is nonsense; one cannot make sense of it. If a passage appears
on its surface to be a mere word salad, and one is aware that it has
deeper levels, then it's easy to conclude that it has no surface level
at all. But if one is unaware of the possibility of deeper readings
then one will strive to find sense on the surface and come up with all
sorts of strange interpretations, because ones mind is imposing order on
something that has none.
"Unreasonable" does not mean "requires miracles". It is the very
attitude that regards the supernatural as inherently unreasonable that
I'm calling apikorsus.
--
Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name be a brilliant year for us all
Go to top.
Message: 11
From: Micha Berger
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:49:18 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 04:21:39PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: He explicitly says *yes* for believing it to the exclusion of a
: deeper meaning. It's right in his words.
: "They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple literal
: sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden
: meaning at all. [...] They, therefore, believe that the sages
: intended no more in their carefully emphatic and straightforward
: utterances than they themselves are able to understand with
: inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the sages
: only in their literal sense".
And you skip everything he says about believing foolishness as
irrelevant?
Here's what you ellided, again:
They believe that all sorts of impossible things must be. They hold
such opinions because they have not understood science and are far
from having acquired knowledge. They possess no perfection which
would rouse them to insight from within, nor have they found anyone
else to stimulate them to profounder understanding.
But people who understood science, acquired knowledge, who posess
the perfection which would rouse them to insight from within, or have
somoene to stimulate them to profounder understanding wouldn't believe
that "all sorts of impossible things must be".
: That's *why* they're so attached to the surface meaning that they
: can't let it go even when the context indicates otherwise...
: The third group understand that there is more
: going on, and therefore it's acceptable, *when the context calls for
: it*, to say that a specific maamar *has* no surface meaning, and
: thus trying to make sense of its words as a straight narrative is
: futile.
So you are agreeing that one SHOULD let go of surface meaning when context
indicates that they should? That's the problem is not only a lack of nimshel
meaning, but that they believe a mashal that is ahistoric? Then what are
we in disagreement about?
What then did you mean by, "He's *not* making some bold statement against
medroshim-as-history."
If the surface meaning is incomprehensible as a straight narrative,
then what is left of medroshim as history.
In any case, as I've been describing the Rambam, he is saying that
chazal tell these stories for their nimshalim. Some of the stories may be
historical, but that's irrelevant. And that's why Chazal are comfortable
repeating stories that can't be true.
Unlike your claim, more typical of more recent derakhim in machashavah,
that since HQBH can do anything, it would be apiqursus to say that some
story can't be true.
And I think the difference is modal logic, and differences between
meanings of "can't". Hashem has no limitations of koach to prevent
Him from doing anything (the paradoxical and meaningless aside for the
moment), but we know that some Divine Decisions are absurd and would
never happen.
At least, those of us not in the first kat do.
...
: "Unreasonable" does not mean "requires miracles". It is the very
: attitude that regards the supernatural as inherently unreasonable
: that I'm calling apikorsus.
Thinking that HQBH wouldn't violate the hesteir Panim of galus isn't
apiqursus. Whether or not either of us would choose to believe He actually
did, such a belief is certainly mutar.
And if someone does believe that, or believe that miracles only happen
in some other limited rance of circumstances, and therefore does not
believe that a given medrash could be historical, he is not an apiqoreis
and is indeed in the Rambam's 3rd kat.
For example, what if someone believes that only people who already are
such steadfast maaminim and baalei bitachon that a given neis wouldn't
surprise them or strike them out of the ordinatry at all would experience
one. (Taken from the Sefornu or Ramban on the justice of "hikhbadti es
leiv Par'oh ve'es leiv ha'am".) Then he could believe that Chanina ben
Dosa bentched shabbos licht with vinegar, but not many other aggaditos.
And according to the Rambam, no one really saw sheidim. Just as no navi
really saw mal'akhim, leshitaso -- and of the two, he only believes
mal'akhim even exist!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice,
mi...@aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
------------------------------
**************************************
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..."
A list of common acronyms is available at
http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)