Torah and Jewish Idea > Torah and Jewish Idea
Breakdown of the Halakhic System - Two Earth-Shattering Shiurim - Exclusive
q_q_:
--- Quote from: judeanoncapta on June 26, 2008, 03:56:00 AM ---q_q_, I am very impressed.
You are a very perceptive guy. I like your breakdown of the shiur.
I don't feel disappointed that Rabbis at the time of the Talmud made certain things up to influence behaviour for two powerful reasons.
1) It was a matter of life and death. They had two revolts, each one more disastrous than the next. Any Rabbi worth his salt would try to calm the rebellious Jews down, to make sure Jews stay alive at all.
2) That is the way of Midrashim. Read Maimonides on this subject. He and almost all Rishonim relate to Midrashim as parables to give over moral lessons. Only in recent times have there been Rabbis who claim that Midrashim are to be taken literally. This is a rather new development.
--- End quote ---
thanks for the compliments, though I don't like compliements!
with the revolts.. I guess they had 1 successful one (chanukah) when israel was under the greeks. Then when the romans conquered it, they had 2 unsuccessful revolts against the romans..
note for others - this page was useful http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Palestine
I think they could have done it without making up a story..
And if even originally, it was indeed a parable , and understood as a parable, then it was only relevant to the jews at that place, at that time, and so why include it in the gemara to be studied for thousands of years. Something so temporal should not have been included And belief that the 3 oaths were real and applicable in any exile, was a big factor in the holocaust.
Some midrashim are real stories, some are not. Though all of them teach something.
So saying all midrashim are in the same non-literal bag is not quite accurate.
The question is of course ok, let's they are not literal, but what do they teach.
You are the first person to have offered a good answer to that. Answering what they teach/taught.
The following suggests that they are not made up.
It seems from this link, that the RAMBAM in iggeres teiman considered that in song of songs, king solomon allegorically made the jewish people swear an oath.
Of course, this has many similarities to the 3 oaths. The one described by the RAMBAM seems to involve not going to israel en masse and rising up against the nation there. And of course the 3 oaths themselves link to te same pasuk/pasukim in Song of songs.
interesting that according gil student, the satmar said they don't apply
http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2005/05/religious-zionism-debate-iv.html
"
The Rambam, in his Iggeres Teiman (ch. 4, Qafah edition, p. 55), writes:
Because Shlomo knew with Divine inspiration that this nation, once it is ensnared in exile, will plot to awaken before the appropriate time and will be destroyed through this and will fall into troubles, he warned about this and made it vow -- allegorically (al derekh mashal) -- and said, "I adjure you, O you daughters of Jerusalem" (Song of Songs 2:7).
The Satmar Rav finds this significant: The great Rambam explicitly quotes the Three Oaths! However, the Rambam states that they are allegorical. The Satmar Rav (Va-Yoel Moshe, Ma'amar Gimmel Shevu'os, ch. 36, in the Ashkenazi 5760 edition, p. 47) explains the allegorical aspect of these oaths as meaning that, in truth, the oaths are only binding on the generation that took the oaths (his reasoning is actually much more elaborate). Therefore, these are not legally binding oaths, "only" allegorical but still very serious matters
"
Kahane-Was-Right BT:
q_q_
I remember vaguely from when I read the iggeres teiman, Rambam was referring specifically to a few false messiahs that had popped up and were causing massive casualties on groups of Jews who would follow them trying to slaughter the Muslims on their way to Israel and getting absolutely housed. After several times of this happening, and considering the then- current status of the Moslem empire (which was dominant at that time), he was rebuking these various false messiah groups in their weak attempts to bring redemption by getting behind a false messiah and slaughtering Arabs. Had the reality then been what it is today, would Rambam cite the song of songs in the face of Israeli victory over Arabs and the context of the shoah? I tend to think the contextual reality would play a big role in the Maimonidean prescription.
"will plot to awaken before the appropriate time and will be destroyed through this and will fall into troubles" - seems to refer to actual failures that we had under a few false messiahs in the 800-1200's. But what about the more recent adventures which did not destroy us, while Europe did? Just a thought. In general, I know close to nothing.
q_q_:
--- Quote from: Kahane-Was-Right BT on June 27, 2008, 05:24:49 PM ---q_q_
I remember vaguely from when I read the iggeres teiman, Rambam was referring specifically to a few false messiahs that had popped up and were causing massive casualties on groups of Jews who would follow them trying to slaughter the Muslims on their way to Israel and getting absolutely housed. After several times of this happening, and considering the then- current status of the Moslem empire (which was dominant at that time), he was rebuking these various false messiah groups in their weak attempts to bring redemption by getting behind a false messiah and slaughtering Arabs. Had the reality then been what it is today, would Rambam cite the song of songs in the face of Israeli victory over Arabs and the context of the shoah? I tend to think the contextual reality would play a big role in the Maimonidean prescription.
"will plot to awaken before the appropriate time and will be destroyed through this and will fall into troubles" - seems to refer to actual failures that we had under a few false messiahs in the 800-1200's. But what about the more recent adventures which did not destroy us, while Europe did? Just a thought. In general, I know close to nothing.
--- End quote ---
There are many variables.
What the RAMBAM Was telling the jews of yemen was not to follow false messiahs.
But based on that quote which I gave, quoting king solomon, the meaning might be to not go up en masse - with or without a false messiah. Certainly zionism is all about awakening the love (and going up there en masse).
Now, whether after 1967, the RAMBAM - in his relationship with the state of israel - would be a satmar, an agudat yisroel or a religious zionist, or some mixture, in relation to israel, we don't know.
Taking the RAMBAM's King Solomon quote seriously, the question then comes.. How then could we have come to Israel the second time.
(we were exiled twice, so we entered twice. Our first stay, we came in at Joshua's time. Our second stay , we came in long after King Solomon made that statement)
I have heard that this entry for the beginning of the second stay, is an argument for religious zionism.
I don't know how the RAMBAM would have answered that. But he did seem to quote King Solomon about not awakening the love.. As if they were under this allegorical oath..
Was the RAMBAM referring to the 3 oaths ? If yes, then that's an issue. If no, then still he is referring to a similar oath and applying it to them.
There are way too many variables here..
It may be that he is not taking the oath in song of songs as applicable as an oath on the whole jewish people forever, but he is just using that pasuk in his letter to them, as a rhetorical device.. and he is only applying it to the jews of yemen at that time.
An example of an extreme form of that kind of rhetoric.. somebody did once show me a book called Book of the honeycomb's flow by judah messer leon, and in it the rabbi there writes a letter discussing some wicked person that is trying to ruin him, but every sentence of the letter is a verse of tenach. Quite an astounding style. The context of the verse had absolutely 0 relevance to the letter. It may be here, one verse was quoted. The context of the verse isn't totally relevant, in the sense that the time it was taken is not relevant. The RAMBAM is just repeating what King Solomon said there, and applying it only to the jews of yemen at that time. And that doesn't mean that he is saying it applies elsewhere.
Then you have the association that verse has with the 3 oaths, one could say yes, the gemara relates them to that verse. But it's just a hook. And the RAMBAM was not and did not mean to tell them they are bound by the 3 oaths.
(though he happens to be advising them with a similar message).
And one could say that he wasn't even telling them not to go up en masse, because they were not even thinking about it without a messiah. He was just telling them not to follow a fase messiah, not to follow the false messiah up to israel.
To an extent, one could go either way on this one..
We know for sure what he was telling them. About not following a false messiah.
But whether his argument to them applies elsewhere, that is another matter.
note- given how the secular israeli govt stripped the torah from the jews of yemen, maybe they should have still abided by the letter the RAMBAM sent.. And maybe they thought they were, I read of how excited they were. Maybe they thought the planes were a messianic prophecy being fulfilled(wings of eagles). Maybe they were right! There are just -so- many variables..
Kahane-Was-Right BT:
Interesting.
--- Quote --- It may be that he is not taking the oath in song of songs as applicable as an oath on the whole jewish people forever, but he is just using that pasuk in his letter to them, as a rhetorical device.. and he is only applying it to the jews of yemen at that time.
--- End quote ---
This was a smart way of putting it, and that was kind of what I was alluding to though not spelling it out as well...
Lubab:
If one learns properly (using the methods of the Yud Gimel Midos SheHatorah Nidreshes Bahem) you can find more than one interpretation of of Talmudic passage and they can ALL be 100% correct and this will NOT lead to the legitimization of Christianity, homosexuality or any of those philsophies G-d forbid.
If learning is being done in a way that legitimizes such forbidden opinions than it is quite obvious that the person is not learning Torah at all.
When we give a Psak we give it for a given tiime and place and that does not mean the other opinion is wrong. The famous example of this is Beis Hillel and Shammai. We pasken like Hillel now but like Shammai LeAtid Lavo.
This does not mean one does not care about the Truth of the matter. Because in order to get to the truth of the matter you can't just say one opinon is wrong and the other is right. That is almost never the truth. When you find the Truth it will bring out the essence of both sides which at first appear contradictory but in truth are not contradictary at all.
If I had never learned the Torah of the Lubavitcher Rebbe I would agree with R' Chayim. But if you learn the Rebbe's sichot you will see how he time and time again brings out a machloket, shows how they cannot seemily be able to coexist, but then brings a third higher perspective on the matter which shows that both opinions are only bringing out different aspects of the same truth.
The bottom line is summed up perfectly when our sages said: Shei Ketuvim Hamachishim Zeh Et Zeh Ad Sheyavo Hashlishi VeYachriah Beneihem. That is the proper method of learning.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version