Torah and Jewish Idea > Torah and Jewish Idea
Breakdown of the Halakhic System - Two Earth-Shattering Shiurim - Exclusive
q_q_:
thanks.. this is fantastic, and I can't wait to hear the 3 oaths one.
judeanoncapta:
--- Quote from: q_q_ on June 25, 2008, 05:49:33 AM ---thanks.. this is fantastic, and I can't wait to hear the 3 oaths one.
--- End quote ---
He doesn't mention the three oaths explicitly but his explanation of the midrash that says that Moshe killed the egyptian using the name of Hashem explains the three oaths quite well.
q_q_:
--- Quote from: judeanoncapta on June 25, 2008, 06:16:45 AM ---
--- Quote from: q_q_ on June 25, 2008, 05:49:33 AM ---thanks.. this is fantastic, and I can't wait to hear the 3 oaths one.
--- End quote ---
He doesn't mention the three oaths explicitly but his explanation of the midrash that says that Moshe killed the egyptian using the name of Hashem explains the three oaths quite well.
--- End quote ---
I will listen to his argument.
It sounds like his argument might be based on the assumption that halacha as we had it in the gemara is the same as halacha at the time of moshe.
If that is the case, then the following is relevant. If not then it is just an interesting thing.
I did hear from an/the unreliable maimonidean, that that is not the case(i.e. moshe did not follow halacha like in the gemara. ). And for example the gemara about being killed rather than disobeying a custom and causing a chillul hashem.. (I had asked him about that in relation to chanukah), he said it was written at a time after chanukah. He would say that halacha developed.
Charedim though do make that assumption(that the avot or any biblical characters, kept the halacha of gemara) . Infact, they might even go as far as saying they kept the laws in the shulchan aruch or araba turim. I did read an article in the jewish tribune (an agudat yisroel paper in britain) that explained how avraham in purchasing the cave for sarah, was actually doing what he did in complete accordance with, and because of, the laws in choshen mishpat.
q_q_:
ok.. I just listened to it.. [1]
judea, that link to the 3 oaths was very well spotted
so.. I found the thing about moshe, and second lecture, 27min in.
For the benefit of others I will state his argument here.. perhaps editting it to add more..
I'm not adding much here... not really aruging with it . Just presenting it in text form.. And it's not the plain text of his argument.. I just listened to it once and only retained a small amount.
judea-- I guess it's pretty bad though if midrash - midrashic books, are a mixture of the siniatic and deliberately made up temporal things.
And the aggada in gemara..is any aggada in gemara from sinai? It would be a shame if that style of aggada is mixed up with anything siniatic.
What is below is more for others who didn't hear the shiur.
He gave some examples of old teachings or traditions(he was suggesting these particular traditions are not sinaiatic).
One was Moshe killing the egyptian(that's pshat). Nothing in the pshat suggests anything magical. The egyptian was beating a jew, and Moshe saw it and killed the egyptian. There is a teaching(prob midrash) that he killed the egyptian with the shem hameforesh(a special divine name with powerful qualities for those that know how to use it). Rabbi Bar Hayyim argues that Moshe killed the egyptian normally. And that Many centuries later, when jews were in Galus, and could not relate to the story, and were looking for what they could learn from the story, a chacham came up with a story that moshe killed him with the shem hameforesh. And he did so in order to teach the masses to sit through their persecution.. Because sometimes, when things are bad in history, the evil regime is too strong, you can't fight it and have to sit it out. It's safer that way.. And eventually the regime crumbles. As happened to the romans. (he did try fighting the romans in the time of Rabbi Akiva - when he presumed that bar kochba was the messiah, but many jews died)
He gives another example. Of the story of rabbi akiva's students dying. THe story is that they died of a plage that causes asphyxiation. Due to their sin of not speaking to each other respectfully. Some huge number died (10,000 or so?). Rabbi Bar Hayyim argues, or points out, that this is problematic. Why such a severe punishment, and of all the jews, why rabbi akiva's students. They would have had better middot(character traits) than most of klal(congregation of) yisrael.
Rabbi Bar Hayyim then provides a source.. and argues from it (in light of the unbelievability of the above story) that they died in the revolt against the romans. This is far more believable and historically likely.
And he argues that the story that they died of that medical plague due to that sin, was made up to to give yeshiva bochers something they could relate to - and perhaps to them or keep them not picking up swords and fighting oppressors. (and they were probably right that it was safer not to. If they had no chance doing so, like in galus against a strong regime with a well armed army)
He then mentioned the bows and arrows that kids play with on lab b'omer, and a kabbalistic reason that he didn't translate. I have heard a reason that supports his idea to the extent of his other examples..
note- rabbi bar hayyim said (I think quoting the ben ish chai), that there is no source for rabbi shimon bar yochai dying on lab b'omer.
I heard somewhat of a reason given , that rabbi shimon bar yochai died on lab bomer, and during his lifetime there was no rainbow. The rainbow is a reminder from G-d that he will not destroy the world, and if there is a perfect tzaddik there is no need for such a sign.
Rabbi Bar Hayyim suggests the the idea of the bow and arrow came about from the revolt against the romans, which was a historical event. It was commemoriating it (I doubt they would have had much to celebrate though! )
So there is this general idea, of aggadic material in gemara, pehaps even midrashim, being made up in order to modify the behaviour of the people for the period in which they lived.
Personally.. I am not sure.. I wouldn't put it past rabbis of today.. I heard of one rosh yeshiva who would make things up to emphasise things. He told some high school kids that if they don't go to yeshiva, they're not jewish. And he told his yeshiva kids that if they don't daven with a minyan, then their prayer will not be accepted. Interestingly, all his students went to daven with a minyan, whereas students in other yeshivot were more lax about it. It is dissapointing to think that rabbis of gemara times did that though,
There is an idea, particualrly in charedi circles, of getting people to do more mitzvot, by nook or crook. They have camps where they entice kids (typically religious kids from religious homes) entice them with table tennis and games and teach them torah (though they'd probably be enticed by torah anyway!).
Aish also, they have these incredible trips to remote parts of the world, as psychology, in order to get kids to reflect on their life, and then they provide them with arguments for the torah. The irreligious kids themselves know they're going on such a trip, but they just go for the trip, and don't think they will comeback religious! some do! Lubavitch accost secularly dressed jewish-looking people in the street , asking them if they put on teffilin, and if not then they try to get them to put them on.
so judea's argument or suggestion, is that the 3 oaths are an aggadic story made up to influence the behaviour of jews at that time. And perhaps of many times. (as opposed to being strict teachings that we are bound by and must follow without exception )
[1]
judea and I were on the same "page".. But for those that didn't realise.. When I was referring to the shiur relevant to the 3 oaths, this was a reference not to shiurim in this thread, but to a comment judea made in another thread where he linked to 2 shiurim.
it was a spin off from a discussion about rabbi dovid gottlieb of ohr
http://jtf.org/forum_english/index.php?topic=22036.0
and the shiurim there were
Part 1
http://machonshilo.org/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_download/gid,49/Itemid,64/
Part 2
http://machonshilo.org/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_download/gid,50/Itemid,64/
judeanoncapta:
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version