Torah and Jewish Idea > Torah and Jewish Idea
Great new shiur from Rav Bar Hayim
Kahane-Was-Right BT:
qq thanks for the articles. I'm going to look them over.
Just one important point, it is unfair to portray that Rambam was in any way "not serious" about aggada (or that he 'didn't take them seriously'). He certainly did take them seriously as sources of immense wisdom from the sages. But he didn't posken halacha from aggada, which seems logical to me, and he also had a very instructive opinion about the words of the sages in general, which can be found I think in intro to perek chelek, where he describes the 3 general approaches taken by people - with one approach of the 3 being the only praiseworthy approach and truly valid approach in his eyes. When the words seem not to square with reality, one is advised to look deeper for a hidden meaning in them, which he suggests is surely there whether the person can recognize it or not.
q_q_:
--- Quote from: Kahane-Was-Right BT on December 05, 2008, 07:51:50 AM ---qq thanks for the articles. I'm going to look them over.
Just one important point, it is unfair to portray that Rambam was in any way "not serious" about aggada (or that he 'didn't take them seriously'). <snip>
--- End quote ---
I didn't.
I'm talking about some maimonideans(I don't know if most are like that).
Kahane-Was-Right BT:
Now for part 2 summary for Rav Bar Hayim's keziath shiur. I will preface again with the following: All of this is in the name of Rav Daweed Bar Hayim, from his audio shiur, and if I have conveyed anything incorrectly it is due to my own mistake or my own misunderstanding. Feedback, opinions, corrections, etc are welcome. Hopefully I am conveying accurately the message Rav Bar Hayim sought to present.
At times I have added my notes in parentheses for clarifications, translations, etc.
Part 2: Rather than “discarding the Rambam” as someone suggested before, [Rav Bar Hayim is] following the instructions of Rambam as to how one should approach any Torah/halachik issue, as he wrote in hakdama (introduction) to Mishne Torah (after explanation of how Talmud and mishna were all written and edited by the chachamim etc) - When one chacham (wise Torah scholar) determines a certain halacha as “x,” and comes along a different chacham or beit din (court) later and they see it apparent as being “y” based on their own study, and they say “this is not the correct understanding of what it says in the Talmud” (they say this in reference to the first chacham/ first opinion, which said x). [In other words they see original view as mistaken, and now you have in front of you at some later date and a different reality both of these opposing opinions], Rambam says you don’t go by who came first and decide based on that, rather you go by whichever opinion stands up to reason and analysis of the sources, “whether it’s the latter or the earlier opinion.”
Rambam thus tells us the final deciding factor in halachic matters: analysis of the sources and which interpretation fits best with the sources. This also suggests that many commonly thrown-around axioms such as “halacha is like the latter opinion” used as a rule in of itself is not the correct way in which one makes a decision in halacha according to Rambam’s view. R Bar Hayim states that it is clear from the Rambam’s opinion that “Truth and reason and intellectual honesty are the very lifeblood of the halachic system.” And Rav Bar Hayim claims that since he (Rambam) was an intellectually honest person and a man of truth, he would apply the same system to himself. Of course this applies only to a person who has the capability of looking into a halachic matter deeply and making a decision, not just the average person who knows very little, not the average Yossi on the street. Only someone knowledgable and qualified – a posek. As when Rambam says, “the opinion which seems more reasonable” who is to say what is more reasonable? A certified doctor decides medical matters, and a qualified posek/Talmud scholar decides halachik matters. To claim that no one in this generation (or even previous generations) can possibly understand such matters, is simply not true. This subjugates halachic process to a claim that we cannot make rational assessments by looking into the sources, and this effectively shuts down Torah She Baal peh (Oral Torah)! And this is what has happened over the past 500 years, particularly after the appearance of the Shulchan Aruch. People believe themselves obligated to a certain book, or certain minhag, or certain posek, or community, and this allegiance overrides anything else, including the truth. This is not right. If you take any one book and say, whether it’s a work by Rambam or the Rosh or Shulchan Aruch or Gra or anyone else, and you say, “Everyone must follow every single thing in this particular book. This is what you must do and it is incumbent upon you” – This means that even if a great chacham understands quite well that there is a mistake in this halachic work that everyone is obligated to follow, he (the chacham) is forbidden to say so. He is forbidden to state his opinion. (And such a scenario is pernicious and a distortion of Torah).
Rav Bar Hayim relates a story regarding Rav Yisrael Salant (founder of “Mussar movement”), pertinent to this issue. Just to preface the story, the "Shach" who is mentioned in the story is a reknown Torah scholar and posek who is revered by all Jews as a source of great wisdom in halacha, and who published his work before the time of Rav Yisrael Salant. The Shach wrote a commentary on the Shulchan Aruch in the 1600's. Rav Yisrael Salant lived in the 1800's. The Shach's work was heralded by the Jewish people and many declared it "binding" or "universally accepted" like what happened earlier with the Shulchan Aruch. And Rav Bar Hayim seems to be arguing that such tremendous work like the Shach's when it receives distinctions like this, but people then distort Judaism and say/teach that no rabbi can now argue against a given opinion and that every single thing that one person writes is infallible and there is no room for debate, that this is damaging to Judaism and Torah, it uproots and nullifies the process of Torah she baal peh and restrains the rabbis from doing what they are supposed to do.
This story is brought down in book by a dayan (judge) of Yerushalayim (Rav ____ Raphael, difficult to make out audio). Rav Salant was not only baal hamussar but also a great lamdan (genius in Torah learning) and baal halacha (masterful in halachic renderings), but wished not to be appointed an official rabbi of a East European city as was common amongst others who came from Vilna like he did. Someone asked why do you never take a position of chief rabbi anywhere? He responded, and I am paraphrasing here: “Baruch Hashem, I know how to learn, and I know how to distinguish true from false, and I know for example that on certain issues the Shach is mistaken. That because people think the “halacha is like the Shach,” and I know I’m going to get asked questions about these issues, I will find myself in the following position: Either I’m going to have to say the halacha is like the Shach because that’s what everyone expects you to say, or if I say otherwise (and tell my real opinion instead – the honest truth), people will say, ‘What kind of rabbi is this, he doesn’t even know the Shach.’ In which case I’m going to be lying, [because] I know that it’s not true but I’m going to tell people to do what I think is not true. Or I’m going to tell them honestly what I think is correct and then people will say how can I disagree with the Shach. Since I don’t want to be in such a position, I choose to avoid that situation altogether.” That is result of a halachic system that has been shut down. Whether Shulchan Aruch or the Shach. Once a claim is made that everyone must follow what the Shach says, any real lamdan who understands the issues is in a bind if he’s an intellectually honest person. Probably very few are really in that position today and feel that way like Rav Yisrael Salant did because so many talmidei chachamim of today have been “dumbed down.” And so many today really believe they cannot formulate an opinion of their own, cannot understand anything for themselves, and so they must only quote from other books like a machine. The rabbi has been turned into a computer program. Punch in question, and get right answer, all standardized. That’s the end of halachic system, the end of Torah she baal peh, if such a system is accepted.
Yes there are some chachamim past and present who have believed in such a system, but there are many who never believed in such a thing. As one example, The Rambam as we just quoted him. In fact, ALL rishonim would not have believed in that kind of system (which Rav Bar Hayim asserts is a corruption of our tradition). All of them felt compelled to say what they thought was truthful, as they saw things. Rashi never felt compelled to agree with Rabenu Gershom (the greatest chacham of France and arguably all Ashkenaz in the generation preceding that of Rashi), just because it was said by Rabenu Gershom. Rashi never felt that he could not disagree if he understood things differently, and the proof is in Rashi’s commentaries. When he disagrees he says so explicitly, and Rav Bar Hayim presents an example: He says in many places “rabothai pershu kacha… and I don’t think so.” [This translates loosely to Rashi saying in his manuscript “my rabbis explain thusly, and I think differently.”] On a number of issues Rashi feels himself at liberty to say such things. The Rabenu Tam and the other Baalei Tosafoth also did not feel obligated to agree with their grandfather, Rashi. They often disagree with him plainly in their commentaries on the gemara, as anyone who learns Talmud can see.
Kahane-Was-Right BT:
All the rishonim did not feel obligated to follow a certain person’s opinion if he thought it was incorrect. That was the rule of Torah learning, not the exception. They, all the chachamim, were set out to reach the truth of the matter before them by examining the sources. It was only much later that a new rule came into place whereby some people assert that there is not a pursuit of truth, or that most issues you cannot find the truth because it has already been discussed, so this leaves very few topics open to examination. All else has been “canonized” so to speak, there’s a “definitive” opinion that exists out there, and you as a Talmid chacham have no right to disagree or say anything different. This is relatively new development and a pernicious one. And many chachamim thought so, similarly to Rav Bar Hayim, that it was indeed a pernicious development. Interestingly, the Maharshal, a contemporary of the Beth Yosef in Poland, who lived at the time the Shulchan Aruch became publicized, the Maharshal felt that the Shulchan Aruch was a negative influence on the study of Torah. The Maharal was also critical of this influence, as he is quoted as saying it is preferable for talmidei chachamim to learn the sugiya of the gemara with rishonim and reach his own conclusion even if he’s wrong, than to just skip all of that and go straight to Shulchan Aruch to quote a psak, even if it happens to be a correct one! Because to make their job to just look up a book and whatever is concluded/written there it is there job to just repeat it, you have minimized the Torah She baal peh and their whole purpose which is to seek the truth and act upon it. (my comment: You've turned the rabbi into a reference librarian, or as R Bar Hayim said, a robot).
Now to address a question with connection to Talmud Yerushalmi with this topic. Many comparisons can be made to draw distinctions between the Yerushalmi and the Bavli, but one of them is that Yerushalmi lends itself more to the approach of the rishonim and that which we quoted from the Rambam. Again, this is not about necessarily just (as discussed in part 1) the size of an olive or when to say mashiv haruach umoreed hageshem (He makes the wind blow and the rain descend – an insert to the shemoneh esray’s 2nd bracha), it’s about the entire approach to the Torah. It’s supposed to be a living system that guides the Jewish people. Can a nation live according to a system of Torah that is based on intellectual dishonesty, dumbing-down, denial of things we know to be truth (because one work or one opinion says otherwise), and if it chooses to do so, can this nation succeed in its purpose and what it’s supposed to achieve? Can we achieve purpose and destiny working within a system based on falsehood and cognitive dissonance, with a dichotomy between truth-and-facts-and-reality on the one hand, and Torah-and-halacha on the other hand?
No. True Torah and true halacha fits reality and works with reality. It does not operate in a separate realm divorced from reality, logic, and common sense. We all know what an olive looks like, and yet you tell someone he must eat bread on the night of Sukkoth 10 times that amount to fulfill eating the size of an olive (60 grams rather than 6 grams – from part 1 of the shiur), you are asking him to accept something which he knows is inane, but he has to convince himself that olives used to be giant to somehow make sense of it. This type of system trains people not to appreciate truth or understand things but only to accept that Torah and halacha are beyond understanding, just to be accepted, and whether or not it makes sense is irrelevant. But in Rav Bar Hayim’s words “nothing overrides truth, reality, or the Torah.” The Torah does not intend for people to believe things that are not true, just because our forefathers (or certain of our forefathers) may have believed it or acted in a certain way. The principle of ‘following the custom of your forefathers’ in the way that it is usually thrown around in modern-day discussion leads to this scenario where truth is set aside and Torah is portrayed as if it requires us to live in denial of the truth or denial of the obvious. (And this is not so). Case in point is the following example:
Kahane-Was-Right BT:
About 20 years ago, Rav Bar Hayim met a young yeshiva student at a Shalom Zachor, and the Rav explained to him many proofs about the proper pronunciation of Hebrew letters, including waw (not vav), teth, etc. The student was actually impressed and convinced. He admitted the Rav was probably correct. So then the Rav asked him, so are you going to start learning to speak in this manner? To make it easy on yourself you can even do one letter at a time, starting with the easiest ones to adapt – to change gradually. And the student said “no, the halacha requires me to pronounce Hebrew as my grandfather pronounced it.” So this student believed and was trained to think that halacha requires him to mispronounce Hebrew. Just because his grandfather may have mispronounced it since he didn’t have all the information about it, and people around him mispronounced in a certain way, this student is convinced that therefore, halacha requires and obligates him to now continue mispronouncing it himself even when he knows or is convinced that it is the wrong pronunciation. As if the Torah requires you to do something incorrect or incompatible with proof and logic.
Question from the crowd: Well, maybe it’s not just mispronunciation, but he is just going by his mesorah which he received.
Rav Bar Hayim says: If you bring a minor point about a specific letter or vowel and it’s not entirely clear as to how it should be pronounced correctly, then you could have an argument that perhaps it is unclear and then a person could go with his “mesorah” as a reliable fallback option. But there is almost no occurrence such as this if one looks into this matter. The facts are very clear. For example the waw (not vav) is very clear and straightforward that it is pronounced as a waw from all sorts of proofs. (like an English “w”). There is nothing to debate. And this is true of most/all other letters/vowels.
Question from crowd: But the Teymanim (Yemenites) for example, they have a tradition of pronouncing the gimmel with a dagesh in it (dagesh is the dot sometimes appearing in the middle of Hebrew letters) as “jah” sound. They’ve got a mesorah for doing that. Would you say no, they are incorrect? That they are doing it wrong?
Rav Bar Hayim responds: Some Teymanim pronounce gimmel-with-dagesh as “jah,” and some Teymanim pronounce gimmel-with-dagesh [as Rav Bar Hayim does], as “guh.”
Secondly, since within the Teymanim themselves there is a machloketh over this aspect of pronunciation and they themselves do not all agree on how it should be pronounced, that in itself already makes that particular issue somewhat suspect. Then with outside information and proofs by investigating this matter, Hebrew grammar, etc, it is very easy to prove on that issue that the “Jimmel” is incorrect. In Rav Saadiah Gaon’s commentary on Sefer Yetzirah, he says explicitly that Hebrew has no “jin” which is the Arabic letter with the sound “jah” and would correspond to a “jimmel” if there was such a thing. R. Saadiah Gaon says there is no such letter in Hebrew. The Saadiah Gaon lived 1100 years ago, spoke Arabic and Hebrew, one of the greatest grammarians and chachamim of all time, and he said this clearly. But it is also true from common sense and logic, as Rav Kook writes in a teshuvah when asked about pronunciation, every letter should be distinct from other letters and every vowel should have a distinct sound from other vowels.
But the point here is that this student never claimed the jimmel was correct or that the waw was not right and true. He said he would like to do what Rav Bar Hayim was describing because he believed it was true and that Rav Bar Hayim was right, but he felt the halacha prevented him from doing so. That halacha is separate from reason and truth and never mix. This approach is unacceptable, irrational, and impossible, and it leads to a type of paralysis of the Jewish people.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version