R AY Heschel's and Torah Min HaShamayim

Hirhurim posts a mini-review of the translation of A Y Heschel's Torah Min HaShamayim. (I highly suggest that anyone who can seek out the Hebrew original as the beauty of Heschel's Melitzah, as well as many of the notes, is lost in the translation.)

Here is Lieberman's opinion of the book(s).

I agree with Hirhurim that Heschel doesn't seem to have made any especial effort to connect the transmittor of the pericope with a specific shool. Eg. He will quote a "rationalist" statement of R' Huna and then place it within the school of R' Yishmael without showing how R' Huna would e connected with the disciples of R' Yishmael.

A more significant criticism can be found in Menachem Kahana's entry on Midrashei Halachot in NEJ. Here is a relevant quote:

"R. Ishmael and R. Akiva also differ regarding the permissibility of expounding certain topics in public. R. Ba, in the name of Rav Yehuda (TJ Hagigah 2:1, 77a), attributes the law in M. Hagigah 2:1: "The forbidden sexual relationships may not be expounded before three persons" solely to R. Akiva, and as opposed to the opinion of R. Ishmael. Sifra (from the school of R. Akiva) accordingly did not include expositions regarding the forbidden sexual relationships in the portions of Aḥarei Mot (Lev. 18:7–23) and Kedoshim (Lev. 20:10–21), while the second midrash on Leviticus (from the school of R. Ishmael) does contain in these portions expositions of this subject, some of which were artificially included in several manuscripts of Sifra. Several explanations were offered for the reason behind this disagreement. I maintain that R. Akiva's position is to be understood in light of his extreme exegesis and his fear that the publicizing of such expositions on the subject of forbidden sexual relationships, that human nature craves, was liable to result in licentious behavior "and may come to permit that which is prohibited," in the words of TB (Hagigah 11b) on this mishnah. In contrast, R. Ishmael, who adopted a more moderate exegetical method, did not fear publicly expounding the passage of forbidden sexual relationships, presenting its prohibitions and concessions based on his hermeneutical rules. The halakhah in M. Hagigah loc. cit that "the Story of Creation is not expounded before two" is similarly attributed by R. Ba in the name of Rav Yehuda in TJ idem as following the view of R. Akiva exclusively, in opposition to the opinion of R. Ishmael. This dispute is reflected in the disagreement between the two tannaim concerning the legitimacy of the exposition in Gen. R., p. 12, of the word "et" in Gen. 1:1. R. Akiva explains his position that the word is intended to prevent an erroneous Gnostic interpretation, that "we would say that the heaven and earth also are divinities," and therefore nothing can be derived from it, while R. Ishmael has no qualms in expounding the word et in this problematic verse of the act of Creation. Gen. R. p. 206 and p. 574 also contains a similar disagreement between these tannaim concerning the exposition of the word "et" in two other verses that are likely to be understood as supporting the view of the heretics; here as well, the dispute between R. Akiva and R. Ishmael is based in the different nature of the hermeneutical method of each Tanna. R. Ishmael was not wary of expounding these verses, while R. Akiva was apprehensive that the public exegesis of such sensitive verses in accordance with his extreme expositional method would be liable to serve as justification for the extreme interpretations of the heretics, following their methodology, and he therefore refrained from expounding them in public.

In light of the above, we cannot accept the opinion of Heschel that R. Ishmael was a rationalist who vigorously opposed esoteric expositions of the Torah and matters that cannot be attained by the intellect. More generally, the drawing of unnecessary connections between simple and literal interpretation and religious rationalism should be avoided."

Is the Moreh Nevuchim a Guide for the "perplexed" - The views of R Y. Sarna and S. Lieberman

In the Preface to his biography of Maimonides, J. Kramer records a conversation he had with Saul Lieberman:

I told him that my main interest was Maimonides' philosophy. He asked me, "For whom did Maimoides write the Moreh Nevukhim"."For the Nevukhim " I responded. "Kraemer," he asked, "do you want to be a Navokh". [Possibly playing with the yiddish word Nebich? - W.], &C.

By contrast, in Volume 5 of R' Yecheske Sarna's Daliyot Yecheskel,there is is a discussion on many important works of Machshavah, including of course the Moreh. Section 3 pg. 148 - 142 is titled "For whom did Maimonides write the Guide."

[I wonder if an analysis of the Biblical trm "Navokh" ( as in) כי נבוכים הם בארץ is relevant or is the Arabic term - دلالة الحائرين - dalālat alḥā’irīn - of greater importance here.]

He argues based on Maimonides' statements in his introduction that the Rambam doesn't write ofr those with mistaken beliefs (תועים) but for those who are of strong belief but are not sure of the correct meaning of various unclear pesukim, and the like.

Yehuda Leib Gordon's series - B'Zchuso Shel Ha Rabonim and ML Lilenbaum's contribution

The initial article (Some of it was too harsh even for HaMelitz and it was ublished as a Hasmatah in HaShachar instead.)

(Note that he castigates R Y Z Stern, (Erez BaLevanon since R YZ Stern had a column there) for some case involoving a Get, also the subject of his Kutzo Shel Yud, (Later, I saw that C. Chamiel, Gevilin 4, עלילת קוצו של יו"ד - already points out the Teshuva inSdei Chemed that I refered too in my earlier post..)

MLL's contribution:

See:

Author
‫ פרידלנדר, יהודה ‬
Title
‫ מאבקו של יהודה ליב גורדון ברבני ליטא : ’בזכותן של הרבנים’ ‬
In
‫ סדן 3 (תשנח) 263-273 ‬
Note
‫ חלק ב: מאבקו של יהודה ליב גורדון ברבני ליטא; ’בינה לתועי רוח’. מווילנה לירושלים (תשסב) 285-313. ‬

‫ נוסח מואר של המאמרים שפורסמו לראשונה ב"המליץ", 1869 ו- 1870-1871. ‬

‫ שני החלקים פורסמו גם בתוך קבץ מאמריו "בין הלכה להשכלה" (תשסד). ‬
Subject

for a critical edition that deciphers many of the references.

משיחת חולין (שהן הן גופי תורה) של הראשון לשושלת בריסק

The following story (click to enlarge) was referred to by Y. L. Gordon is his B'Zchus HaRabbonim (post to follow). Does anyone know if any of the Beis HaLevi's biographer's caught this one.

Another parallel between K'sav Yosher and Besamim Rosh

(Following the same line of argumentation in my previous post)

Another target of Rabbi Berlin is the exaggerated value placed on dying for the sake of heaven (K'sav Yosher pg. 4b) and yet again in Besamim Rosh (#301) he tries to undercut this value (See Maharam Beneth's criticism of this Teshuva here)

Possible proof of forgery in Besamim Rosh?

I think that if we can prove that some the Kulos in Besamim Rosh mirror Rabbi Berlin's Reformist agenda as can be seen in his earlier writings that might be a partial proof of forgery. Here is one example:

In his K'tav Yosher ( a fascinating work of its own right) he sarcastically has one of the characters announce (pg. 8):

לו יאבה מלך לתת לי עד חצי המלכות ואשתה מחלב שחלבו גוי לא אעשנו

showing that he places this law on the same basis as, e.g.:

"Did he [Wessely], God forfend, trample upon such good and pleasant customs as swinging a chicken around one's head on the eve of the Day of Atonement striking the floor with a stick at the mention of Haman on Purim, or eating the head of a sheep, cabbage, dates and green vegetables on the New Year?"

and in Besamim Rosh (no. 36) he does cite arguments that would undermine the basis for the law of Chalav Akum.

[NB: But note that Chcham Yosef Messas writes in his Mayim Chaim V. 2 that in Morocco they had an over 300 year old custom to be lenient on Chalav Akum for reasons much like those of R Berlin]

[A copy of R S Berlin's Mitzpeh Yekusiel can be found both at hebrewbooks and JNUL]

How to calculate Easter