Thursday, January 31, 2008

Tagged!

S. has tagged me to:

Pick up the nearest book of 123 pages or more. (No cheating!) Find Page 123. Find the first 5 sentences. Post the next 3 sentences. Tag 5 people.

Then nearest book was Abraham Joshua Heschel: Spiritual Radical

"Moreover, Kohn grasped that Heschel's "indicative style" overcame the logical contradiction of speaking about the inexpressible. But Heschel's "fundamental fallacy" was the assumption "that ineffability is a criterion, indeed the criterion of religion."

The key issue was the authority of social science, and Rabbi Kohn, as would many of his colleagues [1] reproached Heschel for "disparaging" discursive reason.

(Note [1]- not from book- See Meyer Waxman "History of Jewish Literature" Vol. 5 (6) for a similar critique.)

Now following S. - I wil take an electronic book - the last one I've opened and do the same - this is Malki BaKodesh Vol. 6 (available on hebrewbooks.org) - containing some fascinating correspondance of R' Chaim Hirschenson:

והישוב הישן בארץ ישראל היתה הופעה ואור מבריק מאור הגנוז הזה אשר בלב עם ישראל גם בגלותו, אש המערכה אשר לא יכבה לעולם רק נגנז בלב להאיר מזבח ה' לעתיד לבא. לא כן עתה האויבים במקום לצור עיר מבצרינו הרוחני, מבחוץ התגנבו לתוכה ומשתדלים על ידי מכונת החיים לכבות או לקרר עכ"פ את האש הקדושה ולהחשיך את האור זרוע

I tag: Yediah, e-sefer

Saturday, January 26, 2008

A hechsher for Heschel

Nonetheless, The Kopizhnitzer Rebbe who could not read German wanted to evaluate Heschel's European writings. He asked Rabbi Shraga Feivel Mendelowitz, the head in the 1920's of a community in Williamsburg that had become a citidal of Orthodoxy, whether there was any apikorsus in them. The authoritave Rabbi Mendlowitz pronounced Heschel's writings to be kosher.

Abraham Joshua Heschel: Spiritual Radical pg. 81

Friday, January 25, 2008

לכבוד ט"ו בשבט

בס' אבן ישראל על מ"ב (ס' רכ"ה) יש שאלה אם לברך על פרי חדש כשאכל אותו פירי כיבוש (PRESERVED בתוך השנה. וכתוב שתלוי בב' תנאים בברכת שהחיינו שהביא המ"ב(ס"ק טז) א- "הנאה נרגשת בחידושו"- ולכאורה אם אכל אותו פירי כיבוש ג"כ לא נרגש חידוש ב- דבר שיש לו זמן קבוע לגידולו.

ולכאורה יש אותו שאלה אם שתה משקה מאותו מין בתוך השנה. שהרי מבואר במ"ב שעל יין חדש מברך וא"כ גם על משקים שייך ענין שהחיינו רק שאין לברך שאין ניכר (אבל אפשר יין שאני שהוא עיקר חשיבות של הענב) וא"כ אם שתה יין ישן באמצע השנה אין לברך על יין חדש שאין חידושו נרגש וא"א לומר כן שהרי יש קידוש כל שבוע ובכלל מנהגן היה לשתות יין כל השנה. וא"כ לכאורה יש ראיה שאף בדבר שאין חידושו נרגש צריך לברך כיון שרק עתה הגיע זמן גידולו ויש שמחה על זה (ואפשר יין חדש יש טעם אחר מיין ישן וחידושו נרגש)

How R' Yaakov Emden learned to read European languages

To complement to S's recent post on Solomon Dubno, I decided to post this fascinating passage from R' Yaakov Emden's Megillat Sefer which describes the way in which he aquired his vast secular knowledge.

"I yearned to know and to recognize the script of the German language in its own form, which my revered father never taught me, nor did I learn their handwriting from a teacher. It was necessary for me to learn by myself. My heart was always inclined to know (and) to examine worldly matters as well; the (various) nations and faiths, their characteristics and dispositions, their histories and sciences, all of whose matters cannot be known from our sacred books.

This was also (necessary) in order to know how to respond (to a heretic),to mingle comfortably
with people, to know the proper etiquette of each country, the nature of the lands and of their inhabitants, to reveal their secrets and to overcome any difficulties. All this I yearned to learn from their own books in the original. (Yet,) I found no way or manner to achieve this for I did not permit myself to hire a teacher for reading foreign books. I feared a great waste (of time from Torah studies). It was also abominable in my eyes to spend money for this (and), in addition to which, I was simply embarrassed to do so lest people find out.

Behold, I knew (that) a young lad from among the servants was learning to write and read the German language. I clandestinely took him aside and asked him to show me the shape of the printed letters in the foreign alphabet. He had just begun to learn from a Christian teacher who was a scribe and he still barely knew the shape of the separate letters,without knowing how to read the connected letters nor understand the meaning of their words. The lad showed me just once or twice to say this is A, this is B, this is C, etc. Nothing more. With the help of God, may He be blessed, who endows man with wisdom, I immediately grasped the recognition of the letters in their forms. I then struggled by myself alone to put together the words; I applied myself and understood the matter without any assistance from any tutor or teacher whatsoever. Within a short time, I acquired the ability to read a German book as well, as if I had a teacher for this for many years.

However, I succeeded in reading only their printed books and Latin script. But the German
script, with its swift connected flourishes, I still cannot recognize because of my inadequate study. Even in the printed Latin script there remained certain forms and markings or changes in the image of the letters that I do not know to this day.

For this matter I snatched surreptitiously and fleetingly. Even the lad who had shown me was not perfect.Afterwards, I was ashamed to ask anyone (to help me with) that which I failed to understand of their wisdom. With it all, I hastened to read all their printed books immediately by myself until I acquired the skill to read even the Dutch language and gazettes and also to understand much of the Latin language.

I read many of their books with all varied information about Europe, to understand all the views of people around the world in matters of their faiths and religious customs and to reveal their
thoughts about us and our holy faith. I also long, my soul yearns to know and to
understand the arrangement of the terrestrial globe which is determined by the celestial movements as described in their books. Although it is explained in our literature, it is done in a very brief manner. I also wanted to know and to perceive matters of nature; the nature of minerals; the qualities of plants and grasses; especially the science of medicine; the practices of nations and kings, their wars and history; their unique tales and the annals of (their) generations; the original ideas of those who write about the lands, oceans, rivers and deserts and those who describe their condition; the designer's craft, skills, cunning, fraud and deception and foolish stories of fabricated contrivances. All of this my eyes saw in their books. I have expert knowledge of them and their deeds. All their thoughts, their frauds and their good qualities are known and revealed to me so as not to be ignorant of the wisdom
of people the world over.

However, I am careful to read and study them only in a place where it is forbidden to meditate on words of Torah, nowhere else. Indeed, on several occasions, I extracted the sweet from the strong. The honey that I found in them I scooped into my hands to use it in the pursuit of the sacred task (to reveal) various esoteric and sealed matters. Above all, I thus succeeded in knowing how to refute (a heretic) and not to be considered a fool in their eyes. As mentioned above, I studied their books in times of leisure especially those in the fields of medical science and health preservation which is the (very) life of all creation. I studied the science of nature which I felt to be absolutely essential for the survival of the human species."

translated by Rabbi Dr. J. J. Schacter - "R' Jacob Emden: Life and Major Works"

Hat tip: S.

Saturday, January 19, 2008

Rambam's Reasoning

A continuation of this post - On the the deviations in the Mishneh Torah from the reasons for a particular law given in the Talmud.

From - http://www.mucjs.org/JLAS/reasoning.htm

"S. Ettinger, "On the Place of Sevarah (Logic) in Maimonides' Mishneh Torah" (Heb.), Shenaton Hamishpat Ha'ivri 14-15, (1988-89) 1-30. - Two pervasive themes in Maimonidean legal studies are the deviations in the Mishneh Torah from the reasons for a particular law given in the Talmud, and Maimonides' classification of commandments into Scriptural and Rabbinic categories. The present author suggests that the key to both problems lies in the notion of sevarah, which he defines as a general rational quality as distinct from the formal category of legal logic - also known as sevarah - which serves as a source for the development of laws and principles within the halakhic system. In dealing with Maimonides' tendency to provide original reasons for laws, the author distinguishes between "talmudic discussions" (masa umatan) and "definitive talmud" (talmud arukh) but concludes, following R. Abraham the son of Maimonides, that the underlying reason for Maimonides' choice of rationale for particular laws is general logic rather than criteria of a formal, legal nature. Similarly, Maimonides' categorization of Scriptural and Rabbinic laws is based upon the existence of a logical connection between the law in point and the text of the Torah, rather than on formal or semantic principles. The article concludes with an appendix criticising a recent attempt to develop a more formal approach to resolving the issue of Maimonides' deviations from the Talmudic reasons for particular laws. "

Friday, January 18, 2008

Our attitude towards the Gemara, Rishonim, and Achronim - Intro

The basic distinction between the academic and traditional methods of study is that of approach. The academic starts from bottom (i.e. starts with no assumptions about the person of which he writes) and moves up. The traditional scholar starts at the top (i.e. assumes the author commentary he studies had some type of omniscient knowledge). Ideally, the two worlds should meet somewhere in the middle.

I have already discussed this issue in this post. You can see quite clearly that whereas Buckwold - the Talmud Chacham assume an omniscient knowledge on the part of the Rabad, Soloveitchik the historian comes from the opposite direction.

I think R' Kooks view is simply crucial to this question. On the one hand we need to bear in mind the greatness of the people with whom we deal - Rishonim K' Malachim - any argument they make must have merit and properly worked upon we will find the explanation. We must assume that they mastered all the relevant texts that were available to them.

On the other hand, we must also realize the limitations of the conditions they were working in.
A prime example - those who study the Taz will realize that quite often a question he asks on a Ran which after careful examination of the Ran it is clear that there is no real difficulty. The traditional scholar of today would invent a pilpul according to which there would be a heretofore unseen difficulty with the Ran and this is what the Taz comes to answer.

The Maamer Mordechai take a different approach. He simply states that the Taz only had access to the Ran as cited in the Beis Yosef and therefore he had this difficulty that to us who have the complete Ran do not find difficult. A simple and obvious explanation that in no way detracts from the greatness of the Taz.

Rashi translates Kavyustos as a kidnapper. We can unequivocally state that Rashi is wrong. The correct explanation is like Tosafos that it refers to a gambler (as the root word Kuvya attests). Does this detract from Rashi's greatness? Certainly not. Rashi's ability to learn Greek was limited to the resources he had at his disposal. But it is simply silly to say that we who have these resources should not make use of them.

(To be continued)

Our attitude towards the Gemara, Rishonim, and Achronim - R' Kook

There is an interesting exchange going on at Seforim on this topic. This is a fascinating topic and one I can literally write volumes on.

I will begin with a quote of R' A. Y. Kook Zt"l. On the well known Talmudic phrase אם הראשונים כמלאכים אנו כבני אדם אם הראשונים כבני אדם אנו כחמורים - ולא כחמורו של פנחס בן יאיר

A popular explanation is that if in our eyes the Rishonim are like Malachim then in truth we are people. But if we view the Rishonim as people on more or less the same level as ourselves then we are no more then donkeys who have no understanding.

R' Kook explained it otherwise, He writes if the Rishonim are like Malachim - that as much as we respect them and realize their worth - we don't allow them to affect our "Bechira" (free will) then we are in truth people. But if the Rishonim are in our eyes like people that we allow them to affect our free will (e.g. we do not question their explanations and methods) then we are no more then animals - who also have no free will.
 
Creative Commons License
Ishim V' Shittos by http://ishimshitos.blogspot.com/ is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.
Based on a work at ishimshitos.blogspot.com.