In my last post, I suggested that it is humankind’s goal to understand its purpose and role in existence and act accordingly. The answer to this question, unfortunately or maybe fortunately, was not handed to us on a platter. We are expected to figure out on our own what our role is supposed to be. How are we supposed to go about it? The obvious and only answer is to observe carefully our existence, the environment we find ourselves in, both from a macro and micro perspective, trying to read the clues as to where we belong in it and what is expected from us.
As we look at the world we live in, we see that there is a built in mechanism for survival. All the components are interdependent and function together to a fascinating degree. Biological entities depend on each other for sustenance and survival, the ecosystem is finely tuned to insure its continuity and the same applies to every other component of our world and universe. It is therefore clear that each component’s goal is to survive and at the same time ensure the survival of other components that depend on it directly or indirectly. Thus, in addition to its own survival, each component also plays a role in the survival of the whole.
However, if we look carefully we see that all these components function in a predictable and automatic mode. The lion is hungry, he preys on other animals, the sun evaporates the waters of the seas and lakes, they gather in clouds and rise to cooler air, the wind pushes them over land and the waters return to feed the living organisms on land. Tehilim Perek 104 so eloquently presents this whole picture. There is no individual thought process, ethical or moral choice or any conscious thought process in all these components except man. From a functional perspective, man is outstanding in that he thinks and may choose how to act. That capacity of thinking and choosing therefore must be an important aspect of man’s role in the survival of the universe. It is this capacity to think and act accordingly that must be the sine qua non of his existence.
That capacity to think and choose is a function that man has because of the mind he possesses, the thinking part of man. Unlike all the other components of the universe, man has the capacity for self-awareness, he can understand abstract concepts, he can grasp how things work and with all that information, he can change his environment at will. The creativity that comes with this freedom allows man to do unpredictable things, act and react to circumstances as they arise and generally take control of everything.
וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתָם, אֱלֹהִים, וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם
אֱלֹהִים פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ וּמִלְאוּ אֶת-הָאָרֶץ, וְכִבְשֻׁהָ; וּרְדוּ
בִּדְגַת הַיָּם, וּבְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם, וּבְכָל-חַיָּה, הָרֹמֶשֶׂת
עַל-הָאָרֶץ.
28 And God blessed them; and God said unto them - ‘be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that creeps upon the earth.'
Apparently, it is this unique capability that gives man the ability to fulfill his intended role in the whole of existence. However, because freedom of thought is an integral part of this ability, there is a risk that man will lose sight of true reality. And this is where things get complicated. The human mind is complex. It has many functions among which are imagination, intuition and rational thought. All three components are crucial to its proper functioning but they have to be kept in perfect balance for man not to go off into a world of fantasy, or miss important aspects because his imagination is too restricted. If his intuition is too suppressed his insights vanish. If it is however founded on imagination and fantasy, it has no realistic value.
Because early man could not understand the true reality of his environment, he developed an imaginary world of spirits and semi physical entities, a world of demons and angels that seemed to answer his questions about how things function. Fantasy and imagination took control of his rational capabilities. These ideas took hold and delayed human development by millennia. These ideas still exists and are with us, especially in the mindlessly “religious” societies. It certainly is quite common still in our own frum communities. It is exactly these ideas, this way of thinking that the Torah is intent on eradicating. In a discussion about the divinity of the Torah, comparing it to other man made legal systems, Rambam says:
You will also find laws which, in all their rules, aim, as the law just mentioned, at the improvement of the material interests of the people. But, in addition, tend to improve the state of the faith of man, to create first correct notions of God, and of angels, and to lead then the people, by instruction and education, to an accurate knowledge of the Universe. This education comes from God; these laws are divine. (MN 2:40)
The Torah contains no theological discussions. It however sets out sets of beliefs that it expects its followers to understand and prove their truths, each according to his capacity. The first such belief is that God exists and is the First Cause, the unique non-contingent Entity. We repeat this thrice daily when we say Shema. We are expected to understand what this means and prove it to ourselves, each according to his capabilities. It tells us that God is the ONLY transcendental entity and EVERYTHING else is physical. The Torah also teaches us that on the seventh day of creation, the day where all was put in place, God rested. From that point on, there was no more divine intervention to change things. The laws of nature took over. Any anomaly, what we would consider to be a miracle, was preset before the seventh day (see Avot Perek 5 Mishna 5). Angels are not some kind of semi physical entities – such entities do not exist and are at the core of idolatry – but descriptions of natural forces that are governed by the laws of nature set in place at creation.
ד עֹשֶׂה מַלְאָכָיו רוּחוֹת; מְשָׁרְתָיו, אֵשׁ לֹהֵט. 4 Who makes winds His messengers, the flaming fire His ministers (Tehilim 104).
I am just mentioning the above as examples to clarify. The Torah has several more such beliefs that it asks us to accept and then go back and think about them so that a rational understanding can be developed of what they mean. (I will discuss in a separate post what they are and why there should be preset beliefs and not require man to develop a priori concepts based on empirical evidence). It is only if we have a correct notion about the metaphysics that underlie our existence that we can have an “accurate knowledge of the Universe”. Otherwise, we are blinded and sidetracked. Instead of looking for natural laws that explain the workings of the perceived mysteries of our existence, our world and universe, we hang our hat on mystical and supernatural explanations. Science, the knowledge that gives us the necessary “accurate knowledge of the universe” does not thrive in a supernatural environment. If we are to understand our role and place in the survival of the whole of existence, we have to develop a better understanding of the universe we live in. It is only then that we will grasp the true intent of God in creating us, understanding how we are to emulate Him in ensuring the continuity of existence. It is only after creating man that the Torah says –
לא וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים אֶת-כָּל-אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה, וְהִנֵּה-טוֹב מְאֹד 31 And God saw every thing that He had made, and, behold, it was exceedingly good.
That is because it man’s role to emulate God, the ultimate eternal Existent, the source of all existence, the greatest “Good”, and thus do “good” by ensuring existence. Contributing to the existence of the whole is “exceedingly good” - טוֹב מְאֹד. It is with this in mind that Rambam closes his magnum opus of theology, the Guide of The Perplexed,
The object of the above passage is therefore to declare, that the perfection, in which man can truly glory, is attained by him when he has acquired--as far as this is possible for man--the knowledge of God, the knowledge of His Providence, and of the manner in which it influences His creatures in their production and continued existence. Having acquired this knowledge, man will then be determined always to seek loving-kindness, judgment, and righteousness, thus imitating the ways of God. (MN 3:54).
More to come in upcoming posts including the role of Torah, revelation and also, I hope to deal with the great controversial subject of Ikarim (dogma).
> Angels are not some kind of semi physical entities – such entities do not exist and are at the core of idolatry – but descriptions of natural forces that are governed by the laws of nature set in place at creation.
ReplyDeleteYes,Rambam says this or very similar to it.
No doubt you're aware of the Ramban in Genesis who writes: "elu devarim she-asur lishmo-a v'khol she-ken l'haamin bahem".(The wording might be slightly diffferent,since I don't have the text in front of me).
Furthermore ,he writes that according to Rambam this would mean that Sarah didn't bake cakes & prepare a meal for the angels(=forces of nature,acc.to Rambam.I know the d'rash of Chazal: "va-yochelu"-they appeared to be eating).It all happened in a dream or vision.Or that Bilam spoke to an ass,or the story of Jacob wrestling with the angel,etc.etc.etc.
I think Ramban is absolutely right! If you take such liberties with the text & explain everything that's not to you philosophical views or taste as allegorical,then the Christians did the same thing,claiming that the purpose of Tanach is to bring us closer to Jesus,when understood correctly & figuratively-allegorically.
I really don't see the difference between them.
THE RAMBAM DIDN'T SET IRON-CLAD RULES WHICH PART OF THE TORAH IS TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY AND WHICH NOT.
It's very far-fetched to think that our ancestors didn't believe in the literal meaning of Torah.
It's also far-fetched to think that Chazal didn't mean what they said with re to angels,sheidim,ampromorphism,etc.
Certainly on doesn't get that sense when studying them.
Y
הוא כבוד נברא במלאכים, יקרא אצל היודעים "מלבוש", יושג לעיני בשר בזכי הנפשות כחסידים ובני הנביאים
ReplyDeleteThis is Ramban on angels. And Y. you insist on not accepting an evolutionary process in Judaism where as people got to know their world better it changed their perception of the metaphysical component of religion. Rambam holds that very much while Ramban who had a different understanding believed in transmitted truths namely Kabbalah. I am not saying all agree with his approach but what can I do - as the ragotschover said "vos zoll ich tuen, nor der rambam hot gekent lernen"! :-)
I would like to backtrack and point out something you might not fully realize, which provide a context for many of arguments against your views. The Rambam and in turn you believe that Torah is consequentialist. The latter first specify the intrinsically good, say knowledge of God and then assert what is right is to increase the Good. Since The Good is prior to the Right, (our chiyuvim) and since we want a unitary halacha we must be monists about the Good. Pluralism with respect to the good, allowing each individual to form his own conception is intolerable because halacha would be a hefker velt. Being consequentialist and wanting to justify halacha you must both say it leads to science and yedias hashem & refuse to think of these consequences as empirical propositions subject to testing. If Muslims end up closer to believing in the simplicity and incorporeality of God it is not relevant; if most scientific discoveries came from goyim and atheists, again not relevant.
ReplyDeleteDeontological theories judge the morality of our actions independently of consequences. Even if halacha would lead to scientific ignorance, even if more often than not it leads to superstition it is nonetheless obligatory. The Right has priority over the Good and a constraint on the Good is that it is in accordance with our duties that are defined separately. In our case the right is understood as those rules commanded by Hashem at kabalas hatorah which are now required no matter what the consequences. (A sophisticated version of the kabalas hatorah deontological idea is the social contract theories of Hobbes, Rousseau, Kant and Rawls. If we were at Mt' Sinai, understood as the original position under a veil of ignorance, not knowing who we are and what generation we live what kind of strategy would be used to generate the rules of morality? )
I think many good Jews would have agreed that Torah's structure more closely resembles a deontological system. A virtue of such a meta halachic reconstruction is that it allows for a liberalism and pluralism with respect to the Good. Yedias Hashem, which can be summed up in a few words, unknowable, simple, non corporeal, omnipotent, omniscient and good, is one of the 613 mitzvot, not the telos of Jewish life, creating a rigid hierarchical structure.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_position
EJ, Let me put it in my simple non-sophisticated language. Rambam (Ramban too though from a Kabbalistic perspective as well as most Rishonim of that ear) believes the Mitzvot given by the Torah and the learning of those Mitzvot is a tool that we use to get to the real Good - yediat Hashem. Yediat Hashem is thus the goal but it comes in many forms depending on a person's understanding. Where I disagree with you is that the halacha and mitzvot remain inviolate even if in particular cases they may not be obviously relevant. That is an independent position. It is part of the system to do and then try to understand - na'asseh venishma - but the venishma is needed for it to have an effect.
ReplyDeleteThe other apoproach - (Rosh and his later followers as well is the German and French school that preceded him ) - is that Kiyum Mitzvot is a goal for its own sake and keeping the Mitzvot is enough. Learning is part of the mitzvot and therefore is Avodat Hashem and any further thinking is superfluous and to be discouraged.The naasseh is all the venishma is optional and most of the time superfluous - concedeed if you cannot live without it. It is the accepted Yeshiva world approach nowadays and is a valid derech though I could not live with it if I were told that it is the only acceptable Judaism. I would probably leave as it does not mean anything to me.
The problem is that unlike the deontological (Obligatory) approach which gives meaning to the moral and ethical - they do not, beyond it being a Tzivui Hashem.
It has also lead us into this racist and hate of other position that is so abhorrent and a real turn off in our community. It has been strengthened by the experience with hate and antisemitism but it has theological support from this approach.
>as most Rishonim of that ear)
ReplyDeleteI meant - most Spanish Rishonim of that era -
where is the Rosh that you speak of?
ReplyDeleteSHUT ROsh 55:9
ReplyDeleteprof ta shema jose faur, daniel boyarin wrote m,any articles on the subject of rosh and philosophy and his general position re logic/philosophy and Torah.
ReplyDeleteThe phrase "naase v'nishma" doesn't necessarily mean "we will do & listen (or learn),as is commonly understood.
ReplyDeleteCorrectly, it should be translated: "we will do & obey".
The verb "shama" has many times the meaning of "to obey" in Tanach
Y
If that is the case isn't it double ? - do and obey - seems repetitive.
ReplyDeleteWell,David,that's what shemot nirdafim (synonyms)are,to repeat the same idea in different words.
ReplyDeleteThat's what poetry is.
See Deut.32.
א הַאֲזִינוּ הַשָּׁמַיִם, וַאֲדַבֵּרָה; {ס} וְתִשְׁמַע הָאָרֶץ, אִמְרֵי-פִי. {ר} 1 Give ear, ye heavens, and I will speak; and let the earth hear the words of my mouth.
ב יַעֲרֹף כַּמָּטָר לִקְחִי, {ס} תִּזַּל כַּטַּל אִמְרָתִי, {ר} כִּשְׂעִירִם עֲלֵי-דֶשֶׁא, {ס} וְכִרְבִיבִים עֲלֵי-עֵשֶׂב. {ר} 2 My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew; as the small rain upon the tender grass, and as the showers upon the herb.
ג כִּי שֵׁם יְהוָה, אֶקְרָא: {ס} הָבוּ גֹדֶל, לֵאלֹהֵינוּ. {ר} 3 For I will proclaim the name of the LORD; ascribe ye greatness unto our God.
ד הַצּוּר תָּמִים פָּעֳלוֹ, {ס} כִּי כָל-דְּרָכָיו מִשְׁפָּט: {ר} אֵל אֱמוּנָה וְאֵין עָוֶל, {ס} צַדִּיק וְיָשָׁר הוּא. {ר}
the w0rds 'v'ehazinu & tishma are synonyms,so are matar& tal;s'irim & r'vivim,deshe & esev (all in one verse!).
& so on for the rest of ch.32.
Actually,my translation makes more sense. It's not "we will do"(one idea),then jumps to v'nisma(we will hear or listen or understand,which is completely different from v'nishma "do".
The way I translate it naaseh & venishma are synonymous,"do-obey".
I think anyone with a keen ear for biblical Hebrew,will agree with me.
Y
y
ReplyDeleteI am travelling and not ignoring you. I want to address the issue of text and textuakity in a theological context on a post even maybe a series of posts. I think it is very important and there are good reasons why they are sometimes ignored in rabbininical exegesis
"Actually,my translation makes more sense. It's not "we will do"(one idea),then jumps to v'nisma(we will hear or listen or understand,which is completely different from v'nishma "do".
ReplyDeleteThe way I translate it naaseh & venishma are synonymous,"do-obey".
I think anyone with a keen ear for biblical Hebrew,will agree with me.
Y
"
OOOH THANK YOU!!!
Now I finally understand the gemarah in Shabbos daf Peh Chet., with the story of Ravah sitting on his bleeding fingers and the Tzaduki!
Wonderfull...
Apparently, the Gemorah had the same debate with the Tzaduki regarding the meaning of that verse.
Daganev
ReplyDelete"
13 CommentsClose this window Jump to comment form
Anonymous said...
> Angels are not some kind of semi physical entities – such entities do not exist and are at the core of idolatry – but descriptions of natural forces that are governed by the laws of nature set in place at creation.
Yes,Rambam says this or very similar to it.
No doubt you're aware of the Ramban in Genesis who writes: "elu devarim she-asur lishmo-a v'khol she-ken l'haamin bahem".(The wording might be slightly diffferent,since I don't have the text in front of me).
Furthermore ,he writes that according to Rambam this would mean that Sarah didn't bake cakes & prepare a meal for the angels(=forces of nature,acc.to Rambam.I know the d'rash of Chazal: "va-yochelu"-they appeared to be eating).It all happened in a dream or vision.Or that Bilam spoke to an ass,or the story of Jacob wrestling with the angel,etc.etc.etc.
I think Ramban is absolutely right! If you take such liberties with the text & explain everything that's not to you philosophical views or taste as allegorical,then the Christians did the same thing,claiming that the purpose of Tanach is to bring us closer to Jesus,when understood correctly & figuratively-allegorically.
I really don't see the difference between them.
THE RAMBAM DIDN'T SET IRON-CLAD RULES WHICH PART OF THE TORAH IS TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY AND WHICH NOT.
It's very far-fetched to think that our ancestors didn't believe in the literal meaning of Torah.
It's also far-fetched to think that Chazal didn't mean what they said with re to angels,sheidim,ampromorphism,etc.
Certainly on doesn't get that sense when studying them.
Y
5/04/2008 3:15 PM
David Guttmann said...
הוא כבוד נברא במלאכים, יקרא אצל היודעים "מלבוש", יושג לעיני בשר בזכי הנפשות כחסידים ובני הנביאים
This is Ramban on angels. And Y. you insist on not accepting an evolutionary process in Judaism where as people got to know their world better it changed their perception of the metaphysical component of religion. Rambam holds that very much while Ramban who had a different understanding believed in transmitted truths namely Kabbalah. I am not saying all agree with his approach but what can I do - as the ragotschover said "vos zoll ich tuen, nor der rambam hot gekent lernen"! :-)
5/04/2008 3:37 PM
evanstonjew said...
I would like to backtrack and point out something you might not fully realize, which provide a context for many of arguments against your views. The Rambam and in turn you believe that Torah is consequentialist. The latter first specify the intrinsically good, say knowledge of God and then assert what is right is to increase the Good. Since The Good is prior to the Right, (our chiyuvim) and since we want a unitary halacha we must be monists about the Good. Pluralism with respect to the good, allowing each individual to form his own conception is intolerable because halacha would be a hefker velt. Being consequentialist and wanting to justify halacha you must both say it leads to science and yedias hashem & refuse to think of these consequences as empirical propositions subject to testing. If Muslims end up closer to believing in the simplicity and incorporeality of God it is not relevant; if most scientific discoveries came from goyim and atheists, again not relevant.
Deontological theories judge the morality of our actions independently of consequences. Even if halacha would lead to scientific ignorance, even if more often than not it leads to superstition it is nonetheless obligatory. The Right has priority over the Good and a constraint on the Good is that it is in accordance with our duties that are defined separately. In our case the right is understood as those rules commanded by Hashem at kabalas hatorah which are now required no matter what the consequences. (A sophisticated version of the kabalas hatorah deontological idea is the social contract theories of Hobbes, Rousseau, Kant and Rawls. If we were at Mt' Sinai, understood as the original position under a veil of ignorance, not knowing who we are and what generation we live what kind of strategy would be used to generate the rules of morality? )
I think many good Jews would have agreed that Torah's structure more closely resembles a deontological system. A virtue of such a meta halachic reconstruction is that it allows for a liberalism and pluralism with respect to the Good. Yedias Hashem, which can be summed up in a few words, unknowable, simple, non corporeal, omnipotent, omniscient and good, is one of the 613 mitzvot, not the telos of Jewish life, creating a rigid hierarchical structure.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_position
5/04/2008 5:09 PM
David Guttmann said...
EJ, Let me put it in my simple non-sophisticated language. Rambam (Ramban too though from a Kabbalistic perspective as well as most Rishonim of that ear) believes the Mitzvot given by the Torah and the learning of those Mitzvot is a tool that we use to get to the real Good - yediat Hashem. Yediat Hashem is thus the goal but it comes in many forms depending on a person's understanding. Where I disagree with you is that the halacha and mitzvot remain inviolate even if in particular cases they may not be obviously relevant. That is an independent position. It is part of the system to do and then try to understand - na'asseh venishma - but the venishma is needed for it to have an effect.
The other apoproach - (Rosh and his later followers as well is the German and French school that preceded him ) - is that Kiyum Mitzvot is a goal for its own sake and keeping the Mitzvot is enough. Learning is part of the mitzvot and therefore is Avodat Hashem and any further thinking is superfluous and to be discouraged.The naasseh is all the venishma is optional and most of the time superfluous - concedeed if you cannot live without it. It is the accepted Yeshiva world approach nowadays and is a valid derech though I could not live with it if I were told that it is the only acceptable Judaism. I would probably leave as it does not mean anything to me.
The problem is that unlike the deontological (Obligatory) approach which gives meaning to the moral and ethical - they do not, beyond it being a Tzivui Hashem.
It has also lead us into this racist and hate of other position that is so abhorrent and a real turn off in our community. It has been strengthened by the experience with hate and antisemitism but it has theological support from this approach.
5/04/2008 5:59 PM
David Guttmann said...
>as most Rishonim of that ear)
I meant - most Spanish Rishonim of that era -
5/04/2008 6:00 PM
Anonymous said...
where is the Rosh that you speak of?
5/04/2008 11:37 PM
David Guttmann said...
SHUT ROsh 55:9
5/05/2008 5:21 AM
David Guttmann said...
prof ta shema jose faur, daniel boyarin wrote m,any articles on the subject of rosh and philosophy and his general position re logic/philosophy and Torah.
5/05/2008 5:32 AM
Anonymous said...
The phrase "naase v'nishma" doesn't necessarily mean "we will do & listen (or learn),as is commonly understood.
Correctly, it should be translated: "we will do & obey".
The verb "shama" has many times the meaning of "to obey" in Tanach
Y
5/05/2008 8:58 AM
David Guttmann said...
If that is the case isn't it double ? - do and obey - seems repetitive.
5/05/2008 9:39 AM
Anonymous said...
Well,David,that's what shemot nirdafim (synonyms)are,to repeat the same idea in different words.
That's what poetry is.
See Deut.32.
א הַאֲזִינוּ הַשָּׁמַיִם, וַאֲדַבֵּרָה; {ס} וְתִשְׁמַע הָאָרֶץ, אִמְרֵי-פִי. {ר} 1 Give ear, ye heavens, and I will speak; and let the earth hear the words of my mouth.
ב יַעֲרֹף כַּמָּטָר לִקְחִי, {ס} תִּזַּל כַּטַּל אִמְרָתִי, {ר} כִּשְׂעִירִם עֲלֵי-דֶשֶׁא, {ס} וְכִרְבִיבִים עֲלֵי-עֵשֶׂב. {ר} 2 My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew; as the small rain upon the tender grass, and as the showers upon the herb.
ג כִּי שֵׁם יְהוָה, אֶקְרָא: {ס} הָבוּ גֹדֶל, לֵאלֹהֵינוּ. {ר} 3 For I will proclaim the name of the LORD; ascribe ye greatness unto our God.
ד הַצּוּר תָּמִים פָּעֳלוֹ, {ס} כִּי כָל-דְּרָכָיו מִשְׁפָּט: {ר} אֵל אֱמוּנָה וְאֵין עָוֶל, {ס} צַדִּיק וְיָשָׁר הוּא. {ר}
the w0rds 'v'ehazinu & tishma are synonyms,so are matar& tal;s'irim & r'vivim,deshe & esev (all in one verse!).
& so on for the rest of ch.32.
Actually,my translation makes more sense. It's not "we will do"(one idea),then jumps to v'nisma(we will hear or listen or understand,which is completely different from v'nishma "do".
The way I translate it naaseh & venishma are synonymous,"do-obey".
I think anyone with a keen ear for biblical Hebrew,will agree with me.
Y
5/05/2008 10:50 AM
David Guttmann said...
y
I am travelling and not ignoring you. I want to address the issue of text and textuakity in a theological context on a post even maybe a series of posts. I think it is very important and there are good reasons why they are sometimes ignored in rabbininical exegesis
5/06/2008 11:53 AM
Daganev said...
"Actually,my translation makes more sense. It's not "we will do"(one idea),then jumps to v'nisma(we will hear or listen or understand,which is completely different from v'nishma "do".
The way I translate it naaseh & venishma are synonymous,"do-obey".
I think anyone with a keen ear for biblical Hebrew,will agree with me.
Y
"
OOOH THANK YOU!!!
Now I finally understand the gemarah in Shabbos daf Peh Chet., with the story of Ravah sitting on his bleeding fingers and the Tzaduki!
Wonderfull...
Apparently, the Gemorah had the same debate with the Tzaduki regarding the meaning of that verse"
Daganev,
I looked up your ref.to Shabbat 88(a&b)& coudn't find anything relevant to what I said,or a debate between Rava & a Tsadoki.
It might be my poor eyesight,or you made a mistake.
Why don't you PASTE the original paragraph from daf 88.
Y
Daganev,
ReplyDeleteyes,the story is there.I overlooked it.
Here it is:
ההוא מינא, דחזייה לרבא דקא מעיין בשמעתא, ויתבה אצבעתא דידיה (אצבעות ידיו) תותי כרעא, וקא מייץ בהו (היה ממעכן ברגליו ואינו מבין, מתוך טירדא) וקא מבען אצבעתיה דמא, אמר ליה: עמא פזיזא (נמהר) דקדמיתו פומייכו לאודנייכו (קודם ששמעתם אותה היאך היא קשה, ואם תוכלו לעמוד בה - קבלתם עליכם לקיימה) - אכתי בפחזותייכו קיימיתו! ברישא איבעיא לכו למשמע אי מציתו קבליתו ואי לא לא קבליתו!
אמר ליה: אנן
(שבת פח,ב)
דסגינן בשלימותא (התהלכנו עמו בתום לב, כדרך העושים מאהבה, וסמכנו עליו שלא יטעננו בדבר שלא נוכל לעמוד בו) - כתיב בָּן (משלי יא,ג) תומת ישרים תנחם [וסלף בוגדים ישדם];
הנך אינשי דסגן בעלילותא - כתיב בהו 'וסלף בוגדים ישדם'.
However,in the gemara he is called a "min",not Tsadoki.
Still,I don't think they were debating the meaning of the word "v'nishma",if it's synonymous to "naaseh".
But you wre right about the ref.
Y
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteif mina is thye traditional christian the debate was quite proper as they abolished the na'asseh because they dont accept the nishma!
ReplyDeleteDavid - you state "this question cannot be answered by any one person in a lifetime, or a whole generation during its lifespan or even many generations over many life spans"
ReplyDeleteWhy has Hashem designed it to be so elusive?
Also, given the difficulties to which you refer, does it not make greater sense for us to focus our efforts on what we know HKBH wants from us ie Torah and mitvos, by that I mean, the study and performance thereof. If I recall correctly that it the thrust of the chap 1 of mesilas yesharim.
>Why has Hashem designed it to be so elusive?
ReplyDeleteThat is a good question. One answer is Ratza HKbh Lezakot et Ysreal lachen hirba lahem torah, mitzvot and ma;assim tovim. For something to have value it requires effort!
Re Mesilat Yesharim, he bases his sefer on the braita that ends with Ruach Hakodesh. The way I understand it he says that RH - which is closer to what I am talking about - is the goal at the end of the road. Torah and Mitzvot are the tool.