22.5.15
Here is an idea on why there must be questions on the Torah.
I think is that there have to be questions on the Torah. Not questions in Torah but questions on the Torah.
\
The idea is the the Torah is the wisdom of God and if we would understand the Torah perfectly and there would be no questions on it then His wisdom and our wisdom would be the same.
And what are the questions of Torah? It is this: "I see there are jerks learning Torah, and so how can it be holy?" The answer to this is even if there would not be jerks, they would have to be created in order to make questions on the Torah. The only thing you can do is to learn and keep Torah yourself and don't think about others.
זה מעשה שלו וזה המעשה שלי
That is his business and this is my business.
And the way I see it, all we have is Torah. I don't think there is anything else.
My idea here is that Torah is hard to come to. And after one has come to it it is hard to stick with. And even after one tries to stick with it it is all too easy to get seduced by the Torah of the Dark Side which looks and sounds exactly the same as real Torah.
Real Torah if you want to be as exact as possible is fairly easy to define. It is a closed set, and you can enumerate exactly what are the members if the set. Torah= {The Old Testament, Babylonian Talmud, Jerusalem Talmud, Tosephta, Sifra, Sifri, Torat Kohanim, Mechilta, Midrash Raba.} This is a closed set. And things that came later that claim to be part of the set can't be included because they are not the actual Oral Law. But you can have commentary on the Oral Law that can in some way be considered as a "bechina" of the Oral Law,= partaking of the essence in some lesser form.
\
The idea is the the Torah is the wisdom of God and if we would understand the Torah perfectly and there would be no questions on it then His wisdom and our wisdom would be the same.
And what are the questions of Torah? It is this: "I see there are jerks learning Torah, and so how can it be holy?" The answer to this is even if there would not be jerks, they would have to be created in order to make questions on the Torah. The only thing you can do is to learn and keep Torah yourself and don't think about others.
זה מעשה שלו וזה המעשה שלי
That is his business and this is my business.
And the way I see it, all we have is Torah. I don't think there is anything else.
My idea here is that Torah is hard to come to. And after one has come to it it is hard to stick with. And even after one tries to stick with it it is all too easy to get seduced by the Torah of the Dark Side which looks and sounds exactly the same as real Torah.
Real Torah if you want to be as exact as possible is fairly easy to define. It is a closed set, and you can enumerate exactly what are the members if the set. Torah= {The Old Testament, Babylonian Talmud, Jerusalem Talmud, Tosephta, Sifra, Sifri, Torat Kohanim, Mechilta, Midrash Raba.} This is a closed set. And things that came later that claim to be part of the set can't be included because they are not the actual Oral Law. But you can have commentary on the Oral Law that can in some way be considered as a "bechina" of the Oral Law,= partaking of the essence in some lesser form.
What is the essence of idolatry?
The essence of idolatry is the ability to save.
This we can see in tractate idolatry [Avoda Zara] 41 side b.
An idol broke by itself. R Yochanan says the worshiper still has to nullify it.
Reish Lakish said it is automatically nullified because its worshiper= says "It could not save itself, so how could it save me?" So he does not even have to nullify it.
And you can see on page 42 that R. Yochanan does not disagree with that basic idea, but he still needs the worshiper to make an act of nullification.
From this we see the entire essence of idolatry is the ability to save. If one thinks the object or person that he is worshiping can save, then that is idolatry. He he thinks it can't save, then it is not idolatry.
Where you see in the Torah that Avimelech was told to go to Abraham and ask him to pray for him, I think is not a question, because I don't think the Torah was meant to be the definition of Monotheism. I think it is meant to take people away from idolatry. [See the Guide for the Perplexed of Maimonides who says exactly that.] So allowances are made for human weakness. But these allowances should not be taken as preferable options. You can ask a saint to pray for you. But what you ought to do is pray to God yourself. If that does not work, then take a weekend off, and go up into the mountains and spend a few days wandering in the forest and talking with God about your problem.
This idea that the essence of idolatry is the ability to save is from Rav Shach. [Elazar Menachem Shach the rosh yeshiva of Ponovicth.]
The idea is from the fact that on page 42 the Gemara asks on Reish Lakish from the Mishna that R Yose said one takes the idol and crushes it and scatters it, and the sages asked on him that even that is not enough because the dust is forbidden. From that sugia we see R Yochanan agrees with the basic idea but requires an actual statement of nullification.
This Gemara has serious implications. For we find people attributing to some people they consider to be holy as having the power to save. This is very common nowadays.
I don't mean to be critical of any particular group. Every group has some leader they are getting some kind of inspiration from. It says in the Talmud that there was a conversation between an idolater and a Talmudic sage the idolater asked if God does not like idolatry then why doe he not destroy it? The sage answered they worship sun and the moon and the stars. Should God destroy his world because of idiots?
This we can see in tractate idolatry [Avoda Zara] 41 side b.
An idol broke by itself. R Yochanan says the worshiper still has to nullify it.
Reish Lakish said it is automatically nullified because its worshiper= says "It could not save itself, so how could it save me?" So he does not even have to nullify it.
And you can see on page 42 that R. Yochanan does not disagree with that basic idea, but he still needs the worshiper to make an act of nullification.
From this we see the entire essence of idolatry is the ability to save. If one thinks the object or person that he is worshiping can save, then that is idolatry. He he thinks it can't save, then it is not idolatry.
Where you see in the Torah that Avimelech was told to go to Abraham and ask him to pray for him, I think is not a question, because I don't think the Torah was meant to be the definition of Monotheism. I think it is meant to take people away from idolatry. [See the Guide for the Perplexed of Maimonides who says exactly that.] So allowances are made for human weakness. But these allowances should not be taken as preferable options. You can ask a saint to pray for you. But what you ought to do is pray to God yourself. If that does not work, then take a weekend off, and go up into the mountains and spend a few days wandering in the forest and talking with God about your problem.
This idea that the essence of idolatry is the ability to save is from Rav Shach. [Elazar Menachem Shach the rosh yeshiva of Ponovicth.]
The idea is from the fact that on page 42 the Gemara asks on Reish Lakish from the Mishna that R Yose said one takes the idol and crushes it and scatters it, and the sages asked on him that even that is not enough because the dust is forbidden. From that sugia we see R Yochanan agrees with the basic idea but requires an actual statement of nullification.
This Gemara has serious implications. For we find people attributing to some people they consider to be holy as having the power to save. This is very common nowadays.
I don't mean to be critical of any particular group. Every group has some leader they are getting some kind of inspiration from. It says in the Talmud that there was a conversation between an idolater and a Talmudic sage the idolater asked if God does not like idolatry then why doe he not destroy it? The sage answered they worship sun and the moon and the stars. Should God destroy his world because of idiots?
21.5.15
N11
n11 [n11 in midi] n11 in nwc format[When this was written originally the instruments on the score needed some work. The basic piece however is the same. ]
One can ask on תוספות סנהדרין סג א in understanding why is there a difference between לא תעבדם and לא תעשה מלאכה. He says לא תעשה מלאכה is not a לאו שבכללות because it means don't do any kind of work. While לא תעבדם does not tell us what kinds of things are called service. But if you go to page סג תוספות makes the exact opposite kind of assumption.
תוספות gets the ברייתא to be placing three things into the first part of the verse ושם אלהים אחרים לא תזכירו and the last part of the verse לא ישמע על פיך to mean only אזהרה למסית ומדיח. That is fine. But then what are the three things? One is נשבע בשם עבודה זרה. And how can one get מלקות for that? Why is it not a לאו שבכללות? Because נשבע בשם עבודה זרה and הזכרת שם אלילים and one more thing are all the same thing--mentioning another god, so one can get lashes for that.
In what way is this different than לא תעבדם that one does not get lashes for because it לאו שבכללות
That is each Tosphot is fine by itself. But if you try to put them together you get a problem.
I used google for this Hebrew translation but just made a few minor corrections when it was necessary.
אפשר לשאול על תוספות סנהדרין סג א' בהבנתו מדוע יש הבדל בין "לא תעבדם" ו"לא תעשה מלאכה". לדבריו, "לא יעשה מלאכה" אינה לאו שבכללות, כי הוא אומר לא לעשות כל סוג של עבודה. בעוד "לא תעבדם" אינו אומר לנו איזה מיני דברים נקראים שירות. אבל אם אתה הולך לדף סג עמוד ב' תוספות הופך את סוג ההנחה להפכו הגמור
תוספות מסביר את הברייתא באופן ששלושה דברים נכנסים לחלק הראשון של הפסוק "ושם אלהים אחרים לא תזכירו" ואת החלק האחרון של הפסוק "לא ישמע על פיך" הוא אומר שהוא אזהרה למסית ומדיח. זה בסדר. אבל אז מה הם שלושה הדברים? אחד נשבע בשם עבודה זרה. ואיך אפשר לקבל מלקות לזה? למה זה לא לאו שבכללות? מכיוון שנשבע בשם עבודה זרה והזכרת שם אלילים ועוד דבר אחד כולם אותו הדבר = להזכיר אל אחר, כך שאפשר לקבל מלקות
?באיזה אופן זה שונה מ"לא תעבדם" שאחד לא מקבל מלקות על כי זה לאו שבכללות
So what is the difference between לא תעבדם and the three things that are included in שם אלהים אחרים לא תזכירו? For the first there are no lashes, because it is a לאו שבכללות. For the second we say is all one thing. I fail to see any difference here.
Summery:
The last Tosphot on 63a makes sense--sort of. And the first Tosphot on 63b makes sense--sort of. But try to put them together! It doesn't seem to work. What needs to be done I think is to go the Pesachim and get a better idea of what לאו שבכללות is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)