- This topic has 59 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 3 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Halevai
“Hence, your issue is that you are actually extremely literal.”
I’m not sure why that is an issue. As I put it to Avram, my position is pretty straightforward
“”Es taryag mitzvos shomarti” and the Gemara that says that the Avos kept “kol Hatorah kulo” does not mean they literately kept every mitzvah.“the Medrash was given to study not to dismiss.”
At no point did I dismis it.
“We see a strange Maamar and we understand that it is something deeper than what meets the eye.”
this maamar doesnt sound strange at all. I t actually seems straightforward to me. We all say we are shomer Torah umitzvos, even though we dont literally keep all 613 mitzvos. I dont get confused everytime somebody uses that expression (that isnt to say that is all the Gemara means, just that it isnt so perplexing necessarily)
Avram 1/2
“Ah, now the goalposts are moving”No goal posts are moving. I am saying one simple straight forward statement namely “Es taryag mitzvos shomarti” and the Gemara that says that the Avos kept “kol Hatorah kulo” does not they literately kept every mitzvah.
That is all I am saying.
.
“I understood your original statement to be that you are bothered by people who believe the Avos somehow literally kept all 613 mitzvos,”Yes (though Im not really bothered, I find it amusing/curious I was turning a phrase by DY when I said “bothered”)
“a feat that is technically impossible for a single individual to do, in any historical period, since certain mitzvos are dependent on identity, place, and time (e.g., an individual cannot both offer the pesach and pesach sheini). ”
Yes that is part of what makes it impossible.“This is a very strange notion, ”
It is a strange notion. Which is why I find it amusing/curious.
“. That notion, however, is quite different from an argument that the Avos kept the mitzvos the way we do today, or rather, the way our forefathers did in the days when the Beis Hamikdash was standing. If you want to switch your argument to that, then fine, we agree.”
Im sorry I dont understand this paragraph. Here is my notion again: “Es taryag mitzvos shomarti” and the Gemara that says that the Avos kept “kol Hatorah kulo” does not they literately kept every mitzvah.”
This inst literal for several reasons 1) as mentioned nobody can keep al mitzvos
2) Some mitzvos never happened accoring to Man deamor (ben soreh umoreh ir hanidachos)
3) some are tied to a specific time
4) Some are in specifi instances like Get
5) Some arent logical that they kept like writing as efer Torah
etc etc
But this is a side point. My main point is “Es taryag mitzvos shomarti” and the Gemara that says that the Avos kept “kol Hatorah kulo” does not they literately kept every mitzvah.”Avram 2/2
“If one Kohen Gadol “steps down” and another Kohen Gadol takes his place, is the former man still Kohen Gadol?”In most respects yes. It is a mishna in megilah among other places “ein bein kohen gadol sheavar lekohen sheshamash eleha par yom hakipurim veminchas haeifah” (forgive me if that sint verbatim, that is the gist of the mishna)
“You’ll go back and forth with Health dozens and dozens of times, but I get this? ”
My back and forths are due to a strange sense of curiosity I get when Something is obviously black yet someone insits it is white. That the Gemara isnt literal is as clear to me as can possibly be. I find it curious when people insist it is literal and come up with all sorts of strange notions to back it up (wore tefilin by meditating with sticks?!).
arguments over whether gray is more black or more white dont excite me too much. Is it possible nobody there actually views the Gemara as literal, sure that discussion (over whether such a view exists) isnt as interesting to me)” but I don’t get how you say they could not have fulfilled the mitzva, since they did have access to a kohen.”
Maaser is given to a levi “ulivnei levi hinei nasati kol maaser…”
IF it isnt given to a ben levi it isnt maaser. I believe the Torah never changed (“lo sehi machlefes”) at al times the mitzvah of maaser is/was to give it to a ben levi. did they try to be mekayem as best as they could. sure! Did they give soem form of maaser? sure!. where they mekayem the mitzvas asei of giving maaser? Sadly no.“I personally am much more bothered by misplaced certainty than uncertainty.”
Oh me too!Ubiquitin, you had that reaction to my mentioning how the Bal Hatanya explains their form of Kiyum Hamitzvos. That is because you’d take nothing less than the simple first-impression understanding. But you do this in the name of not wanting to take the Midrashim literally.
This was well illustrated when I brought up Teffilin Demarei Alma (insert ‘non-literal’ for the benefit of our 13th century friends here) to illustrate that we find Teffilin being something much more than what you wrap around, and that what we are doing is a fulfillment of a certain concept — a concept that even relates to Hakadosh Baruch Hu. Your response to that was again to toss around literal or non-literal. Which means that the attitude towards such a Sugya, rather than to see what the Maharal or other Sefarim explain, is to say it’s not literal. But that doesn’t teach you what it is.
Now, as for the ‘Shomer Torah Umitzvos’ idea, which Torah and which Mitzvos? Does that just mean that he was Mishalech Lifnei Hashem? Well it already says that in the Pasuk. And, what does Afilu Eiruvei Tavshilin supposed to mean? Is this all really just an overly fancy way of telling us what we already know?
Can our conversations ever get past 13th century issues? It was a wonderful accomplishment of the Rambam to effectively dismiss the physical minded interpretations of the Torah and of Hashem. As we see, many of his writings reflect this battle. But, the battle was won. Let’s get on.
“But you do this in the name of not wanting to take the Midrashim literally.”
I dotn know what that means. I am just exploring what appears to me to be black and white yet people seem to struggle with it for whatever reason..Look at this thread. how much back and forth there is over an issue at the crux of wish there isnt much (any?) debate.
I am making a simple straight forward assertion (again to avoid confusion: ““Es taryag mitzvos shomarti” and the Gemara that says that the Avos kept “kol Hatorah kulo” does not they literately kept every mitzvah.””What throws me off Even those who agree still throw in qualifiers, like “probably” or try to to redefine kiyum hamitzvos.
Look at Tefilin it is the perfect example. do you beleive the Ribono Shel Olam Litereally wears tefillin? I assuem you do not. Is that becasue “you do this in the name of not wanting to take the Midrashim literally.” ?
You claim that
“Your response to that was again to toss around literal or non-literal.”
Yes, because that is my point.” Which means that the attitude towards such a Sugya, rather than to see what the Maharal or other Sefarim explain, is to say it’s not literal. But that doesn’t teach you what it is.”
That is not what it means. In fact, the opposite! IF something isnt literal that means it needs explanation to explain the metaphor. If it IS literal case closd. The Ribono shel olam takes tefilin puts it on his head every morning. R”L . it is precisely because it isnt literal that it needs explanation.Imagine you speak English but arent a native speaker. If I say “I have a butterflies in my stomach” Thats pretty easy, You might wonder how those butterflies got there, but the words are straightforward. IT is only when you think for a second and say wait a minute, that cant be literal butterflies would die in the high acidity of the stomach, I wonder what he really means, it is precisely becasue it is non-literal that it needs further explanation.
I ma not sure why you view something as being “non-literal” as dismissive.
“BTW Avram if you are still reading, note WTP who correctly points out that we agree, still says “the form PROBABLY differed from the literal sense that we are familiar with now.”
ITs this hesitency and equivocating that throws me off. ”Although this point was made awhile back, my use of the word “probably” was because I do not have the authority of a Rishon or Achron to make a definitive statement of what chazal meant. (Although the way ubiquitin is dissecting every word I use, he might think my words do hold as much value)
WTP
dont sell yourself short, your words do have much value.
And you definitely can make a definitive statement of what chazal meant. they said al peiros haiilan hu omer borei peri haeitz. Im willing to bet you are one hundred percent certain of what this means. And that is without being a Rishon or achron. (of course yo ucna be noteh your daas if a rishon learns differently than you understand the mishna)Note at no point did I claim to definitive knowledge of what chazal meant. Hlevi made some allusions, you can discuss it with him. However what is certain (or at least shoudl be) is what it does NOT mean. The gemara Halevai cited about the Ribono shel olam wearing tefilin, does NOT mean He literally wears tefilin (would you put in probably in that sentence?)
Similarly Im not sure why you need to be a rishon to know that Avrham avinu was not a kohein/yisroel/levi melech who divorced his wife and had a ben sorer umoreh etc etc…Thank you for the compliment Ub, but I still feel uncomfortable. If I am quoting a meforash, I will repeat what they say definitively. If I am saying my own thoughts, even if those thoughts are based on all the Torah I have learned over the years and make logical sense, and explain the peshat well, I will still qualify my statements, as being a possible explanation. Simply because there is so much I don’t know, plus things I did know once and forgot. Even bigger gedolim than little old me use terms like “Lfi Aniyus daati”
“I am just exploring what appears to me to be black and white…”
Exactly. Looking for black and white is a symptom of being very literal minded.
To you there are two choices, either literal in the fullest sense of the way we do practice it today or non-literal, and it is code words to be deciphered like a dream and has no relation to what it says.
A good look in classical Sefarim well show you that everyone takes it at face value, that the Avos kept the Mitzvos. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have these discussions by the Ramban down about why Yakov married two sisters.
However (I guess that’s a ‘qualifier’ word), being of a different form — since they had the licence to fulfill things to their own understanding — means that although the Maamar Chazal means exactly what it says it still might not mean what you picture.
The Medrash says that Avraham Avinu figured out the Mitzvos. We also learn that Noach had a Kabbalah of which animals are Tahor. No, this doesn’t mean he was a nice guy. It means what it says. And yet, they still didn’t keep Teffilin the way we do. Yes, they literally kept the Mitzvos, but not all of them were practiced the way it was spelled out later on.
If they figured out Teffilin that means they knew the reason for it. They can then choose to fulfill this idea in whatever way made sense in those times.
You seem to be fine with the understanding that it just means that they understood Hashem and followed His will. This means that you understand that there is a purpose to all the commandments, at least as a group, and they fulfilled that function. Now, take this one step further. There is a purpose to each commandment as well. They kept that, too.
Teffilin d’Morei Alma are very real, it doesn’t just mean Chazal found a cute way to describe the fact that Hashem loves us. But being very real doesn’t have to connote physicality. The same way we know Hashem has a Kisei, which is real and still not physical, we are told He has Teffilin, which are obviously not physical, but they are real and Moshe Rabbeinu was shown Kesher Shel Teffilin.
Not being physical does not mean it’s a Mashal.
If you can’t wrap your head around this it’s because you are too literal-minded.
“Exactly. Looking for black and white is a symptom of being very literal minded.”
I don’t follow. I am saying it is NOT literal. Isn’t that the exact opposite of being “literal minded”
“To you there are two choices, either literal in the fullest sense of the way we do practice it today or non-literal, and it is code words to be deciphered like a dream and has no relation to what it says.”
Literal is a word it has a definition. “taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory.” (Google)
It’s opposite isn’t “falsehood” the opposite is figurative. When I say I have butterflies in my stomach it isn’t literal. But that doesn’t mean I’m lying. I just mean it in a different way than the literal words mean.“Otherwise, we wouldn’t have these discussions by the Ramban down about why Yakov married two sisters”.
Dy addressed this above.
“means that although the Maamar Chazal means exactly what it says”
It doesn’t. Nor can it.
“And yet, they still didn’t keep Teffilin the way we do. ”
Great so we agree!
“Yes, they literally kept the Mitzvos, but not all of them were practiced the way it was spelled out later on.”
You JUST said they didn’t practice refilling the way we do.
So
If they figured out Teffilin that means they knew the reason for it. They can then choose to fulfill this idea in whatever way made sense in those times.”
Sure! So they fulfilled it in a non literal way.
“Teffilin d’Morei Alma are very real, ”
Where did I say otherwise? Again the opposite if literal isn’t fake.
“it doesn’t just mean Chazal found a cute way to describe the fact that Hashem loves us”Why bot?
If you can’t wrap your head around this it’s because you are too literal-minded”
Are you unclear as to what literal means?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.