Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I don’t think anyone’s chapped yet – the OP is a direct quote from Peirush Hamishnayos of the Rambam to Avos 4:5. So all those who are commenting about the writer’s style – be careful! It’s the Rambam’s style you’re talking about! And those who say the OP is kefirah full stop – better take it back quickly! And the reference about, ‘hanging their hats on maamorei Chazal they don’t understand,’ is the Rambam’s attack on Geonim and Rishonim, not an attack by the OP on Rav Aharon Kotler.
If you are quoting a Rambam, why don’t you say so?
ספר היסודות והחקירות
@Red Adair and SACT5, thank you.
Why are cut fruit and vegetables a problem?
This is a very deep conversation, well above my pay grade.
Avira, you are contradicting yourself. Initially you said that even before R’ Yochanan met the אלמנה he knew that of course a man should do this; the אלמנה taught him that even a woman should do this. Now you’re saying, “we don’t learn anything specific about (sic) women from this story.”
The concept that a person should be מטריח themselves to get more שכר is גופא the concept of שכר פסיעות: the אלמנה was teaching him that the more you are טורח the more שכר you get.Rav and R’ Yochanan did not discuss personally every מחלוקת that they had: Rav lived in בבל and R’ Yochanan lived in Eretz Yisroel. They weren’t aware of all each other’s teachings, כדמוכח from בבא קמא קיז (the story with R’ Yochanan and Rav Kahana.) Indeed, R’ Abba, who was R’ Yochanan’s תלמיד, had to ask the תלמידים of Rav how Rav explained the פסוקים, because he didn’t know himself. That discussion is the source of the מחלוקת, as is obvious from the גמרא.
After the גמרא records the two פשטים of Rav and Rebbi Yochanan, the גמרא says רבי יוחנן לטעמיה דאמר שכר פסיעות יש. This makes it very clear that the מחלוקת is based on Rebbi Yochanan holding that there is a concept of שכר פסיעות, and Rav holding that there isn’t.
Avira, Rashi in Sotah says, וקיבול שכר מאלמנה שהיתה טורחת עצמה יותר מן הצורך כדי לקבל שכר כדמפרש ואזיל למדנו שיטריח אדם עצמו במצוה לקבל שכר יותר. He doesn’t say למדנו שתטריח אשה עצמה במצוה לקבל שכר יותר, but rather למדנו שיטריח אדם עצמו במצוה. According to your “pshat,” Rebbi Yochanan did not need to learn this concept with regard to men from the אלמנה, as he already knew that.
As for your questions, this was not a hotly debated topic in the בית המדרש, nor was it a well-known מחלוקת. The אלמנה came up with this סברא herself, and Rebbi Yochanan accepted it. He had not discussed it previously. And he could not have answered, “No,” as he realised she was right, and therefore accepted her סברא.
Avira, your pshat in the Gemoro in Sotah, as well as the דיוק you bring to support it, is wrong. See Rashi there and to Bovo Metzio 107a s.v. רבי יוחנן לטעמיה. We see from the גמרא in בבא מציעא that שכר פסיעות is a novel concept, so much so that Rav didn’t hold of it. R’ Yochanan heard it from the אלמנה and accepted it.
Daas Yochid, so the Maharshal made an egregious error and is totally unqualified to have an opinion on these matters?
So you managed to squeeze out of the מהרש״ל’s writing that the Ibn Ezra wasn’t a בעל תלמוד. Great! But how do you explain the other piece I quoted והתריס בכמה מקומות נגד דברי חכמי התורה והתלמוד, או מבלי השגחה או מבלי ידיעה? Or maybe you just prefer to ignore it, since it doesn’t fit with your worldview.
Avira, I agree the Ibn Ezra would not have knowingly referred to Rebbi Yochanan as חסירי דעת; however, as I explained, he probably didn’t realise this was a מאמר חז”ל.
Avira, you ask whether I’m sufficiently convinced of my understanding of Chazal, Rishonim and science to stake my Olam Habo on my beliefs. Just so we’re clear, the answer is yes.
An idea cannot be אפיקורסות if it is true, no matter who says otherwise.
You are being חושד בכשרים. I came across this piece of Rabbeinu Saadyah Gaon because my father showed it to me. I came across the תשובה from רב נטרונאי גאון where he says that Chazal did not know medical science because my father showed it to me. And it’s not just those two גאונים: Rav Shmuel bar Chofni Gaon, the Redak and Abarbanel all feel free to reject Chazal in matters other than Halocho. And Rav Zev Wolf Einhorn, the פירוש מהרז״ו on מדרש רבה, says that Chazal believed in a flat earth. (I came across this when learning, not by doing an online search.) There are many others; you know where to find them.
And this is not a question of psak, where we (generally) follow the Remo. This is a question of מציאות, which by definition cannot be paskened. If the Remo would pasken that the earth is flat, would you accept that too?
There is nothing I do because of these beliefs that I wouldn’t do if I thought all of Chazal non scientific statements were true.
Avira, saying someone is considered reliable isn’t the same as saying that they should receive מפטיר יונה. If Zucker wasn’t reliable, his sefer wouldn’t be used. It probably wouldn’t be on Otzar Hachochma either. A Conservative Rabbi can also be considered reliable. Jastrow’s dictionary is used by many יראים ושלמים and considered reliable even though he, too, was a Conservative Rabbi. And look how hard Zucker tries to escape the conclusion that Rabbeinu Saadyah was referring to Rebbi Yochanan, yet you still think he has an agenda!
But let’s leave Zucker to one side. You don’t accept his pshat in Rabbeinu Saadyah; ok. So can you suggest an alternative? Look at the Arabic original in Zucker’s sefer. There is absolutely no reason (besides wishful thinking) to assume the text is corrupt. So I challenge you to find any other way to explain Rabbeinu Saadyah. You can even leave out the words in square brackets if you like. Just explain the rest. Go on, I’ll wait.
I have already explained why the Ibn Ezra uses the term חסירי דעת davka here. I’m not going to repeat myself. But what is really stunning is your confident assertion, “The Maharshal doesn’t accuse him of not knowing Shas; that’s your own insertion.” Can you read and translate Hebrew? Yes? So how do you translate the phrase אשר לא היה בעל תלמודא? And then a few words later: והתריס בכמה מקומות נגד דברי חכמי התורה והתלמוד, או מבלי השגחה או מבלי ידיעה.
And what about the Avi Ezri, who understands the Ibn Ezra like me? Was he also a Conservative rabbi? And how do you understand the Ibn Ezra? Do you have an alternative פשט (other than R’ Shmuel Motot’s פשט, which simply doesn’t work)?
I, too, think the Oruch Hashulchon is a masterpiece. Indeed, I consider it to be one of the greatest seforim ever written. And I also pasken like him against the משנה ברורה. But that doesn’t mean everything he says is binding. You ask whether I would also argue with a פסק from the רמ״א. Allow me to answer you by quoting from the מורה נבוכים ח״ב פט״ו:
כל דבר שהוכח לא תוסיף אמתתו ולא יתחזק הנכון שבו בהסכמת כל העולם עליו, ולא תגרע אמתתו ולא יחלש הנכון שבו אם יחלקו כל אנשי הארץ עליו.Let me address Rav Saadyah Gaon’s פירוש first. The מגיה is called Moshe Zucker; as far as I know he is considered reliable. He shows very clearly which words survived in the Arabic manuscript and which he adds in himself. There are only a few words missing in this piece. And Zucker is very reluctant to say that Rav Saadyah was referring to רבי יוחנן, because (as you say) the phrase אחד מאומתנו seems quite disrespectful in tone. He tries to suggest an alternative, that the reference is to the kusi in the Medrash you quoted, but this doesn’t work because the kusi held that only Har Gerizim wasn’t flooded, but the rest of Eretz Yisroel was. He therefore concludes על כרחנו עלינו להשלים עם העובדה שהגאון מתח כאן את בקורתו החריפה על מאמר אגדה של חז”ל.
Now, what I imagine happened is that the Ibn Ezra (whose פירוש is largely based on Rabbeinu Saadyah Gaon) saw this piece in Rabbeinu Saadyah Gaon and assumed he was talking about a Karaite, because (as Zucker points out) the phrase אחד מאומתנו in Rabbeinu Saadyah Gaon’s פירוש usually means he’s talking about a Karaite. The Ibn Ezra probably didn’t know the Gemoro in Zevochim (the Maharshal you mentioned is happy to accept the possibility that he didn’t know Shas) and therefore rejected this פשט with language one expects him to use when talking about the Karaites. And again, the Avi Ezer understands the Ibn Ezra to be referring to Rebbi Yochanan, and struggles with the lack of respect.
I don’t see the psak of the Oruch Hashulchon as binding, and I feel able to argue with him. He is actually one of the ספרי הלכה I use most, but that doesn’t mean I accept everything he says. (I imagine that neither do you.)
Avira, sorry I haven’t replied yet. Hopefully tomorrow.
AAQ, I don’t understand what you’re saying. Reread your post and try again.
Avira, the amount of amaratzus in your latest (long) post is simply astounding. How are you able to make such ridiculous statements with such confidence?
In the sugya in Sanhedrin, I counted no fewer than five Tannoim and Amoroim who prove תחית המתים מן התורה from a פסוק in נ”ך. The term תורה in this context refers to the entirety of תנ”ך. Rashi cannot be referring to a particular דרשה, as you mistakenly imagine; he says, “שכופר במדרשים דדרשינן בגמרא לקמן מניין לתחיית המתים מן התורה.” (For your information, the word מדרשים is a plural.)
When the Radak says a non-Halachic interpretation of חז”ל is דברים של תימה, he is rejecting their פשט. This is entirely unlike תוספות, which asks a קשיא, and then (9 times out of 10) continues to a תירוץ.
I know Rabbeinu Saadiah Gaon’s פירוש was written in Arabic. Not sure what you want from that. There is no reason to assume it’s unreliable. Regardless, he is certainly referring to Rebbi Yochanan, as he even brings R’ Yochanan’s proof text – the פסוק in יחזקאל. (See the מגיה for further confirmation that this is his meaning.) R’ Shmuel Motot’s פשט doesn’t hold much water (pun intended): he learns that according to R’ Yochanan it did not rain in Eretz Yisroel, but the water which rained on other lands flowed into Eretz Yisroel. If so, the whole Gemoro in Zevochim makes no sense. For example, Rebbi Yochanan understands the word בחרבה as a reference to Eretz Yisroel STAYING DRY during the flood. He also says that the people in Eretz Yisroel died from heat, not the floodwaters.
You then move on to Rebbi Yochanan’s encounter with the kusi. Now, as far as I know this Medrash appears in four places: Breishis Rabbah, Shir haShirim Rabbah, Devorim Rabbah and Yalkut Shimoni. In all four places the name of the אמורא is רבי יונתן. I know this may come as a surprise, but Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Yonasan were two different people! (Tosafos in Zevochim 113a s.v. lo has the story happening to Rebbi Yishmael beRebbi Yosi, who was also a different person.)
I’m not sure why the Abarbanel goes to such lengths to explain how the Ramban can fit with Chazal. Maybe he was scared that if people saw the Ramban rejecting one Chazal about Moshiach, they would feel free to reject others. But it is undeniable the the Abarbanel himself often disagrees with Chazal. In that very same chapter (Melochim I 10) he brings the words of Chazal that מלכת שבא wasn’t a queen but a kingdom, and rejects them, saying ואין לנו לזוז מפשט הכתוב.
The Rambam did not need to bring any examples of מכחיש מגידיה; the fact he does so proves he is only referring to people like צדוק ובייתוס, and not people who only reject Chazal’s non-Halachic droshos. Denying Olam Habo is a serious matter, and falls within Chazal’s remit. I accept Chazal’s religious authority (and so their ability to codify articles of faith), just not their scientific authority, even when based on droshos.
The quotation from Rav Shmuel bar Chofni Gaon is still in the same place it was on Sunday: in the Radak to Shmuel Alef 28, 24.
Sorry, Taanis 4a
Ysiegel, you say that both boys and girls should learn to appreciate something deeper than cheap, shallow externalities. This has always been very difficult. Tosafos in Taanis 3a says באשה לא דייק עלמא אלא ליופי, when getting married to a girl people only care about her looks. And without physical attraction it is extremely hard, or even near impossible, to build a strong marriage.
Avira, one does not need to accept any droshos in order to be a מאמין בתחיית המתים מן התורה. Techiyas hameisim is מפורש in ספר דניאל; one who believes in that does not need to accept any of the other droshos in that sugya. (Rashi uses the term דרשות for all the Scriptural inferences in that sugya, but the reading of the פסוק in דניאל can hardly be considered a דרשה!) Anyway, belief in תחיית המתים is an exception, because חז”ל have told us it is an article of our faith to believe that תחיית המתים is מן התורה. Chazal said no such thing with regard to all other non-Halachic דרשות.
It’s very nice you quote the רמב”ם about מכחיש מגידיה; it’s just a shame you didn’t carry on reading a few more words: the רמב”ם continues “כגון צדוק ובייתוס.” Needless to say, צדוק ובייתוס did not just deny Chazal’s non-Halachic דרשות, so that ראיה too goes out the window.
The Radak is happy to say that a non-Halachic interpretation of חז”ל is דברים של תימה (Shmuel II, 23, 16.) There is a מחלוקת אמוראים in Zevochim 113 about whether the מבול also flooded ארץ ישראל. Here is a quote from Rabbeinu Saadiah Gaon’s פירוש על התורה where he discusses this מחלוקת:
וממה ששייך עוד לפרשת המבול הוא מה שמצאנו שאחד מאומתנו דימה שארץ ישראל לא נשפטה במבול ולא עלה דבר זה על דעתו אלא מפני שחשב שהפסוק את ארץ לא מטהרה היא לא גשמה ביום זעם מוסב על זמן המבול
ומן הדין לבאר את טעותו בדבר זה ונאמר etc.This is how Rabbeinu Saadiah Gaon speaks about Rebbi Yochanan!
Next you quote from the Abarbanel. Is this the same Abarbanel, I wonder, who says in his פירוש to Melochim I 10 22 that Ezra may have made a geographical error when writing a פסוק in נ”ך?
I proved from the words of Rav Shmuel bar Chofni Gaon that we don’t have to accept Chaza’s non-Halachic דרשות; your rebuttal fails to address this.
And whatever makes you think I have left the koslei beis hamedrash? (For your information, I haven’t.)
Sam Klein,
Your post is very insulting to the thousands of older singles who DO turn directly to Hashem for help. Many say Tehillim, go to the Kosel, take on kabbolos etc. for a long time, but have not yet seen a yeshuah.
Oh, and by the way, when you say “Mrs. Seminary Girl,” don’t you mean Miss?
Avira, my saying that Rav Natrunai Gaon refutes the Maharsha is no worse than you saying that the Rambam refutes Rav Hirsch (which by the way I don’t think he does).
I have plenty in my head besides Nathan Slifkin and blogs. I probably know more than you. (Haven’t you seen my screen name? 😉
The fact the snake issue is a drosho doesn’t change anything. We are not obligated to accept Chazal’s non-Halachic droshos. As Rav Shmuel bar Chofni Gaon says (quoted in Radak, Shmuel Alef 28 ): “Even though it would appear from the words of Chazal that…these words cannot be accepted when contradicted by שכל,” and there, too, the reference is to a non-Halachic drosho.
Now, it is true that on today’s maps Bovel is very slightly north of Eretz Yisroel (under one degree of latitude), but in Chazal’s times they did not have modern maps. I’m not even sure Chazal had access to any maps at all. And every map that did exist then contradicted every other map. Moreover, most reconstructions of Greek and Roman maps have Babylon SOUTH of Eretz Yisroel, so of course Chazal had to bring a posuk. The fact you can show me that on a modern map Bovel is very slightly north is entirely irrelevant.
Avira, how can you say that Chazal had a mesorah for the gestation period of a snake if what they say conflicts with what we know? And Rav Natrunai Gaon says we shouldn’t rely on Chazalks refuos because they were not doctors, and so their refuos might not work and might even be dangerous (directly refuting the Maharsha you quote.) Regarding Bavel, of course they needed a passuk, because if you look at a map you will see Bavel is EAST of Eretz Yisroel (which is why it’s called מערבא) and so you need the passuk to show that it’s also (slightly) north.
Avira, I agree with AAQ. It is perfectly acceptable to say that Chazal’s knowledge of the sciences was restricted to what was then known by non-Jewish scientists. Not only is it acceptable, it also happens to be true, as can be proven from numerous places in Shas and Midroshim.
Avira, there are two things I’m unsure about:
1) What does this sentence mean? ‘Some are punished with worse suffering than gehinnom, which is chiefly intended to cleanse a person of their sins – acher had not been able to enter geninnom, as the OP correctly stated, since his Torah was protecting him.’
2) Are we disagreeing?
I agree 100% with Avira. In most cases, a total rasha will not merit to go through Gehennom as a means of achieving Gan Eden; he will either cease to exist upon his death (Rambam Hilchos Teshuvah) or burn in Gehennom for ever and ever (Rosh Hashanah 17a). Hashem was especially merciful in Acher’s case by not sending him to Gehennom for eternity, but that would have meant no Gan Eden either; and then Rebbi Meir’s zchus helped him get into Gehennom for a short tinein order to eventually arrive at Gan Eden
Reb Eliezer, quite the opposite. Eliyohu Hanovi told the prophets of Baal to scream louder so their idol should hear it. One who thinks Hashem can’t hear quiet prayer just as well as loud prayer is described by Chazal as מקטני אמנה (Brochos 24b)
coffee addict, when you say היקש surely you mean גזרה שוה. Or is that part of the Purim torah?
@Menachem Shmiel, because most poskim disagree.
@Menachem Shmiel
1) I’m afraid I find Rabbi Yair Hoffman’s article (to which the article you quote is a response) far more convincing.
2) The OP also mentioned ‘public lightings in places with minuscule Jewish population such as Cheyenne, Wyoming.’ I was responding to that part of the post, not to rooftop menorahs.
It should be toned down every year, not just this year. Lighting the menorah anywhere other than a Jewish house or a Shul is simply a brochoh levatoloh.
AAQ, don’t worry, I’m not offended at all. Not sure what you mean by ארוסין being a social practice with a halachic basis – I mean, I suppose קידושין is a social practice with a halachic basis, but then so is חסד and שבת, which were your examples.
You say that you believe דעת תורה is a halachic imperative, so it needs to have halachic parameters. I have never heard of דעת תורה as a halachic imperative. I just think the concept means that it is sensible to follow advice from a גדול, because he knows better than you do, and can see things you cannot. The concept of taking advice from Gedolim about matters unrelated to halacha already existed in the time of Chazal (as can be seen from the Medrash I brought); it just wasn’t called דעת תורה back then.
In the Gemoro in Kiddushin, Ze’iri did not approach R’ Yochanan for advice. R’ Yochanan started a conversation trying to persuade him to marry his daughter. Obviously Ze’iri rejected R’ Yochanan’s advice, because he remembered the statement of R’ Elozor that R’ Yochanan had forgotten, so he knew his teacher was making a (halachic) mistake. And to answer your questions, if you come to your Rov and ask advice for a shidduch, I believe it’s perfectly ok halachically to reject it; however, it might not be a smart thing to do. And it certainly is ok not to ask if you know the answer yourself, or to reject a Rov’s advice if you know for sure he is wrong.
None of these tools can make a person a Gaon. These tools are designed for baalebatim who want to learn a few hours a day. Becoming a Gaon requires many years of full-time learning, and a plan.
AAQ, why is my argument modernishe? You will know that in current parlance the word אירוסין means ‘engagement,’ but in Gemoro terms (and indeed in the Torah) it is a synonym for קידושין. Do we need here as well ‘a good source to claim that we can easily reject [the Gemoro’s definition of אירוסין] and inject new meaning into it?’
And if someone was to say that nowhere in Shas do we find any mention of getting engaged or of an engaged girl, would you refute him from the many times the term ארוסה appears there?
As for the Gemoro in קידושין, I don’t see anything for מפרשים to get excited about.
AAQ, I restate my case: what the Gemoro means when it employs the phrase דעת תורה is irrelevant here. The דעת תורה in the גמרא is not an alternative definition of our דעת תורה; it means something else entirely. Words and phrases can have multiple, unrelated meanings. As for Kiddushin, the fact R’ Yochanan puts his Torah and his daughter(s) in the same sentence does not mean he’s leaning on his Torah authority. He’s not saying, “Since I am your Torah teacher, I have דעת תורה, and I recommend you marry my daughter – you should listen to me.” He’s just saying, “You value and respect my Torah to the extent that you come and learn from me, yet you regard my daughter(s) as inferior?”
And for the same reason the Gemoro brought by provaxx is also irrelevant. There the people thought there was a halachic reason behind Rav Masnah requiring everyone to use his water. Yes, they showed great אמונת חכמים in accepting a דין that would not have made sense to them, but that has nothing to do with דעת תורה.
AAQ, I see that you are struggling to understand what I wrote, so I’ll explain it again. The concept of דעת תורה that we’re discussing is seeking the Torah’s guidance in life decisions (Avira) by conferring with a Torah expert on matters that do not relate to halacha or hashkafa (Rocky). Thus the Medrash that I brought is extremely relevant, as it tells us that people used to ask Rebbi Elazar ben Arach for advice on matters that do not relate to halacha – דעת תורה in action.
However, both the Gemoro in Kiddushin which you brought and the Gemoro in Chullin are totally irrelevant here. Nowhere in that Gemoro in Kiddushin does Rebbi Yochanan claim דעת תורה rights, as you put it. He simply said to Zeiri, “My Torah is good enough for you, but my daughters are not good enough for you?” As for the Gemoro in Chullin, if you really think your teacher meant to say that nowhere in Shas do we find דרשות that teach us halacha, I am stunned that it took you until the end of Kiddushin to realise that Shas is full of halachic דרשות. And I have no idea why you bring the Chasam Sofer.
You then say that “the apparent fact that some modern people use the expression differently is their problem, not [the] Gemora’s.” No, it’s YOUR problem if you’re conflating the two and trying to bring proof from a Gemoro that is totally irrelevant to the subject at hand.
Rocky and Avira, I’m not sure you’re arguing. Rocky defined דעת תורה as, “Conferring with a Torah expert on matters that do not relate to halacha or hashkafa.” Asking a talmid chacham business advice was only an example. Many of the examples Avira gave fit into this definition.
AAQ, thanks for the kind words about my posts!
Now, about the Gemoro in Chullin:
1) It isn’t a double reference, “da’as – da’as Torah.” The Gemoro is explaining a B’raisa which uses the word da’as, and the Gemoro is asking if da’as in the B’raisa means Da’as Torah. So the first דעת is part of the question, and not part of the phrase דעת תורה. (This is the same mistake that appears on every כתב סמיכה which uses the phrase יורה יורה. This phrase is a quotation from Sanhedrin 5a, but there too the first יורה is a question (can he pasken?) and the second is the answer. So a כתב סמיכה should really say יורה just once.)
2) The phrase does not refer to סברא; rather, it refers to a דרשה: either the ה of הירך or the phrase בהאבקו עמו teaches us (according to Rebbi Yehuda) that the איסור גיד הנשה only applies to the right sciatic nerve. So what makes you think your teacher was unaware of this Gemoro, seeing as it has nothing to do with the concept of דעת תורה that we’re discussing?Reb Eliezer, when did I say that והגדת לבנך is Pesach Mitzrayim? I said that the only פסח that took place before the פרשה of והגדת לבנך was said was Pesach Mitzrayim.
@SQUARE_ROOT
The Gemoro to which you refer is in Chullin 90b; it’s in a discussion about the Gid haNosheh and has nothing to do with the concept of דעת תורה as it exists today.@ubiquitin
Exactly.However, saying there is no מקור for דעת תורה in Shas is not the same as saying there is no מקור for דעת תורה. The מדרש תהלים (שוחר טוב) on והיה כעץ שתול על פלגי מים reads as follows:
וכל אשר יעשה יצליח, שהכל צריכים לעצתו, כגון ר’ אלעזר בן ערך שהיה יועץ עצות ומתקיימות ומצליחות. אמרו לו, נביא אתה? אמר להן, לא נביא אנכי ולא בן נביא, אלא כך אני מקובל מרבותי, כל עצה שהיא לשם שמים סופה להתקיים. אמר רבי מנשיא מקרא מלא הוא, שנאמר ועצת ה’ היא תקום, עצה שיש בה דבר ה’ היא תקום.AAQ, it’s interesting that you draw a parallel between yourself and Shimon Ho’amsuni. As you will know, he was able to expound every ‘es’ in the Torah, until he reached one he couldn’t explain; at which point he retracted all of his דרשות. The Gemoro (Kiddushin 57a et al.) ends the story by saying, “עד שבא ר’ עקיבא ולימד את ה’ אלוקיך תירא לרבות תלמידי חכמים”. In other words, Shimon Ho’amsuni’s initial position – that every ‘es’ has a דרשה attached – was indeed correct! It’s just that he couldn’t think of a דרשה for one of them; so it was left to Rebbi Akiva to uphold and validate his initial view by finding a דרשה for that את.
I think our case is indeed very similar. I agree with your initial position (based on the words of your teacher) that the concept of דעת תורה does not appear in Shas; and I fail to see how the Gemoro you quote contradicts this notion. The Gemoro simply says that Rebbi Yochanan wanted Ze’iri to marry his daughter, and tried to convince him to do so. How does this imply דעת תורה? I’m sure there are many baalebatim who would like to see their daughter marry a top בחור, and might try to persuade him if he was reluctant!
Why do you need to bring the Targum Yonasan to prove that the Jews were not oleh l’regel at פסח מצרים? I mean, without the Targum Yonasan they simply stayed in Mitzrayim until the next morning, so they were certainly not עולה לרגל!
You then say that since בני ישראל were not עולה לרגל at פסח מצרים, no קרקע was required. I suppose you mean that even according to the Minchas Chinuch בדעת Tosafos that a regular קרבן פסח requires קרקע for it to be an obligation, פסח מצרים is somehow different, and does not need the ownership of קרקע for it to be a חיוב. So we agree that the כנענים could not have had a טענה regarding פסח מצרים, since there is no need to have קרקע for it to be a חיוב; and, if מעשה בראשית had been written after והגדת לבנך, they could not have had a טענה regarding any other פסח either! Which brings us back to your original קשיא (which is really the מעשי ה’s explanation of Rebbi Yitzchok’s קשיא): why could מעשה בראשית not have been written after והגדת לבנך?
So what have you answered exactly?