tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post2653974726823401764..comments2024-03-28T23:20:49.777-05:00Comments on Beis Vaad L'Chachamim: F. Scott Fitzgerald and Parshas VayechiEliezer Eisenberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16036989084122930226noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-39222732574388349342012-01-22T06:26:14.965-06:002012-01-22T06:26:14.965-06:00As this discussion winds down, let me thank you fo...As this discussion winds down, let me thank you for your commments. First, the Anonymous that wrote פון א קשיא שטארבט מען נישט. Then to Chaim B and gu for Keats and Carrol. To Steven for forcing the discussion to be more forthright. To gu for the reference to kindergarten kabbala. And especially to Eli for that excellent Maharit, although he is an exponent of the Rambam's approach, and we know what the Rambam would have said about this.<br><br>I need to mention that the b of January 4 at 6:07 is not me. But unlike most such cases, he's saying good. I think.Barzilaihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16036989084122930226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-52635385161647665592012-01-21T14:07:22.468-06:002012-01-21T14:07:22.468-06:00Again, Mazal-Tov!Compare to R. Yochanan in BB 75 r...Again, Mazal-Tov!<br><br>Compare to R. Yochanan in BB 75 regarding ושמתי כדכד שמשותיך.<br><br>That notwithstanding, I basically agree with Steven (and humbly disagree with RLC). A proof or disproof from reality (if valid) is as strong as any other proof.<br><br>Thus, I believe the pshat in Taanis is as follows:<br><br>First R. Yochana was qouted to say יעקב אבינו לא מת without a source. This can be confronted with reality of course, and waived away altogether. However, when the answer מקרא אני דורש was given, meaning that this was derived by Darchey Hadrush (I assume, Chazal had Mesorah, which we lost, for their exact usage: what can and cannot be learned from psukim), then this conclusion יעקב אבינו לא מת is certainly true. Yet, due to the proof from reality we must conclude it to be interpreted metaphorically.<br><br>For the sake of people nervous to disagree with statues such as R. Leib Chasman (me included), I looked up and found this R"Y Hazaken MiTrani, brought in Shiltey Giborim here: http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=37970&st=&pgnum=248<br><br>(see also an expanded version from manuscript: http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=37056&st=&pgnum=179 )Elihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12793717193734899866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-82048075601092948122012-01-20T14:41:23.717-06:002012-01-20T14:41:23.717-06:00Is Eliyahu Hanavi alive or dead? How was Rabbeinu...Is Eliyahu Hanavi alive or dead? How was Rabbeinu HaKadosh motzi his wife in the chiyuv kiddush for many weeks after his death?<br><br>To understand this issues, we have to redefine our understanding of life and death, and particularly the proportions of biology and spirituality in the life of a person. Once that is done, we can understand that for some, the biologic is a trivial portion of their existence even when they are considered by physicians to be hale and hearty. Moshe Rabbeinu had transcended the necessity for food, e.g.<br><br> But this is kindergarten kabbalah, and has no place in a sophisticated, if about-to-die but still-be-alive, forum such as this.great unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-354636088538051522012-01-20T09:08:19.339-06:002012-01-20T09:08:19.339-06:00Steven, thank you for your thoughtful comment. I ...Steven, thank you for your thoughtful comment. I had been consciously avoiding addressing just that question since writing the post. It is true that many agados are metaphorical, and in that case there is no question at all. But in this case, where Reb Yochanan's drasha was contradicted with evidence of Yaakov's actual death, the Gemara didn't resolve the points brought up by the questioner, nor did he answer that Ein meishivin al hadrush. He seems to have disagreed with the entire premise of the question: The questioner assumed that contradiction proves error, and the response was that contradiction does not de-legitimize authentic drash. <br><br>It seems to me that the answer was aimed at the root of the question, and states a rule that for authentic drasha, contradiction by apparent reality does not matter. How do we resolve the contradiction? Maybe it varies; it could be that one is metaphorical, or that there is another level at which there is no contradiction, or that ostensibly incompatible realities might co-exist.bnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-26782363170177108902012-01-19T23:41:27.657-06:002012-01-19T23:41:27.657-06:00Dear Rav B,I am enjoying this post and discussion,...Dear Rav B,<br><br>I am enjoying this post and discussion, as always. <br><br>Do you believe, in light of these materials, that Ya'aov Avinu is literally still alive, i.e. in a physiological sense that would (to our minds) apparently contradict being enbalmed and buried etc.?<br><br>Or, is the idea something more along the lines of: Chazal's words are *true* and meaningful and no amount of physical evidence can change that; but of course most likely (obviously?) in this case that truth and meaning is metaphorical. Profound and important, worthy of R. Yochanan and of course worthy of study, but still only metaphorical.<br><br>I admit I lean to the latter approach. But I am truly curious: if you do too, then this does not pose unanswerable questions. Do you read that aggada in a physically literal way? If not, what contradictions does it raise?<br><br>Respectfully,<br>StevenStevenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14371365602074869132noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-87348249068210045772012-01-13T12:11:39.177-06:002012-01-13T12:11:39.177-06:00"It is just this...", yes yes yes,but on..."It is just this...", yes yes yes,<br>but one needn't walk that path;<br>he may stand still, even relaxedly<br>so, now that he has his "easy" answerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-20294658438766285742012-01-12T14:25:51.402-06:002012-01-12T14:25:51.402-06:00"conflicted" is the easy way out, and it..."conflicted" is the easy way out, and it is the path to serious trouble. It is just this that leads people to posit a trinity, or a malevolent Satan, or duality in its simplist forms, such as in Zoroastrianism or Manicheanism. Not a good path to walk on.bnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-41713289213392936122012-01-12T14:07:54.197-06:002012-01-12T14:07:54.197-06:00an "explanation" for "Every such en...an "explanation" for "Every such enigma" <br><br>G-d is conflictedAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-10241239006524710172012-01-05T20:00:05.069-06:002012-01-05T20:00:05.069-06:00Keats? Fitzgerald??? Pikers all!"I can'...Keats? Fitzgerald??? Pikers all!<br><br>"I can't believe that!" said Alice.<br><br>"Can't you?" the queen said in a pitying tone. "Try again, draw a long breath, and shut your eyes."<br><br>Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said. "One can't believe impossible things."<br><br>"I dare say you haven't had much practice," said the queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."great unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-3024396569584991982012-01-04T18:29:05.023-06:002012-01-04T18:29:05.023-06:00Anonymous- excellent, excellent, on several levels...Anonymous- excellent, excellent, on several levels. But he probably said "שטארבט מען ניט"bnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-48632500143963879632012-01-04T18:27:05.773-06:002012-01-04T18:27:05.773-06:00Chaim b- thanks. New to me, and I appreciate it. ...Chaim b- thanks. New to me, and I appreciate it. I have to say, though, that while your wife is the expert, it seems to me that Keats was doing the experiential literary thing, which is opposed to rigorous understanding. The quote I saw was as follows:<br><br>I had not a dispute but a disquisition with Dilke, upon various subjects; several things dove-tailed in my mind, and at once it struck me what quality went to form a Man of Achievement, especially in Literature, and which Shakespeare possessed so enormously - I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason - Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. This pursued through volumes would perhaps take us no further than this, that with a great poet the sense of Beauty overcomes every other consideration, or rather obliterates all consideration.bnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-10175657935257884002012-01-04T18:20:29.153-06:002012-01-04T18:20:29.153-06:00Brisker Rov (not sure which) said פון א קשיא שטארב...Brisker Rov (not sure which) said פון א קשיא שטארבט מען נישט - which is really intended to mean that a קשיא can be an end in itself, and must not necessarily have a תירוץ. As proof he says, that because you have קשיא - asking וכי בכדי חנטי חנטייא still does not make Yakov Avinu dead.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-9633985127916197302012-01-04T18:01:52.725-06:002012-01-04T18:01:52.725-06:00My wife likes to refer to Keats' "negativ...My wife likes to refer to Keats' "negative capability" for the same point you make from Fitzgerald. <br><br>Aside from the issue of humility I think there is a refusal to accept the idea that science / rational conclusions may in fact be erroneous, no matter how glatt the conclusion appears. Reason as become an avodah zarah.chaim b.noreply@blogger.com