tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post6169147150869529585..comments2024-03-19T23:03:01.685-05:00Comments on Beis Vaad L'Chachamim: Vayakhel Pekudei. Reification and IncorporealityEliezer Eisenberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16036989084122930226noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-56728102827259403022010-03-09T18:39:16.104-06:002010-03-09T18:39:16.104-06:00as long as Rav Eli mentioned Harav Kasher, I have ...as long as Rav Eli mentioned Harav Kasher, I have a comment and a query:<br><br>a) nobody with his mind, who was also exposed to the Rogotchover, could ever be called "orthodox" as an adjective. A glimpse of this may be grasped in the introduction to the מפענח צפונות <br><br>b) is the Torah Shleima finally shleima, and if not, is there any movement towards finishing it?great unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-4351828160847926332010-03-09T15:27:53.877-06:002010-03-09T15:27:53.877-06:00Sorry, the two links I gave before were broken, on...Sorry, the two links I gave before were broken, one for the כתב תמים which (an alternative to which was already given by Rav Barzilai), and the other is Hebrew Wiki on RMT.<br><br>Anyway, some background on R. Moshe Taku: He was rather well known at his time of early Rishonim (as an Halachist, not just a polemist against the philosophical approach) and is quoted by many including Ramban (gittin 7 והחכם הגדול רבי משה ב"ר חסדאי מפולניא שיחיה ויאריך ימים), Or-Zarua, Shut Rama 127, etc.<br><br>For an interesting overview on this topic by someone more known than Rav Sedley (but nevertheless a self-identified OJ) see Rav Casher, Torah Shlema, vol. 16 p.288-321Elihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12793717193734899866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-54576406532820322362010-03-09T15:15:01.970-06:002010-03-09T15:15:01.970-06:00usually in the same individualusually in the same individualgreat unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-40567034344616362782010-03-09T14:05:42.121-06:002010-03-09T14:05:42.121-06:00I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the dire...I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the direction this is taking, but if you, like me, never heard of the person Reb Eli cited, here's something Natan Slifkin wrote about him:<br>http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2010/02/kesav-tamim.html<br><br>In that post, you will see two hyperlinks. The first is to the sefer Ksav Tamim, and the second is to an article by a Rabbi David Sedley about the corporeality dispute. I do not know either Slifkin or Sedley, so I cannot vouch for their veracity, scholarship, or ehrlichkeit. Come to think of it, I can't even vouch for my own. All I can say is that I and these people call ourselves Orthodox Jews, a group that comprises geniuses and idiots, saints and sinners.Barzilaihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16036989084122930226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-72174537646251918922010-03-09T12:41:54.133-06:002010-03-09T12:41:54.133-06:00see also Wikipedia under his namehttp://he.wikiped...see also Wikipedia under his name<br><br>http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%94_%D7%AA%D7%A7%D7%95Elihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12793717193734899866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-89167813869226281482010-03-09T12:35:08.681-06:002010-03-09T12:35:08.681-06:00היתה שיטה עקבית בין חכמי אשכנז שחלקו על רס"ג ...היתה שיטה עקבית בין חכמי אשכנז שחלקו על רס"ג והרמב"ם בענין ההגשמה. ספר "כתב תמים" של רבי משה תקו (מובא הרבה באו"ז) מוקדש כולו לפולמוס כנגד הרמב"ם, ולעתו שיטה זו של שלילת ההגשמה היא היא המינות<br><br>http://www.teachittome.com/seforim2/seforim/kesav_tamim.pdfElihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12793717193734899866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-3223109995148736602010-03-09T11:35:06.248-06:002010-03-09T11:35:06.248-06:00מה שכתבתי בהערה הקודמת היתה קצת מגומגמת. כוונתי ה...מה שכתבתי בהערה הקודמת היתה קצת מגומגמת. כוונתי היתה למה שהביא החיד"א בשם הגדולים, מערכת רמב"ם, בשם הרח"וgreat unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-19327162339178399942010-03-09T11:14:51.179-06:002010-03-09T11:14:51.179-06:00דרך לא כל כך אגב משכתבתי על בריסק לא היה (כיוצא מן...דרך לא כל כך אגב משכתבתי על בריסק לא היה (כיוצא מן הכלל) דרך הלצה. עיין היטב בשם הגדולים על הרמב"ם מה שהביא מהרח"ו ודו"קgreat unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-76066190293096999832010-03-09T10:33:51.864-06:002010-03-09T10:33:51.864-06:00the particular midrash is quoted and analyzed begi...the particular midrash is quoted and analyzed beginning on page נ.<br><br>actually, i have a meshora that the Ra'avad was referring to himself.<br><br>forget neo-Platonicism and other dim distortions of truth. The ruchniyus olamos are where it's at.<br><br>indeed, the torah in this world is simply a manifestation (לבוש דלבוש דלבוש ad infinitum) of the רצון הבורא and halacha is the determination of which of the infinite possible manifestations to adopt as normative behavior - which leads to אלו ואלו. <br><br>in reality מחשבה is much more powerful than מעשה - except for those who are blinded to reality by עולם הגשמי. <br><br>one of my students/associates postulated that this world is a virtual reality (which of course leads to infinite regress in that the programmer probably only exists in a virtual reality created by a virtual programmer, etc... and littler flease to bite'm). The naif thinks the images on the screen are the reality: actually, the program is.<br>the program, however, exists only in conceptual space.<br><br>this, of course is all basic Litvishe hashkafa, instinctively understood by the most immature Litvak. It is only the chinuch in the rational pseudo-Litvishe yeshiva system that drives these instinctual understandings out of one's intuition. blame the Briskers.<br><br>In חלק ב btw, the Maharil Block defines humanity as the infinite regress of self-awareness.great unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-77220248591552086272010-03-09T09:44:20.502-06:002010-03-09T09:44:20.502-06:00Funny that Great Unknown should mention it, becaus...Funny that Great Unknown should mention it, because the first thing that came to my mind when I read this yesterday was the Shiurei Da'as. I was thinking of the piece where he explains how the tzefardeya think and commit to kiddush Hashem -- we all know frogs don't think. I was too lazy to look up which shiur it is in so I didn't mention it, but I will echo the call to learn the sefer!Chaim B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-45755952782479070992010-03-09T09:21:30.067-06:002010-03-09T09:21:30.067-06:00Yes, there's that Ra'avad, but from what I...Yes, there's that Ra'avad, but from what I can see, everyone says that he was just complaining about the Rambam's pejorative reference to those people, not that he believed it was a defensible shittah.<br><br>As for your ascription of neo-platonic philosophy to Chazal, yes, it sure does sound like that. But as far as I know, platonic philosophy theorizes that physical objects are imperfect echoes of perfect concepts. You, and I initially made the same mistake, are bouncing in the other direction, and making a supernatural object out of a meta-physical concept.Barzilaihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16036989084122930226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-41951833862060159282010-03-09T08:35:57.416-06:002010-03-09T08:35:57.416-06:00Will you please, finally, at long last, learn the ...Will you please, finally, at long last, learn the Shiurei Da'as. For someone who said he couldn't find the concept(s) of simcha in Torah (i.e., Litvishe) literature - ignoring the ten leshonos in sheva berachot (Shas, after all, is Litvishe literature), the Alei Shur, etc., you are remarkably resistant to suggestions from your gps as to where to find true Litvishe hashkafa. (Had that been "True, Litvishe hashkafa," it would have been redundant.)<br><br>כי כל בשמים ובארץ א' וב' ובצלמנו כדמותנו are particularly relevant to this topic (these are shiurim 1, 2 and 11 in חלק א respectively) In the last one, The Maharil Bloch mentions a visit to the Ba'al Haleshem.<br><br>The idea of corporating spiritual concepts is backwards. Everything that is corporeal is a manifestation (shadow, projection) of a spiritual reality (i.e., what we call "a concept.") The issue is, what does it take to make a specific spiritual reality cast a projection into our world of דמיון<br><br>Incidentally, the Hagahos HaRa'avad asserts that "bigger and better people than the Rambam" attributed literal corporeality to the Ribbono Shel Olam.great unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-81653563226323183972010-03-08T22:31:01.627-06:002010-03-08T22:31:01.627-06:00See? Chaim B also is ambivalent about this. It...See? Chaim B also is ambivalent about this. It's a fascinating thought-- for example, Micha's reference to Reb Yosef Caro's Maggid. The idea is exactly the same as the Menoras Hamaor's Chagiga: the mixture of the ruchnius of the subject and the love of the student blows the breath of life into what had been only a concept. Shades of Pygmalion. Just you wait, 'enry 'iggens, just you wait!Barzilaihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16036989084122930226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-57016568250446759362010-03-08T16:30:40.868-06:002010-03-08T16:30:40.868-06:00V'kasavti al haluchos es HAdevarim asher ha...V'kasavti al haluchos es HAdevarim asher ha'yu al haluchos harishonim...<br><br>Shem m'Shmuel, Alshich are medyakek that it's not KAdevarim, but it's HAdevarim = those exact same letters. Obviously had the letters just been been a product of the engraving process, once the stones of the first luchos were broken, the letters should be gone. Elah, the letters are an independent metziyus. <br><br>But not every case is the same, and I think more often than not the imagry and personification of the ideal is just a poetic device.Chaim B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-35569299258058087342010-03-08T16:06:01.681-06:002010-03-08T16:06:01.681-06:00Gersonides, you're most likely right, that all...Gersonides, you're most likely right, that all these examples are just ways of enabling us to respond with emotion and love to concepts and mitzvos. It's so much easier to say you love Shabbos if you see it as a sort of beautiful and loving Kallah, then if you see it as a day of kedusha. Even the coldest litvak, if he spent some years learning with hasmada, reacts to the Menoras Hamaor's story.<br><br>And yet the idea is entrenched in our mesora. Chazal certainly saw nothing wrong with this kind of representation; as I said, maybe our concept of malachim stems from the same source. Maybe it is just a didactic trope, but I'm not sure I want to just relegate it to the story bin.Barzilaihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16036989084122930226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-89825388050149702272010-03-08T15:19:09.224-06:002010-03-08T15:19:09.224-06:00How do we know that the personification and/or obj...How do we know that the personification and/or objectification of ruchnius'dike concepts are to be taken literally?Gersonidesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-75527603010312748612010-03-08T12:05:07.349-06:002010-03-08T12:05:07.349-06:00Are you really trying to apply the Rambam's de...Are you really trying to apply the Rambam's definition of mal'akh to understanding maggidim? Pretty eclectic!<br><br>That said, not odd at all.<br><br>Also explains how each person has a yeitzer hara, but the general concept of YhR can be reified as a mal'akh we refer to as the satan.<br><br>I recently blogged a series of posts about how spiritual entities are concepts, and yet that doesn't have to rob them of the power mequbalim want them to have.<br><br>-michamichahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11612144735431285113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-47810570233499600852010-03-08T11:35:21.779-06:002010-03-08T11:35:21.779-06:00Excellent! Two points: Where does it say this; an...Excellent! <br>Two points: Where does it say this; and, saying it's a malach kind of takes the wind out of my sails, or at least changes the tack. A malach, we are told, is just the 'embodiment' of a task or a concept. It is a shlichus. If so, we're not really doing something so odd by giving Shabbos or Chagiga a personality, are we?Barzilaihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16036989084122930226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-39687816624931368492010-03-08T11:26:19.404-06:002010-03-08T11:26:19.404-06:00And R' Yosef Caro's Maggid was an embodime...And R' Yosef Caro's Maggid was an embodiment of the Mishnayos. Not the soul of their author, a mal'ach formed of the book itself.<br><br>-michamichahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11612144735431285113noreply@blogger.com