Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 058

Friday, November 15 2002

• Re: Astrology, Mussar
• RE: shittat harambam
• Re: agadot
• Re: Astrology, Mussar
• Rambam
• Mussar
• Re: Astrology
• Re: Astrology, Mussar
• Re: Astrology, Mussar
• Re: Astrology, Mussar
• Re: Star Wars

While I had foresworn further comment on this topic, that was a
disinclination to re-engage the same group of disputants who are well
into the repeating themselves stage -- myself included. But RYGB has
forwarded some remarks by Prof Shapiro which provide the opportunity for
further clarification, i.e. to shed some light without heat (possible
metaphorically if not physically) and I would like to offer a reaction,
as I believe there is less there than RYGB makes of it.

The thrust of Prof Shapiro's remarks, or at least the part to which
RYGB happily draws our attention, is the inference drawn from Rambam's
(well known) remarks that, while perhaps some chazalic individuals
held such false beliefs, this was no reason to abandon our reasoned
conclusions. Talmudic passages to the thus contrary are ascribed to either
these mistaken individuals, or some other agendum which really has nothing
to do with astrology one way or the other (a tzorech sho'oh, a particular
circumstance, a remez). The clear inference then is that Rambam believed
that while certain individual and unidentified chazal had false beliefs,
he believed the majority of chazal did not. (i.e. majority held "correct"
beliefs identical to his own.)

A review of the bidding -- or what is in contention -- is in order.
1. RYGB's first assertion was that many Chazal dismissed astrology. When
I asked him to demonstrate that proposition (which is what started this
thread) he conceded at some point that although he could not do so from
chazal contemporary talmudic sources, nevertheless the fact that the
Rambam (in H.AZ) dismissed astrology as sh'tus, means that he was also
reflecting Chazal's p'shat in the g'moroh 700-1000 years earlier, and
that he -- Rambam -- not only believed that chazal agreed with him that
it was sh'tus, but he knows this fact that they did so because he has a
qabboloh/mesorah from his rebbes and their predecessors. This latter is an
important point and I shall return to it. I believe I have so far fairly
summarized his position and doubtless RYGB will correct me if I have not.

2. So the discussion segued to a second -- and really off topic --
argument. Not so much whether Chazal believed something, but whether
Rambam believed Chazal believed something. Though here RYGB might hasten
to object, not just Rambam, but the entire chain of mesorah leading to
the Rambam which also held that view because surely the Rambam would
not have said such a thing without a qabboloh.

3. We then spent too much time, and heat, discussing this side issue --
what it is the Rambam believed about Chazal's beliefs, and by implication
Rambam's p'shat in g'moros which mention influence of constellations. And
it is only on this point that Prof. Shapiro's comments are focused. Which
I submit does not support RYGB's thesis too much. I submit there
is nothing suggested in Prof Shapiro's response which addresses the
notion of how the Rambam knows what he believes. In fact, the thrust of
Rambam's letter to Provence is rather clear -- it is the application
of reason with its tried and tested methodological proofs which the
Rambam explicitly identifies as the intellectual driver compelling his
conclusions. Not a hint of suggestion of a role for mesorah here --
and indeed this would have been the perfect place to mention it had it
been a player. So the notion that the Rambam dismisses astrology not
because of his own intellectual ratiocination (the common wisdom in
academia and -- according to RDE -- also the yeshiva veldt) but because
this is his Mesorah from his rebbes going back to chazal themselves has
not the slightest comfort from the letter remarked by Prof Shapiro --
nor does Prof Shapiro himself make this logical leap, at least in the
written response copied to this list.

4. Now a remark directed at Prof Shapiro's, and RYGBs, lichoroh
reasonable conclusion that Rambam believed that the majority of chazal
indeed rejected astrology just like he did. I take no issue with his
conclusion as indeed it seems an inescapable inference compelled by the
Rambam's own words -- yet there is less there than might seem if you
want to apply this to conclusions about Chazal's maimorim in the g'moroh.

5. The Rambam (whether retro projecting his own intellectualizing to
chazal -- no c"v intellectual dishonesty, that's what he believed,
or conveying a received mesorah(RYGB)) does not identify just which
individuals in chazal might have held the false doctrine rejected by
the majority -- nor does he tell us just who or what that majority
might consist of. It is as logically consistent as otherwise to posit
that even according to Rambam the ma'amorey chazal related to influence
of constellations is to be understood k'f'shuto, as a simple belief in
astrology by the chazal whose sayings are recorded in the maimroh, and
maimorim collectively comprise all the "individual" members of chazal who
held false doctrine. (minus the maimorim which were tzorech sho'oh or
particular circumstance or remez, but which ones might they be? -- and
these provide provide neither pro nor anti astrological insight). After
all, there are what -- hundreds? -- of chazal whose sayings are recorded
in mishnoh and Talmud, some of whom only appear quite fleetingly --
perhaps a single notice. It is not unreasonable to conjecture there are
may be thousands of chazal whose sayings were not captured at all and
of whom we do not know. The actual numbers of chazal who are recorded
saying anything at all (and always expressing their belief in its
intrinsic efficaciousness) about mazal is a miniscule fraction of even
the total known-by-name number of chazal. The most complete accounting
in one place would seem to be Shabbos 156a,b where the positions of,
count 'em, nine chazal is recorded. Thus an entirely self consistent
interpretation of Rambam's "majority" who thought it sh'tus, might be
limited to those whose explicit opinion was not expressed anywhere in
Talmud, i..e the great silent majority.

Is this what Rambam meant? -- I do not know, and it is inherently
unknowable absent newly discovered source information and is thus
fruitless to argue over. But I know it is as self-consistent as
an interpretation which would dismiss all but a few of the recorded
references (and indeed which ones?) as isolated instances of error. So
again there is no compelling logic that can demonstrate that Rambam --
even as he believed that majority agreed with him -- learned ANY of
the astrological maimorim p'shat in the g'moroh other than any other
rishon...e thatit faithfully recorded the positive astrological beliefs
of the chazal who were therein recorded.

6. Speaking of other rishonim -- a side question l'shitas RYGB that chazal
must have so believed because rambam had a mesorah they so believed --
one might ask what of the other gaonim and rishonim (just about everybody)
who disagreed with the rambam about the efficaciousness of astrology
and indeed considered chazal's statements re astrology true p'shuto
k'mashmo'o, did they too not have a mesorah? Why pick on the rambam's
daas yochid version of mesorah as more determinative than the majority
mesorah. But in fact, there is no special Rambam mesorah one can point
to, and he himself identifies his mo'qor letter in such matters in that
same Provenca letter, ab initio intellectual endeavor. (Of course RYGB
could escape the implications of this question by claiming that other
rishonim also rejected astrology as sh'tus, but I haven't heard him make
this claim -- yet.)

To sum up. Prof Shapiro and RYGB's inference about the Rambam believing
the majority of Chazal agreed with him is unobjectionable, indeed seems
clearly indicated by the Rambam himself. But RYGB parts ways (I believe)
with Prof Shapiro and all the other participants with his additional claim
that this must reflect a Mesorah rather than his own intellectualizing
and then (intellectually honest) reading in to chazal. And furthermore,
even with the acknowledgement of the Rambam's belief that he reflected
a majority opinion there is no logical argument to demonstrate that the
Rambam learned any of the g'moros mentioning mazal any differently than
anybody else, i.e. that all the participating Chazal who are on record
expressing an opinion actively believed in astrological efficaciousness.

And of course the ultimate bottom line, whatever the Rambam's state of
belief or that of his majority contemporaries for that matter, there
would seem no direct evidence of any member of Chazal dismissing the
common science of the day -- astrology.

Mechy Frankel				W: (703) 845-2357
michael.frankel@osd.mil			H: (301) 593-3949
mfrankel@empc.org
michaeljfrankel@hotmail.com

With regard to RYGB and Marc Shapiro quotations:

I am now really puzzled by RYGB's stance.

My original stance (and I believe almost all of the people here..)was that
the rambam's position on astrology was derived not from hazal, but from
reason (broadly understood).  Given the rambam's belief  that hazal were
great philosophers, he understood hazal as sharing and believing in this
belief.
Few people (I can't think of anyone here) denied that the rambam
believed that hazal denied astrology - the question was the basis of
the belief - whether he came to that belief through hazal and mesora,
or through the use of reason. No proof has been given for the former,
although citations have been given (cited as irrelevant by RYGB) that
the rambam would understand and reinterprete many maamre hazal against
their simple pshatto make them consistent with the demands of reason.

What some people have argued is that looking at the tradition objectively
without the use of external criteria, it is difficult to make the case
that the rambam does - that hazal rejected astrology, which is why so
many disagreed with the rambam. The only way to arrive at the rambam's
conclusions is to use extraneous materials. That is quite a different
position than arguing that the rambam himself said that hazal rejected
astrology - something that, IIRC no one has suggested. What has been
at dispute is whether the rambam used reason against the simple pshat
of hazal, rather than relying on a mesora and deriving his understanding
from the text itself.


The above position was summarily denounced by RYGB as one "that anyone
with the least shred of Emunas Chachamim; understanding of Mesorah,
and experience with the writings of the Rishonim - not to mention the
sources that you have either misconstrued or not examined - must reject
the position out of hand as inimical to Orthodox Jewish theology."
Furthermore, the rambam was described as someone who based himself

Now RYGB cites approvingly Marc Shapiro's position 
>        I would agree with the named Rosh Yeshiva that the Rambam based 
> his understanding of astrology on logic and philosophy, but he also 
> believed that Chazal agreed with this. If you are saying that he DERIVED 
> his opposition to astrology from Chazal, I would actually have to 
> disagree with you. Again, I am not really sure if this is a dispute 
> about Chazal or Rambam

As my position is really Marc Shapiro's position, why the change?

Meir Shinnar

Eli Turkel wrote:
> RYGB writes
> < The R' Shmuel ha'Nagid, Ramban, R' Avraham ben ho'Rambam etc. about
> Agados in Shas refer to stories and sermons, not to statements that
> purport to be factual. >

R. Avraham ben HaRambam (Maamar al Odot Drashot Hazal ed. Margaliot, pp.
83-84):
< You must know that someone who wishes to establish a particular opinion
because of the author's identity, without analysing the truth of the
opinion, has an evil trait of character (zeh min hadeot haraot), which is
prohibited both by the Torah and by logic (zeh neesar miderech haTorah
v'gam miderech hasechel).... Based on this principle, the greatness of
the sages of the Talmud, and their ability to explain the Torah and it's
details, and the insightfulness with which they explain it's principles
and details, does not imply that we should defer to any of their opinions
(b'chol amareihem) about medicine and science (b'rfuot uvchochmat hateva
vhatchuna), and to trust them about these as we trust them about Torah,
which was transmitted to them to teach people.>

Admittedly one can quibble about whether science and medicine deal with
"facts" (see GEM Anscombe's essay "On Facts and Brute Facts"), but R
Avraham ben HaRambam, at least, should be stricken from Rabbi B's list.

David Riceman

Greetings to my good friend RMJF v'chol ha'nilvim eilav!

It is really not necessary to be ma'arich, as there is little new ground 
covered here. It is only kedai to summarize our differences.

The Preamble:

Much as I respect Prof. Shapiro's scholarship, I am not bringing him as 
evidence for my position. Ho'Emes yoreh darcho in and of itself!

Actually, I primarily cited Prof. Shapiro for his incisive refutation of 
the contentions surrounding the Mussar movement. Again, there are 
differences between us, but in this matter we are relatively close to 
agreement.

Now, to cut to the proverbial chase:

At 04:45 PM 11/14/02 -0500, Michael Frankel wrote:
[50 lines of points RYGB agreed with, deleted. -mi]

>3. We then spent too much time, and heat, discussing this side issue -- 
>what it is the Rambam believed about Chazal's beliefs, and by implication
>Rambam's p'shat in g'moros which mention influence of constellations. And
>it is only on this point that Prof. Shapiro's comments are focused. Which
>I submit does not support RYGB's thesis too much. I submit there is
>nothing suggested in Prof Shapiro's response which addresses the notion of
>how the Rambam knows what he believes. In fact, the thrust of Rambam's
>letter to Provence is rather clear ­ it is the application of reason with
>its tried and tested methodological proofs which the Rambam explicitly
>identifies as the intellectual driver compelling his conclusions. Not a
>hint of suggestion of a role for mesorah here ­ and indeed this would have
>been the perfect place to mention it had it been a player. So the notion
>that the Rambam dismisses astrology not because of his own intellectual
>ratiocination (the common wisdom in academia and ­ according to RDE -- also
>the yeshiva veldt) but because this is his Mesorah from his rebbes going
>back to chazal themselves has not the slightest comfort from the letter
>remarked by Prof Shapiro ­ nor does Prof Shapiro himself make this logical
>leap, at least in the written response copied to this list.

I cannot speak for Prof. Shapiro.

I can speak for the Rambam.

I must repeat myself once more: There is no way to learn the 11th perek of 
Hil. AZ and the related sources I have cited here in the Rambam other than 
according to the thesis accurately ascribed to me above. To do otherwise 
would make the Rambam a biased charlatan who proceeded to mock Chazal in 
the meanest manner. Perhaps there are those in Academia (and, according to 
RDE, in some alternate yeshiva planet which I have not yet merited to 
discover) who find that description appealing?

>5. The Rambam (whether retro projecting his own intellectualizing to
>chazal ­ no c"v intellectual dishonesty, that's what he believed, or
>conveying a received mesorah (RYGB)) does not identify just which
>individuals in chazal might have held the false doctrine rejected by the
>majority ­ nor does he tell us just who or what that majority might
>consist of. It is as logically consistent as otherwise to posit that even
>according to Rambam the ma'amorey chazal related to influence of
>constellations is to be understood k'f'shuto, as a simple belief in
>astrology by the chazal whose sayings are recorded in the maimroh, and
>maimorim collectively comprise all the "individual" members of chazal who
>held false doctrine. (minus the maimorim which were tzorech sho'oh or
>particular circumstance or remez, but which ones might they be? ­ and
>these provide provide neither pro nor anti astrological insight). After
>all, there are what ­ hundreds? ­ of chazal whose sayings are recorded in
>mishnoh and Talmud, some of whom only appear quite fleetingly ­ perhaps a
>single notice. It is not unreasonable to conjecture there are may be
>thousands of chazal whose sayings were not captured at all and of whom we
>do not know. The actual numbers of chazal who are recorded saying
>anything at all (and always expressing their belief in its intrinsic
>efficaciousness) about mazal is a miniscule fraction of even the total
>known-by-name number of chazal. The most complete accounting in one place
>would seem to be Shabbos 156a,b where the positions of, count 'em, nine
>chazal is recorded. Thus an entirely self consistent interpretation of
>Rambam's "majority" who thought it sh'tus, might be limited to those whose
>explicit opinion was not expressed anywhere in Talmud, i..e the great
>silent majority.

You lost me. My addled brain circuits overloaded on that last paragraph. To 
the extent that I understand you, you are still claiming that the Rambam 
invented the concept of a silent majority almost 1000 years before Richard 
M. Nixon.

En passant, this is a good example of why your thesis is, IMHO, an affront 
to the entire concept of mesorah. I was once present when an O rabbi 
debated a C rabbi, and the O rabbi said: "Look. we have mesorah on our side 
- your deviation has no historical tradition and is thus an invention - how 
can it be authentic Judaism?!" (I am paraphrasing.) To which the C rabbi 
responded: "No! There was a legitimate alternative tradition throughout 
history. However, no record of it remains because it was repressed!"

Is the Rambam = said C rabbi?

>Is this what Rambam meant? ­ I do not know, and it is inherently 
>unknowable absent newly discovered source information and is thus 
>fruitless to argue over.  But I know it is as self-consistent as an 
>interpretation which would dismiss all but a few of the recorded 
>references (and indeed which ones?) as isolated instances of error.  So 
>again there is no compelling logic that can demonstrate that Rambam ­ even 
>as he believed that majority agreed with him ­ learned ANY of the 
>astrological maimorim p’shat in the g’moroh other than any other rishon. 
>i.e., that it faithfully recorded the positive astrological beliefs of the 
>chazal who were therein recorded .

Broken record time again: The Rambam on Hil. AZ makes clear that the two 
ma'amorim of Chazal that I cited way back when convey his shitto.

A methodological complaint: The Rambam believed in belief, not faith - he 
based his system on faith that there were Chazal who held like him 
somewhere in the great unknown?

>6.  Speaking of other rishonim ­a side question l’shitas RYGB that chazal 
>must have so believed because rambam had a mesorah they so believed ­ one 
>might ask what of the other gaonim and rishonim (just about everybody) who 
>disagreed with the rambam about the efficaciousness of astrology and 
>indeed considered chazal’s statements re astrology true p’shuto 
>k’mashmo’o, did they too not have a mesorah?  Why pick on the rambam’s 
>daas yochid version of mesorah as more determinative than the majority 
>mesorah.  But in fact, there is no special Rambam mesorah one can point 
>to, and he himself identifies his mo’qor letter in such matters in that 
>same Provenca letter, ab initio intellectual endeavor.  (Of course RYGB 
>could escape the implications of this question by claiming that other 
>rishonim also rejected astrology as sh’tus, but I haven’t heard him make 
>this claim - yet.)

Is it not the case that quite a few Geonim and Rishonim rejected astrology?

Regardless, I believe I addressed the multiple mesoros issue already.

>To sum up.  Prof Shapiro and RYGB’s inference about the Rambam believing 
>the majority of Chazal agreed with him is unobjectionable, indeed seems 
>clearly indicated by the Rambam himself.  But RYGB parts ways (I believe) 
>with Prof Shapiro and all the other participants with his additional claim 
>that this must reflect a Mesorah rather than his own intellectualizing and 
>then (intellectually honest) reading in to chazal.  And furthermore, even 
>with the acknowledgement of the Rambam’s belief that he reflected a 
>majority opinion there is no logical argument to demonstrate that the 
>Rambam learned any of the g’moros mentioning mazal any differently than 
>anybody else, i.e. that all the participating Chazal who are on record 
>expressing an opinion actively believed in astrological efficaciousness.
>
>And of course the ultimate bottom line, whatever the Rambam’s state of 
>belief or that of his majority contemporaries for that matter, there would 
>seem no direct evidence of any member of Chazal dismissing the common 
>science of the day ­ astrology.

On this we can agree: If one will only read Gemara with his own eyes, 
rather than through the eyes of the Rishonim, one can come to that 
conclusion. We, in my yeshiva world, were trained to read Gemara as 
illuminated by those who understood it in ways far superior to ours: The 
Rishonim k'Malachei Hashem Tzevakos.

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

I submit the following quote of Rambam in Moreh 2:25 to see how
philosophical ideas influence an understanding of Chazal.  As Dr. Shapiro
said, the Rambam believes that some(most) of Chazal share his opinions,  yet
the Rambam does NOT need to see this explicitly in their words.

Moreh Section 2 Ch. 25:

Please note: The reason we reject the idea of the world having always
existed is NOT due to the verses in the Torah describing Creation.
...If needed, we could have explained those verses differently.

Ch. 26:

I looked at Pirkei DRabbi Eliezer (Chazal). I have never seen something
more unusual from anyone who follows "Toras Moshe Rabbeinu".

...

I am in wonderment. This Chacham (Rabbi Eliezer HaGadol) what did
he believe? What did he ask? What did he answer?

...

In summary, this(Pirkei dRabbi Eliezer) is a matter which can only
confuse one with correct religious ideas. ... I mention it in order that
you won't err because of it.

end quote

Shlomo Goldstein

I do not claim to be a Baal Mussar - RAEK did not think himself a true BM, 
who am I?

But I do not think one understands Mussar by polling experts on the topic.

One reads Reb Yisroel and sees that RYBS's plaint is groundless.

One reads RAEK and experiences Gadlus ho'Odom.

One thinks about refinement and attempts to aspire to it.

One tries to shed one's negi'os as much as possible.

One tries, above all, to remember mah chovaso b'olamo, and to Whom and whom 
he owes that chov.

That is Mussar, and I cannot see how anyone can deny its validity and 
critical need in Avodas Hashem.

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 02:48:50PM +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
: I don't see where there is disagreement between myself and
: Dr. Shapiro...

Compare:
: Dr. Shapiro writes
:> Rambam clearly believed
:> that the gedolim ve-Tovim of Hazal rejected astrology. He says so almost
:> as explicitly as you can get in the Letter on Astrology (when he says
:> that those passages dealing with astrology were stated by INDIVIDUAL
:> sages who were in a error)....

Vs: 
: My posting on the Rambam's letter
:> This established...                  4) He knew that astrology was
:> wrong entirely because it violated commonsense and not because he had
:> a source in chazal 5) he must have assumed that the silent majority of
:> chazal rejected astrology because only idiots accepted astrology and
:> chazal were not idiots.

Another point about the whole role of mesorah in aggadita...

First, as RGS noted in his "crossroads" essay (*) there are halachos
and pisqei halachos that depend on defining apiqoreis, kofeir, min and
meshumad. While I've seen theoretical and historical arguments to
question the bindingness of the Rambam's ikkarei emunah. But I have
yet to hear someone cite a contemporary poseiq. Find me a beis din who'll
megayeir someone who doesn't adhere to those ikkarim (as within their
tolerances).

(* First RYGB had his "forks" essay, now "crossroads"... Do I detect
a trend?)

Second, I find the idea simply shocking! What, Judaism has no permanent
statement on anything but halachah? (Which, being a process, isn't
static either!) I would wonder if entertaining this thought would
have been possible had Brisker derekh not been so demographically
successful. (Brisk, in the sense that one almost only studies halachic
processs -- even down to having no tools for learning aggadita --
and says that halachah isn't established on anything but halachah.)

There is no process of pesaq for aggadita, no yachid verabim, no
power of precedent. But don't Jewish beliefs have to come from
Judaism?

For example, had R' Yitzchaq mei'Akko (a da'as yachid from someone
rarely quoted) not found reasons from within Torah and mesorah to
justify dating the world at 15billion years, would we be able to
impose the very same idea only because of scientific data -- with
no basis within mesorah? Or the TY's dual creation theory?

Which brings me back to my objection to the mabul-was-allegory
idea.

On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 10:53:03PM -0500, Jonathan Baker wrote:
: If, on the other hand, Aristotle had a proof for his theory, the whole
: teaching of Scripture would be rejected, and we should be forced to
: other opinions.  I have thus shown that all depends on this quesiton. 
: Note it.

Other pre-existing opinions, no? Isn't this simply the notion of being
forced to a da'as yachid to fit the data?

(Again, note the Brisker dichotomy: Radziner techeiles was rejected
by R' Chaim because the argument behind it was not from within
mesorah and halachic process. And yet, jumping to the aggadic
domain, one group descended from Brisker thought assert the
acceptance of such outside data as a virtual "14th ikkar".)

On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 09:24:16AM +0200, Akiva Atwood wrote:
: But today's yeshiva system is *based* on volozhin, isn't it? 

R' Chaim Brisker's version, not that of the author of Nefesh
haChaim.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
micha@aishdas.org            you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org       happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                            - Dale Carnegie

There is little point in repeating my disagreement with RYGB’s apodictic 
declamations re the source of Rambam’s belief.  Sufficient to note the 
existence proof that i (and apparently others) do learn AZ 11 differently 
despite RYGB’s assertion that the phenomenon doesn’t exist.  There is more 
than enough back and forth out there already that readers may “ yishp’tu 
beineinu” (with happy acknowledgement to yaacov ovinu).   But I would 
briefly respond to RYGBs new question.

RYGB: <<Is it not the case that quite a few Geonim and Rishonim rejected 
astrology?>>

Answer.  No it is not the case.  While I am not quite as doctrinaire on this 
as I was on the previous issue in contention, I do not personally recall 
even a single gaon or rishon (outside of the rambam’s immediate circle, e.g. 
his son) who rejects astrology and remember many who speak of it positively, 
and thus suspect that there is literally nobody but Rambam who does reject 
it.  Would truly be interested in learning whether any such exist.  But 
sources please.

RYGB:  <<in this we can agree: If one will only read Gemara with his own 
eyes, rather than through the eyes of the Rishonim, one can come to that 
conclusion. We, in my yeshiva world, were trained to read Gemara as 
illuminated by those who understood it in ways far superior to ours: The 
Rishonim k'Malachei Hashem Tzevakos.>>

Darn. here i thought we were getting along again and i can’t even agree to a 
“this we can agree” line.  I shall throw RYGB’s description of appropriate 
learning methodology back at him.  Since, in your yeshiva world, you have 
been trained to read the g’moroh “as illuminated by those who understood it 
in ways far superior to ours: The Rishonim k'Malachei Hashem Tzevakos” what 
do you do when ALL those very same rishonim (minus at most one - rambam) in 
fact learn it differently than the way you insist upon. (predicated on my 
previous answer/assertion, though i’m open to counterexamples, that gaonim 
and rishonim all did reject astrology). Doesn’t your infinite deference to 
rishonim’s understanding here compel you to understand the g’moroh the way 
they did?  How can you possibly blow all of them off in favor of a very 
lonely daas yochid after a line like that?


Mechy Frankel                               W: (703) 845-2357
michael.frankel@osd.mil			    H: (301) 593-3949
mfrankel@empc.org
michaeljfrankel@hotmail.com







_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

<<From: Akiva Atwood <atwood@netvision.net.il>
Dr. Shapiro's wrote: > I am quote surprised at the vehemence of the assault 
on Mussar, > especially since Mussar emerged victorious and with 
theexception of > Volozhin all, yeshivot accepted it
But today's yeshiva system is *based* on volozhin, isn't it? >>

Only in the most general sense.  The true innovation of voloshin was 
structural-organizational.  It was the first yeshiva to go independent.  
Independent of the local rav ho’ir and indeed independent of the financial 
support of the locals.  It was the first modern ”national” yeshiva and 
invented a complex and far flung (sh’lichim, local representatives, etc 
etc.) fund raising system to support its activities. But its internal 
pedagogic structure (or rather lack of organized structure) was certainly no 
paradigm  for later yeshivos, many of whom innovated matters such as class 
levels, tests, advancement, study of different subjects, and of course – 
mussar, with a unique role assigned to the mashgiach.  Voloshin too had  a 
mashgiach, but it was basically a different – and much lower level job in 
the management hierarchy .(though i’ve argued elsewhere there is sill some 
connection). Mussar was never accepted at voloshin and echoes of this 
rejection do persist in traditions of some yeshivos today which self 
identify with the voloshin tradition, including YU but also some of the 
israeli yeshivos to judge from RDE’s earlier remarks, though of course it’s 
not rejected with the same passion as the old days.

Mechy Frankel				W: (703) 845-2357
michael.frankel@osd.mil			H: (301) 593-3949
mfrankel@empc.org
michaeljfrankel@hotmail.com







_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online 
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

At 10:50 PM 11/14/02 -0500, Michael Frankel wrote:

>Answer.  No it is not the case.  While I am not quite as doctrinaire on 
>this as I was on the previous issue in contention, I do not personally 
>recall even a single gaon or rishon (outside of the rambam's immediate 
>circle, e.g. his son) who rejects astrology and remember many who speak of 
>it positively, and thus suspect that there is literally nobody but Rambam 
>who does reject it.  Would truly be interested in learning whether any 
>such exist.  But sources please.

Will have to look. I do not know, I thought RS"G rejected astrology, but I 
need to research.

>RYGB:  <<in this we can agree: If one will only read Gemara with his own 
>eyes, rather than through the eyes of the Rishonim, one can come to that 
>conclusion. We, in my yeshiva world, were trained to read Gemara as 
>illuminated by those who understood it in ways far superior to ours: The 
>Rishonim k'Malachei Hashem Tzevakos. >>
>
>Darn. here i thought we were getting along again and i can't even agree to 
>a "this we can agree" line.  I shall throw RYGB's description of 
>appropriate learning methodology back at him.  Since, in your yeshiva 
>world, you have been trained to read the g'moroh "as illuminated by those 
>who understood it in ways far superior to ours: The Rishonim k'Malachei 
>Hashem Tzevakos" what do you do when ALL those very same rishonim (minus 
>at most one - rambam) in fact learn it differently than the way you insist 
>upon. (predicated on my previous answer/assertion, though i'm open to 
>counterexamples, that gaonim and rishonim all did reject astrology). 
>Doesn't your infinite deference to rishonim's understanding here compel 
>you to understand the g'moroh the way they did?  How can you possibly blow 
>all of them off in favor of a very lonely daas yochid after a line like that?

Too bad we can't all agree! Let's keep trying!

It is not my job to be machri'ah bein shittos Rishonim in issues that are 
not nogei'ah l'psak halacha. Even if they were nogei'ah psak, there still 
would be no complete rejection of a calid shitta (Eilu va'Eilu).

As to "lonely da'as yachid," they don't say me'Moshe v'ad Moshe lo kam 
k'Moshe for no reason. There are dei'os of a yachid, and, to paraphrase our 
good friend R' Meir, dei'os of a Yachid.

Kol Tuv,
YGB

ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

Micha wrote: 
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 10:53:03PM -0500, Jonathan Baker wrote:

> : If, on the other hand, Aristotle had a proof for his theory, the whole
> : teaching of Scripture would be rejected, and we should be forced to
> : other opinions.  I have thus shown that all depends on this quesiton. 
> : Note it.
> 
> Other pre-existing opinions, no? Isn't this simply the notion of being
> forced to a da'as yachid to fit the data?

I'm not quite sure what you mean.  Other pre-existing opinions?  I think
he's talking more about allegorizing psukim, as he had to show we do in
the first part of the Guide for the anthorpomorphic psukim.  If Aristotle's
theory of the eternity of the Universe had been proven, we would have been
forced to allegorize those psukim which talk about Creation.

As it is, the kabbalists have allegorized them into a spiritual creation
of the Universe.  Which is handy for those of us who see the Creation
passages as somehow not fitting current theories of cosmogony.

Pre-existing opinions?  Aside from the kabbalistic interpretations,
what other pre-existing (pre-Maimonidean) interpretations are there
for the verses that describe Creation, that come from our Mesorah?

I don't think he was talking about necessarily masoretic ideas.  Nor
do I see him being forced to a daas yachid to fit the data, since
there is no necessity to allegorize those passages.

   - jon baker    jjbaker@panix.com     <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker> -

*********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]