Showing posts with label Philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Philosophy. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Friday, November 26, 2010
The Deathly Hallows and Torah
My previous post caused offence to all those who don't care for Reb Tzodok.
I haven't yet developed the zitzfleish to sit and type out all my thoughts on this matter, but I think that a plot point in the Deathly Hallows explains the two schools of thought and Reb Tzodok's third school in a beautiful way.
In Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, we are introduced to a story that appears in a collection of children's tales. It is called the "Deathly Hallows". The story is written in classical fairy tale format. The first two responses to the story are rationalistic dismissal (Hermione Granger) and gullible acceptance (Xenophilius Lovegood). The truth is revealed to be that neither has the correct approach. The story was true, had historically accurate elements, but was conveyed in simple story-telling language. Outright Dismissal and Outright Acceptance were both wrong.
The analogue to the current "Avos keeping the Mitzvos" mini-scandal and Reb Tzodok's approach to Aggadeta is obvious to me. I think Rabbi Yair Hoffman is incorrect in stating that most rishonim think the Avos literally kept the Torah. I think it is more accurate to say that Rashi, and most rishonim of that school who interpret that gemara "literally", are merely taking the Gemara on its own terms. They are not dealing with "literalness" at all. They're just reading the words and explaining what they mean in context.
Reb Tzadok is the one who understands what's going on. It's not about literalness. It's about the POINT! He takes it out of the silly boxing match, the "Faith" vs. "Reason" shtick we got stuck with from the Catholic fight with Galileo, and brings it into the world of ideas, concepts.
I haven't yet developed the zitzfleish to sit and type out all my thoughts on this matter, but I think that a plot point in the Deathly Hallows explains the two schools of thought and Reb Tzodok's third school in a beautiful way.
In Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, we are introduced to a story that appears in a collection of children's tales. It is called the "Deathly Hallows". The story is written in classical fairy tale format. The first two responses to the story are rationalistic dismissal (Hermione Granger) and gullible acceptance (Xenophilius Lovegood). The truth is revealed to be that neither has the correct approach. The story was true, had historically accurate elements, but was conveyed in simple story-telling language. Outright Dismissal and Outright Acceptance were both wrong.
The analogue to the current "Avos keeping the Mitzvos" mini-scandal and Reb Tzodok's approach to Aggadeta is obvious to me. I think Rabbi Yair Hoffman is incorrect in stating that most rishonim think the Avos literally kept the Torah. I think it is more accurate to say that Rashi, and most rishonim of that school who interpret that gemara "literally", are merely taking the Gemara on its own terms. They are not dealing with "literalness" at all. They're just reading the words and explaining what they mean in context.
Reb Tzadok is the one who understands what's going on. It's not about literalness. It's about the POINT! He takes it out of the silly boxing match, the "Faith" vs. "Reason" shtick we got stuck with from the Catholic fight with Galileo, and brings it into the world of ideas, concepts.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Pri Tzaddik on Chanukah
Reb Tzodok Hacohen is GEVALDIG! His first piece in Pri Tzaddik on Chanuka is amazing!
A taste: Cohanim- Aharon- Torah SheBaal Peh- The famous Ramban on Parshas Vayechi- Mechokeik Mibein Raglav- Yehuda/Malchus-Cohanim from Yehuda via Elisheva Bas Aminadav- Chashmonaim- Shimon Hatzaddik - Alexander the Great - Aristotle - Yannai and the Sadducees - Hillel and his family the last century of the Beis Hamikdash.
Anyone nowadays who insists on maintaining a pre-Reb Tzodok view of Yahadus is simply a fool, a tipish. Harsh, but true.
A taste: Cohanim- Aharon- Torah SheBaal Peh- The famous Ramban on Parshas Vayechi- Mechokeik Mibein Raglav- Yehuda/Malchus-Cohanim from Yehuda via Elisheva Bas Aminadav- Chashmonaim- Shimon Hatzaddik - Alexander the Great - Aristotle - Yannai and the Sadducees - Hillel and his family the last century of the Beis Hamikdash.
Anyone nowadays who insists on maintaining a pre-Reb Tzodok view of Yahadus is simply a fool, a tipish. Harsh, but true.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Vayeitzei - Shishi and Shvi'i
Geneiva- The word is usually translated as "theft". Yet this week's parsha demonstrates that the word actually means deception. Even when it means theft, it is the deceptive aspect of theft. This is related to the Gemara that explains the distinction between Geneiva and Gezeila, the former defined as stealing at night. The distinction always seemed like an arbitrary one: Who cares when a theft takes place?! Theft is theft! Yet Halacha makes a very big deal of it. There are two distinct verses, two distinct penalties, geneiva seen as worse evidenced by the requirement to pay double. The Rambam has "Hilchos Gezeila V'Aveida" and also "Hilchos Geneiva". So he clearly sees them as two different concepts.
I have given this matter a lot of thought. Here is a summary of my conclusions:
Man relates to this world by possessing things. The first possession that takes place is from a state of legal ownerlessness. AKA Hefker. Once possession is taken by one person, the relationship between that person and that thing can only be sundered by that person's will. So the act of possession is an act of will. Taking possession of something from another with that person's will is a gift, or trade. Taking possession without that person's will is impossible to tolerate in society.
That act manifests itself in two distinct forms or crime:
1) The physical taking of possession with no will, or
2) A falsely caused act of will.
The first, gezeila, is the more primitive form of taking, which animals possess as well.
The second is more refined, and can only by done by human beings. It uses the accepted forms of society living to take that which is not yours. It is therefore a greater sign of corruption of the human spirit.
More later...
I have given this matter a lot of thought. Here is a summary of my conclusions:
Man relates to this world by possessing things. The first possession that takes place is from a state of legal ownerlessness. AKA Hefker. Once possession is taken by one person, the relationship between that person and that thing can only be sundered by that person's will. So the act of possession is an act of will. Taking possession of something from another with that person's will is a gift, or trade. Taking possession without that person's will is impossible to tolerate in society.
That act manifests itself in two distinct forms or crime:
1) The physical taking of possession with no will, or
2) A falsely caused act of will.
The first, gezeila, is the more primitive form of taking, which animals possess as well.
The second is more refined, and can only by done by human beings. It uses the accepted forms of society living to take that which is not yours. It is therefore a greater sign of corruption of the human spirit.
More later...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)