Cognitive Dissonance 21 -Applying Rambam to an Ashkenazic Platform A

In pronunciation, most Jews are aware that the S'phardic model and the Ashkenazic Model differ

Same for Nusach

Similarly Apple and PC users are typically aware that the opertaing systems differ.

In COBOL, the Environment Division was used to enable identical COBOL programs to port across platforms At any rate, one CAN avoid cognitive dissonance by keeping in the background of one's mind that the platforms differ.

And so when the Maharam MiRothenburg first saw the Rambam's Mishneh Torah, and "fell in love with it" - Yet he also realized it was predicated on a different platform. And so Hagahot Maimoniyyot was commisioned to help bridge the gap between the Maimonidean System and the Ashkenazic one - namely the practical differences.

[The Rema similarly applied his Hagahot to the Platform of the Shulchan Aruch]

However, when this background information is forgotten or ignored, then errors will occur. Just like running a PC-Windows program on an Apple operating system or vice- versa.

This many today, probably stemming from the Briskers, ignore this gap and create all kinds of "Environment Division" based errors by assuming a consistent underlying platform.

One may merge the algorithms from both systems as long as is AWARE of the gap. But ignoring that gap can provide erroneous results

Next posting. Part B - on methodology and Post-Talmudic Norms

Shalom

RRW

Cognitive Dissonance Between Halachah and Talmud Pt. 3

In the Summer of 1974 I took 2 courses on Scientific Techniques in Talmud from Professor MS Feldblum OBM In an early class, Professor Feldblum offered several radical, innovative, and perhaps revisionist perspectives on how to read a sugya.

The majority of the students - many in YU's semicha program - jumped up in protest: "This will overturn the Shulchan Aruch!". And left in a huff as class ended. Probably to be a contrarian - and also out of sympathy for a man under attack - I stayed after class.

The dialogue with Professso Feldblum [MSF] went somewhat like this:

RW: Is it true that your methods will overturn SA?

MSF: Not at all! The SA [practical Halacha] remains as it is; I am only using science to better understand the sugya

RW: So why bother revising the understanding of the sugya

MSF: Over time, this will INFLUENCE how Halachah is interpreted.

He might have said "Torah Lishma" but he did not. Revised THINKING was important to him, but so was loyalty to Halachah. Many at YU could not handle this form of cognitive dissonance.
------------------------

IOW MSF's goals were influence and evolution, and neither dogma nor revolution. As MSF saw it philology of Talmud and Psaq Halachah will converge over time, probably over many generations. Meanwhile Halachah is what it is.

He also taught the importance of understanding even "incorrect" girsaot and mis-understandings in order to better empathize with how Rishonim VIEWED the text - even when mistaken from an absolute sense.

IOW, the Rashba might have "run" with a faulty decision based upon a faulty girsa. It is also my thesis that Rambam would often concur with Rashi and Tosafot had he had their version of Talmud Shabbat.

KT
RRW

Cognitive Dissonance Between Halachah and Talmud 2

How Halachah grew INTO being the Talmud Bavli and then subsequently outgrew the Talmud

See Professor Ezra Chwat's article: "Great Rabbis of the Muslim Empire"

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/muslim_rabbis.html

Snip #1
Bavli=Yerushalmi

"In Fatimid North Africa, the Babylonian Talmud shared equal stature with the Jerusalem Talmud. Thus, an important nuance in the works of R. Hananel and R. Nissim is their side-by-side comparison of the two Talmuds, often using the Jerusalem Talmud to supplement the Babylonian. "

Snip #2
Bavli is superceded by "sifrei Halachah"

"that the Halakhot books actually dethroned the Talmud as the standard text used by law-makers, to the extent that they evolved into texts that could function as an updated Talmud."

KT

RRW

Cognitive Dissonance Between Halachah and Talmud 1

Many yeshiva students realize that the Talmud and the Halachah sometimes match elegantly
And sometimes, the differences can be staggering!

I may not identify every case of dissonance, but as an instructor, I will show some basic cases


Case 1

Peshat and Halachah


Most people study Talmud based upon Rashi's Point of View [POV]. Rashi's read is often the most straightforward

However the Halachic process pretty much bypasses Rashi's take.

The prime sources for Halachah are:

• Rif
• Tosafot

Rif is the rockbed of Andalusian Halachah and is the prime source for Rambam and by extension R Yosef Karo.

As R JB Soloveichik was wont to say, without Tosafot we would not have Halachah

Sefer Me'irat Einayin in SA Choshen Mishpat 25 sums this up:
The Halachah follows Rif - except when Tosafot disputes him.

Rosh and Mordechai built their codes around Rif as embellished primarily by Tosafot. (Sometimes others EG. Rashi and Rambam)

Ran's commentary on Rif makes Rif axiomatic and makes Tosafot one of many sources to expound upon the Halachah.


Thus:

• The simple read of Talmud is through the prism of Rashi
• The Halachic read of the Talmud is through the prism of a synthesis of Rif and Tosafot.

The bad news is this breeds cognitive dissonance

The good news is that the halachah for the MOST part is not in conflict with the "raw" Talmud, rather it is conflict with ONE POV on Talmud - albeit the most popular POV.


Thus, the common denominator indeed exists for the most part on the Pages of Shas


KT
RRW

Cognitive Dissonance - R' Berkovits = Conservative Halacha?

Michael Makovi wrote:
: The topic moved to discussing Rabbi Berkovits's halachic approach,
: compared to Conservative.

Micha Berger wrote:
"Compared to" doesn't mean equated, despite your choice of new subject
line.

RRW: I myself have only read a smattering of R.E. Berkovits

My general impression is that either he is advocating or better yet perhaps some are saying in his name the following:

"So long is one is sincerely a frum ma'amin, halachah is quite plastic" Or iow the problem with Cs playing with Halacha is their lack of emunah in the ikkarim, But Os armed with a solid emunah would comply and any valid interpretation is still Halachic [iow there is no Orthopraxy].

For many years I have been advocating a converse position: Namely:

So long as one is Orthopractic and accepts a minimal set of Emunah Axioms, then belief is quite flexible

This is largely similar to the late Professors Feldblum's defense to me one-on-one on his methodology:

So long as one is loyal to the Shulchan Aruch, one can use all the modern scientific methods to understand the original meaning of the Talmud and not worry that the new conclusions will undermine existing Halachic practice- just the theoretical Torah lishma will be changed.

It is my understanding that Rav David Weiss halivni is more-or-less of a like mind, that scientific method is about being intellectually honest and NOT about altering halachic praxis

It is quite clear to me that [after reading the bio of Rabbiner Hirsch] that RSR Hirsch would NOT buy any sort of cognitive dissonance and I would venture the GRA [and perhaps Rambam] would never accommodate this dichotomy between theory and practice. But I would venture that many WOULD. That would probably include not only many of the Hildesheimer and YU universe but also probably Tosafos and many others in Ashkenaz who lived with a divergence between text and mimetics. Sephardim and the Gra [and many yekkes] seem to find this untenable.

I think R. Berkovits had a point though. Halachah is SO far removed from its origins that some flexibility seems reasonable. Example, explain why does hag'alah require boiling nowadays when a dishwasher with soap will poseil any ta'am absorbed in any kasherable keili [kli cheres exempted]. I cannot give a solid halachic reason except inertia.

[As regarding ein mevatlin issur lchatchila lets' face it: if you are allowed to do hag'al in keilim why should it matter HOW?]

So even I - who is in a sense a polar opposite of R. Berkovits could concur on such an issue.

Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/

Perfect Misunderstannding 11 - Mishnah-Talmud, Talmud-Tosafot

Parameters of
Deflection*, Disputation and Refutation of Higher Authorities

Note: this is also related to the series on Cognitive Dissonance.

Preface:
Here is a recent exchange among 3 rabbis - slightly fictionalized - illustrating a powerful Talmudic dynamic.

Rabbi X quoting the Gadol haDor [GhD]

From 17th of Tammuz until R"Ch Av has a din of Shloshim!

Rabbi Y interjects:

Din shloshim salqa da'atach?" Where is the issur of bathing and of laundering?

Comes Rabbi Z to be machri'a:

Hachi Qa'amar GhD:
From 17th of Tammuz until R"Ch has a din of yud beis Chodesh, but from R"Ch on has a din of shloshim!

Question:
Without Rabbi Z having come along, what right did Rabbi Y have to challenge the "GhD"? Wasn't he exceeding his authority? His boundaries?

What - if anything at all - specifically permits Rabbi Y to speak up?

===================================================

Now let's go back in time to the Talmud

Mar'eh M'qomot Mishnah P'sachim 3:1
TB P'sachim 42b bottom

"R Eliezer Omeir"

R Eliezer states "Af Tachsheetei Nashim"

The Talmud asks
"Tachsheetei Nashim Salqa Da'atach? Ela Eima af TIPULEI nashim..."

Let's get our bona fides here

What Amora in the Talmud has the authority to question an explicit Tanna?

IOW What permission does this Amora have
to dispute the Tanna R Eliezer?

[Note we won't venture forht into the issue of this being the STAM of the Talmud and thus a very late Amora]

Also note by changing Tachsheetei Nashim to Tippulei Nashim - based upon a Meimra of Rav Yehudah mar Rav - this is really "deflecting" * the Tanna.

________________

Now as for Tosafot deflecting * the talmud

Mar'eh M'qomot
TB Arachan 2b-3a re: Q'riyat haMgillah

R Y'hoshua Ben Levi says "nashim hayavot bMIQRA m'gillah, she'af hein hayu b'oto haneis" ergo they read the M'gillah - ostensibly their obligation is the SAME as that of men. And so codifies the Rambam in MT Hil. M'gilah 1:1 and the SA O"Ch Hil. M'gilah 689:1

Yet Tosafot quoting B'HaG requires women to listen to M'gllah but NOT to read? How can B'Hag deflect* an unapposed Meimra?

Apparently, RYBL is deflected by Tosafot. based upon a "reality check" in the Tosefta. The Tosefta explicitly prohibits women from reading the M'gillah, leaving hearing/listening instead as an avilable alternative.

Now, how are BOTH not overstepping their boundaries?

1. The Talmud in deflecting the Tanna R Eliezer
2. Tosafot-B'HaG in deflecting the meimra of RYBL?

============

Perforce, we must question the rigidity of our rules of Talmud and they apply to at least three related relationships

1. Amoraim to Tannaim
2. Rishonim to Amoraim
   Note, in Rambam's nomenclature all post Talmudic Hachamim are termed "G'onim"
3. And by extension Contemporaries towards our "poseiq hador"

When we say an Amora may not dispute a Tanna, how in reality does this work?

Similarly, we say that Rishnonim may not dispute the Talmud
how in reality does this work?

Finally, if/when we say that contemporaries may not dispute THE GhD - how in reality does this work?

....................................................................................................

We see DE FACTO Talmud severely modifying the Tanna

And we DE fACTO see Tosafot modifying the simple take of the Bavli, often via dialectic.

Well answering Tosafot is a bit easier
Simply said

Tosafot does to the Talmud what the Talmud does to the Tannaim - IE Mishnah or Braitto.

In this case the reality check proves that RYBL cannot be taken literally.

Now the next part - how does the Talmud itself do it?

The simple approach is:

Checking the reality of a given statement, by comparing it with parallel sources, is not out-of-bounds, nor is it to be construed as a refutation nor as a dispuation.

Here - given the reality of R Y'hudah amar Rav - R Eliezer coudn't have really said "tachsheetei" or at least not meant it tha way.

What about #3? Here comes another slightly fictionalized account

EG one "GhD" allegedly posits that Rema basis himself in a given p'saq on a Rambam

Rabbi A challenges this assumption, because EG the Shach and Taz clearly read the Rema's basis quite differently.

Furthermore, Rabbi A challenges even Talmidei GhD to question the GhD's read.

Rabbi B came along to say we must follow GhD! Rabbi A countered

1. Maybe so, but questioning is essential to the process and does not ipso facto constitute disputation, rather it is a prerequisitie to clarificaton

2 Maybe THIS GhD has been misquoted or misunderstood! It is perhaps only alleged that the GhD said the Rema was based upon Rambam. Why? Because it is unlikely the GhD would formulate in such a way as to contradict an open Shach and Taz. So the communicator of the GhD is more in question than said GhD Himself - JUST as Rabbi X misspoke above. And Just as the Tanna R Eliezer cannot really mean "tachseetei" and just as RYBL cannot really mean Liqro but Lishmo'a.

And had Rabbi Y not seen the GhD's statement as incongruous, a "ziyyuf" of p'shat might have been fostered albeit inadvertently.

Bottom Line, reality checks are not hutzpadik - they are essential! And sometimes better to question than no to! Lo habayshan Lameid!

Shalom
RRW

* Defintion of Deflection as an Anti-Tosafistic Chaveir stated to me what Tosafot does - "deflects" the Talmud!

Comment: Well isn't this the case that The Talmud is deflecting the Tanna R Eliezer? How is it any different?

Talking Torah and History 3 - La'asukei..

In our series re: Cognitive Dissonance we covered 2 versions of "La'asukei Sh'mat'ta aliba d'hilch'ta"

VIZ.

• 1 Determining the Halacha based upon the "P'shat" of a given Sugya
• 2 Determining the "P'shat" in the Sugya Based upon the way the Halachah is in practice

My friend the Historian quipped:
"#2 is indeed congruent with "La'asukei Sh'mat'ta aliba dehilch'ta"
But #1 is really more Congruent with 'La'asukei Hilch'ta aliba dishmat'ta'!

Hmmm I said.
I soon realized that his insight really changes everything...


Shalom RRW

Cognitive Dissonance 15 - Rules [that] Are Made to be broken

A proposed "rule" to explain a set of Masoretic patterns was questioned on the MAHPACH list

I changed the name of the proposed rule change to X to make this statement more generic.


« The most logical explanations for exceptions to the X rule is that the X rule is not really a rule, and so the exceptions are not really exceptions.

Let us face it: even the rules proposed by rishonim, which we have to accept are really rules, have exceptions, and exceptions to the exceptions, and in the final analysis are merely guidelines and not inflexible Torah Misinai rules.

So why would we expect a rule newly invented in 5769-5770 to hold, and why should we think it strange that these rules have exceptions that need explanations?»


Indeed in Talmud we have rules that seem MADE to be broken! By way of illustration: let's use the rule of making the Brachah BEFORE doing the Mitzva. [Oveir La'asiyyasan]

Here are some notable exceptions where the bracha is deferred a bit and does not [completely] precede the act.

First 3

• Tevilah of a Ger• Tevilah of a Niddah• Netilas Yadayim

These 3 on tevillah and netillah AIUI are directly related

In the first case of Ger, the brachah is not possible before the prospective Ger is Jewish - hence the NEED to make the brachah AFTER the initial tevilah, there is no alternative.

The next 2 cases reflect an IDEAL [not a necessity] that it is better to do the brachah whilst "pure" then to do it "on time" before the purifications process. Thus the rule of order is sacrificed, and the precedent of tevilas ger poses as a "fig leaf" to make this adjustment more halachically palatable.

And so these last 2 cases flow from the first case.


[Cont']• Yeshivas Sukkah • Hadalaqas Ner Shabbas• [Magein Avraham even proposes extending this principle of "light first - brachah later" to hadlaqas ner YomTov due to "lo plug"!]

Sukkah - birkas leisheiv follows entering the sukkah


With candle lighting, the concern is that once the brachah is made - that it's too late to light! This is difficult to fathom given that "oveir la'asiyyasan" is a given - so how could the brachah inhibit the hadlaqah?


Yet this is perhaps a perfect mis-understanding.

The word KLAL means a generality - not a hard-and-fast rule.

As such, "oveir "a'asiyyasan" is a default setting - and is readily over-ridable when it conflicts with other concerns - though I do confess the candle-lighting sequence is tough to understand.


Shalom
RRW

Cognitive Dissonance Pt. 14 - Written and Oral Torah

Torah Shebichtav - TSBK or Miqra
Torah she'b'al peh - TSBP


The dichotomy of this hybrid system goes away back in history

Those who failed to tolerate ambiguity during Bayit Sheini might have signed up with Zadokites or even "Essenes"


Yet as we see in the famous Aggadic passage in T.B. Shabbat about the Roman converts confronting first Shammai and then Hillel, that the only apparent common denominator between them seems to be the dual Torah.

And indeed, the two seem to be in conflict at times - and the "WHY" for this may be addressed BEH in future posts.

At any rate, the heritage of Pharisaic Judaism is of a complex nature, and does not readily resonate with those seeking a simplistic approach to life or to Judaism


See NishmaBlog: Life is complex. Decisions are complex. Torah is complex. http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/2009/09/life-is-complex-decisions-are-complex.html


+++++++++++++++


Thus the dual Torah provides a dual authority, and much decision making is a synthesis of the 2


Here is a general approach to Miqra Vs. TSBP


The TSBK has the Middat Hadin

The TSBP manifests Middat harachamim

Or - we as a society refuse to execute TSBK as is due to the human fallibility of any Beth Din shell Mata.

Therefore we "punt it" to the Beth Din shell Ma'alah


Shalom,
RRW

Cognitive Dissonance Pt. 13 - Rambam and Briskers

Here the cognitive dissonance impacts Talmud vs. Halachah only indirectly


Background and Digression



Rav Yosef Dov Soloveichik [RYDS]used a dialectic technique to teach Talmud. Simplified he would take 2 rishonom and play them off each other.

It was like sitting in a theater. Stage left was Rav and Shmuel or Rava and Abbayei from the Talmud and stage right were Tosafot and Rambam each describing in turn the narrative of Shas. It was very much alive and engaging.


Over the course of years, RYDS would play it like this


Rashi Vs. Tosafot

Rashi Vs. Ramabam

Tosafot Vs. Rambam


Thus his shiurim on each sugya would always vary. In baseball this is like a 3 game series with 2 identical line-ups - but with different starting pitchers each day.



------------------------



All of this academics using dialectics with Talmud was a joy to me.

However, Briskers are prone to jumping the boundary and applying this to practical Halachah, too. This is where I jumped ship from Brisker Derech.


The biggest area of conflict is simple - Ashkenazic Halacha vs. Sephardic


Sephardim - and more so Teimanim - pretty much follow Rambam in a straightforward manner - Wysiwig


However, Briskers - using Rambam - take a POV that would probably orient Oriental Jews, and see Shas thru that prism. Then they would develop - using Brisker principles - a new Halachic Hiddush.


Problem? Ashkenazi Masorah uses Tosafot, and a lot of "Western" Minhag as its foundation. While Tosafot also uses dialectic, he is not doing so viewed through a Maimonidean prism.



Loose Example, RYDS states to sit for Ashrei before Minchah based upon a statement in the Rambam. But both the premise, and its understanding, are alien to basic Ashkenazic practice. See Tur. And Sephardim do not require it either - see BY on the Tur.


Thus, RYDS has about 100 deviations from common Minhag documented in the RYDS RH machazor, some using this Brisker method.


For a future topic, we will touch upon the GRA as similar


Gmar Tov

RRW

Cognitive Dissonance Pt. 12 Yerushalmi Vs. Bavli

A chaveir of mine responded to part 10:

«However, I believe the fundamental difference lies in the popular (either from Yeshivot or Rosh Yeshivot) choice of texts to canonize
[Thus] whenever there is a choice ie Bavli vs Yerushalmi, Levush or Tur vs SA, Aruch Hashulchan vs MB -the choice is to go with the more ambiguous text.»

Continuing via Paraphrase:

« [Perhaps this] will afford more latitude in future pronouncements or afford more plasticity or wiggle room.»

My chaveir's take was slightly different than mine as I prefer to view this to simply mean that Rabbis do not wish to "paint themselves into proverbial corners." Thus, tight, precise, parameters may rob them of the latitude to handle future contingencies.

My chaveir continues
«The Yerushalmi states that "learning" must be practical (Halacha) rather than academic (Drush)....
[This is] Radically different than Bavli which advocates Academic Learning.»

I don't see Bavli as purely academic - just more theoretical. Meaning parameters developed in a theoretical context can have applications in real Halachah

Illustration:
Given: Hazal more-or-less nullified [no-oped] eer hanidachas. Yet the parameters of eer hanidachas - something that perhaps never occurred - teaches us lessons about residents versus visitors! This is clear from Bava Batra 8 - the daf I gave on the previous Shabbat Ki Teitze. The Bavli distinguishes between the [theoretical] treatment of those in the city for less than 30 days and those that were there 30 or more. That distinction from the realm of theory has real-world applications elsewhere.

Drosh v'qabeil sechar may yield real tangible benefit in a different and real-life context. Just as theoretical physics may yield practical engineering when properly applied.

Summary:

•A) Practical and theoretical "sugyot" may not always be on the same wavelength - yet at times the theoretical does impact or influence the practical

•B) Yerushalmi and Bavli may have differing approaches to Talmud Torah

•C) Posqim may desire or even NEED flexibility and therefore are reluctant at times to take a highly specific stance

Gmar Tov
RRW

Cognitive Dissonance Between Halachah and Talmud Pt. 11 - La'Asuqei Shma'at'ta aliba deHilcheta 3 Vs. 2 Matzot

Case #1: 2 Vs. 3 Matzot @ the Seder

There are a number of approaches to this Shma'at'ta

Let's start from a traditional Yeshivishe perspective. This perspective presupposes that the requirement of Lechem Mishna On YT is the same from Talmud through Rishonim]

La'Asuqei version #1

The Rambam holds that Lechem Mishnah applies to YomTov [YT]. Hil Chametz uMatza

Nevertheless the sugya suggests taking just 1.5 Matzot at the Seder for motzi-matza. [See possible reason below]

La'Asuqei version #2

Tosafot and The Rosh also accept Lechem Mishna as a requirement for YT and so using method #2 they apply the axiomatic Halachah of Lechem Mishnah to the Shma'at'ta - thereby revising and retrofitting it to match the reality on the ground - so they recommend 2.5

[Tangentially:

The GRA sees 1.5 as per method #1 and in addition sees 2.5 as lacking in lechem oni

The Arizal does 3 al pi sod - which works on a different dimension.
However, when "voting" his vote joins the threesome.]

Let's re-approach the Shma'at'ta from a critical, chronological perspective. ["Historical" Method]

It is likely that the Talmud never knew about requiring Lechem Mishna on YT. Rather this was an alter Gaonic interpretation and extrapolation.

This dovetails with
the BeHaG who rules
2 matzot on Chol and 3 on Shabbat! Ostensibly he holds: (shma minah tlat)

A) Lechem Mishna is NOT required on YT Alone ONLY when it's Friday Night

B) Lechem Mishna IS required on Shabbat

AND
C) Since B Therefore the Shabbat requirement supersedes any lechem oni concern or even the simple read of the Sugya - which he would relegate to chol only.

Thus BeHAG is mildly advocating La'Asuqei #2. That the Shma'at'ta is partially modified in light of external contemporary halachic standards.

Now, by the time of Tosafot and Rosh, Lechem Mishnah on YT is axiomatic! Being indispensable the simple read is no longer tenable - instead La'Asuqei #2 prevails and the sugya is retrofitted to contemporary Norms.

Rif-Rambam [and later the GRA] stick with La'Asuqei #1. That is the sugya is seen as originally intended

Yet the BY overrules his default to rule like
Rif-Rambam - because the overwhelming consensus matches Tosafot-Rosh

[Note: As I See Halachah, the matter has been closed and we have arrived at "Settled Law"]

The GRA is more interested in overturning established practice in favour of NOT revising the original intent of the Sugya.

Yet the Kaf HaHayyim notes that the Shlah favours 3 as the Sole Method of covering all the bases, plus the consensus of Acharonim concur - overriding the GRA and original intent in favour of Tradition, Consensus and Settled Law

Summary

La'asukei #1 handles cognitive dissonance by revising the practice to match the original intention of the text

La'asukei #2 revises [not the text itself rather] the UNDERSTANDING of the text to match accepted or established norms

NB: the Talmud itself frequently does this to the Mishnah. So in-depth Talmudic students are quite used to this technique

Gmar Tov
RRW

The Fundamentalist, the Traditonalist, The Activist - Pt. 2 the Kuzari

Refer to this recent post for part 1:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/2009/08/fundamentalist-traditonalist-activist.html


The Kuzari of R Yehudah Halevi deals with polemical debates with various representatives

Philosopher

Christian

Muslim

Qaraite


In the 1964 Schocken Paperback edition of the Kuzari pp. 168-169 The Rabbi bemoans the fate of the Qaraite

With ONLY a fundamental text -- and no tradition of HOW to interpret or apply that text in real life -- the Qaraite must constantly decide every question anew

Furthermore, they exhibit zealotry due to their insecurity, whereas the Rabbi is secure in the established Tradition. The Qaraite is loud and boisterous, the Rabbi at ease [smug perhaps?]


Thus the Rabbi - having a tradition - has the Peace of Mind of how to handle most every situation via Traditional Halachah.


If we were to substitute another ancient text for Tanach - be it Mishna or Yerushalmi, etc. We would be in the same dilemma the Qaraites were a millennium ago! W/O a living tradition, we'd still need to refer to the ancient text and do what Qaraites did 1,000 years ago.


Furthermore, if R Yehudah Halevi was of the opinion that HE had a single text that trumped the Qaraite single text - he would have argued that "my text trumps yours" - Just as Muslims argue that Mohammed Trumps Moses or as Xtians claim that Jesus-Paul trumps Moses! But he did not. He referred to Tradition! Now of course classic texts such as Mishnah are components of that tradition - no doubt about it! But if they were used fundamentally, then the Peace-of-Mind argument withers away. They would need to return to shrill insecurity, argumentativeness stemming from cognitive ambiguity, energetic yet hostile


Protestations

If you see a fundamentalist who is loud, remember this lesson from the Kuzari and relax into the secure foundation of a multi-millennium structure! And merely dismiss the exhortations with Shakespearean aplomb:

"Methinks that thou dost protest a bit too much!"


Gmar Tov

RRW

Cognitive Dissonance Between Halachah and Talmud Pt. 10 - La'Asuqei Shmaat'ta aliba deHilcheta

Growing up in the Yeshiva World - Talmud was more Theoretical and Halachah had branched off into popular codes EG
Hayyei Adam
Kitzur Shulchan Aruch
And
Mishnah Brurah.

In fact I finally was gracefully granted to set aside Talmud and learn Halachah at my last 2 weeks @ Ner Israel in Baltimore. I took Shulchan Aruch,
Taz-Magen David, and Magen Avraham and learned hilchot Tisha b'Av [really the entire 3 weeks] b'iyyun - no Mishna Brurah!

But I digress! Those of a philological and/or fundamentalist mindset have an approach to Halachah that requires going to original texts and working forward. And when approaching those texts [Mishna, Talmud, etc.] They usually employ a [Gaonic] techinque - viz. "L'asuqei shmaat'ta aliba dehilcheta"

Here the approach is to learn the sugya b'iyyun and to ferret out the correct Halachah Going Forward. Thus, since Qitniyyot is permitted by Talmud on Passover, there is no Halachah re: Qitniyyot. At most, a minhag.

This is a classic approach to text.

However I finally heard articulated this same phrase to explain the more POPULAR approach to Halachah. This is meaning #2 of
"L'asuqei shmaat'ta aliba dehilcheta", IE.
To start with the Halachah as axiomatic and to FIND its roots in the sugya!

This technique is used by Tosafot and others - and BEH we will post a follow up

In Hermann Strack's Intro to Talmud and Midrash, he states that this is the current technique in vogue; IE to consult the codes and to work BACK to the Sugya! That the Talmud is no longer in the foreground of Halachah but is in the background. Thus the codified Halachah is NOW assumed to be axiomatically correct and the Talmud is re-worked or retrofitted so as to conform. This is pretty much what we do to Mishnah TODAY! The simple read has been set aside at times by the Talmud and this is reflected in Bartenura et al.

What changed?

In the Gaonic era defintion #1 had to prevail. Except for a few rudimentary codes - such as Halachot G'dolot - the Bavli was THE primary text!

Later, Gaonic decisions, the emrgence of Yerushalmi and Gaonic decisions from Eretz Yisrael served to make the Bavli less a hands on Halachic text and more of an encyclopedic resource book. That's why Rif and Rambam move AWAY from Bavli as a pragmatic Halachic source.

Rif created a Mini-Bavli alternative, and Rambam reduced Oral Law back to Mishnaic form, resmebling the redaction of R. Yeudah Hannasi.

See SA Choshen Mishpat 25:1 where "to'eh bidvar Mishnah" has been extended to "Posqim". See nos'ei keilim particularly Sefer Me'iras Eynayim.

Summary:

L'asuqei shmaat'ta aliba dehilcheta may actually imply two techniques which may be complementary or often in conflict.

#1 The original intent of primary sources - which may be used to revise current practice.

#2 The acceptance of current norms as axiomatic and then applying normative Halachah as a template for re-reading the Talmud. This can be similar to "deconstructive" reading.

Follow up:
We will BEH show several cases of how these cases diverge in real life

Case#1

2 Vs. 3 Matzot @ the Seder

KT
RRW

Cognitive Dissonance Between Text and P'saq Pt. 8 - Kitzur SA

I often try to learn -Halachah P'suqqah only - before Minchah


Once upon a time, I was learning Qitzur SA before Minchah. One bystander remarked:

"Hassidim learn Kitzur"

I responded: "Do you mean to say they PASQEN like Kitzur?"

He replied: "No, they just learn Kitzur!"

IOW Kitzur was being used in some Hassidic circles as a textbook ON Halachah, not as the final word on Halachic legislation!


When I taught Kitzur SA in my shul, I would note some deviations that we do or points where I differed. My "Yekkes" had a hard time understanding how this written text could be "ignored" or "set aside". I told them: "That's why I get paid the big bucks!" :-)

IOW Kitzur is a good default, a primer. But few rabbis feel absolutely bound by its decisions. Same for Mishna Brura, et al.


AFAIK, there is no one Halachic text that is followed 100% w/o reservation, but many texts and codes are learned systematically.

For the average ba'al habbayit, Kitzur SA may be a better alternative than Mishnah Brurah! Especially when one uses the annotated versions that have been recently published.


Learn the Text, but take a grain of salt with it; and realize that the written word may not Always be the Last Word on a given subject.


Shana Tova!

RRW

Cognitive Dissonance Pt. 6 - Process vs. Product

I read a recent post by my chaveir Micha Berger

«...an observation by "Dear Abby" (Pauline Phillips, born Pauline Esther Friedman). She wrote that men are goal oriented, while women are process oriented. This is an alleged gender difference ... probably based on anecdotal evidence, that would fit the roles assumed ..»

Full blog post:
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2008/06/gender-differences.shtml »

Back to our subject.

How Product vs. Process can create cognitive dissonances - when comparing original texts [such as Talmud] with more contemporary practice [e.g. Sh'mirat Shabbat k'hilcheta]

Product:
Some strict constructionists (including fundamentalists) see Talmudic legislation as the PRODUCT of Talmudic dialectic.

If the Talmud debates X vs. Y, then the matter that is resolved WITHIN the Talmud - or those based upon a strict set of philological guidelines - is the last Halachic word on the subject. Any deviation left or right violates the product!

Process:
However, the vast majority of Talmudists, including the Tosafistic Schools and the Schools of Ramban et al. [E.g. Barcelona] See the Hatimat Hatalmud more about Process. The Talmud is not a Shulchan Aruch nor a Kitzur Shuhcan Aruch - rather it is the premier primer on how to use casuistry to arrive at Halachic decision making.

Dissonance:
Thus, to strict constructions the Talmud is saying follow my decision [product] ignore my process. Do as I say but not as I do!

To the process oriented dialecticists, the Talmud is saying: I have illuminated your path! Follow my way of arriving at decisions!

Shloymie: But what about Rav Ashi and Ravina - Sof Hora"ah?

RRW: That subject could easily fill a book. Simply said, it means we no longer pronounce hora'ah by means of [apodictic] Statements. But OTOH to Tosafistically cite sources and to engage in dialectic - aderraba. This is the sanctioned Talmudic process as enshrined by Hazal for us to continue using.

By convention, we have restricted ourselves.
Amoraim address Taanaic literature,

Gaonim and Rishonim address Amoraic literature,
and
Acharonim analyze the Rishonim and Gaonim.

See how Bet Yosef treats Rishonim in much the same manner as the Talmud treats Mishnah and Braitto

Thus the Tur is the functional Process equivalent of the Mishnah of Rishonim, while the BY is the functional equivalent of the Talmud of Rishonim. The Darchei Moshe et al. is the equivalent of the Tosafot on that Talmud

The process as seen as a page in the Vilna Shas has been perpetuated. Perhaps not every decision, rather the functional equivalents have been preserved.

This convention is generally adhered to - except in cases of dire need such as sha'at hadechak or et la'asot. Then exceptions are not only allowed, but welcomed as necessary.

KT
RRW

Cognitive Dissonance Between Halachah and Talmud Pt. 6 - Culture Clash

Historically speaking It would seem that different cultures handled Cognitive Dissonance differently.


The Rif and the Rambam - following the Gaonic Codifications - preferred a separate tome - thereby weaning the public away from the text of the Talmud towards works of Halachah. By this separation - if not outright divorce - Peace of Mind is attained. IOW the conflict is not camouflaged, it's sent away to a different venue entirely.



Both Rashi and Tosafot OTOH stayed with the Talmudic text and chose to comment upon it instead of to avoid this dissonance. Yet even with this common ground, they diverged for the most part.

Rashi - for the most part - makes highly subtle deviations from the text - so subtle only a sensitive scholar would notice.

Illustration: The Talmud in Shabbat 51b says that one may not crush snow or ice with one's hands - rather to place it in a cup. NB: This suggests a passive process is OK. Rashi [s.v. Aval notein letoch hakkoss] adds a subtle caveat - [only] when that cup contains wine [or perhaps another liquid]. Thus the issue morphs from passivity regarding melting ice - to issues of nolad by the subtle insertion of a word or 2.

Tosafot OTOH is rarely subtle. Tosafot's interpretations often SEEM or APPEAR at odds with the texts. This is unsettling for many. Fundamentalists chafe at Tosafot, while analytical or dialectical types celebrate it. Tosafot refuses to give up on the text - and also refuses to give up on "his" vision of how the Halachah should be.- no matter how disparate the two are. Tosafot doesn't avoid or side-step Cognitive Dissonance - rather "he" celebrates it!


We will explore this from another angle re: L'asuqei shmaat'ta aliba dehilcheta


KT

RRW

Cognitive Dissonance Pt. 5 - East vs. West

Hasiba is a given at the Seder Night. Then there are the exceptions - students, women, etc.


The great Ashkenazic Poseiq Raaviyah posited that hasiba is no longer applicable - we simply do not formally dine that way anymore. Apparently, that was restricted to the Roman Persian societies.

Certainly this does not jibe with the Bavli that gives elaborate rules of how to do hasiba and how NOT to do it! EG don't lean on the right, etc. Thus the Raviyyah reads as either quite revisionistic or as a Liberal.


OTOH there is an East-West split on HOW hasiba is accomplished


The Bavli seems to persist on a particular reclining on a cushion.

The term in general usage seems to simply be an idiom for "formal dining"

The Yerushalmi's take is most informative. Why is hasiba required? In order not to eat standing like an eved (I.E. servant or slave). Thus the Western Talmud requires mere sitting down!


Thus the Raviyyah dovetails with this version. And the apparent dissonance with Bavli may be attributed to an East-West split


KT

RRW

Cognitive Dissonance Between Halachah and Talmud Pt. 4

Previously:

"Snip #2

Bavli is superseded by "sifrei Halachah"- the Halakhot books actually dethroned the Talmud as the standard text used by law-makers, to the extent that they evolved into texts that could function as an updated Talmud."


Ever teach Talmud to a Jew who knows ONLY Kitzur Shulchan Aruch? It's a real challenge - because the student thinks that every Halachah in Kitzur is an axiomatic given, and he cannot fathom how it is - that Rabbis in the Talmud debate this stuff!

There is a historical parallel. The arrival of the Bavli to Western Europe probably occurred around the year 1,000. Aside from oral and mimetic traditions - what Halachic texts did they have?

Apparently in Ashkenaz the She'iltos, the Halachos G'dolos, and similar Gaonic Halachic compendiums arrived earlier. They took root as normative texts, although local Minhag may have prevailed.


I discussed this idea with Rabbi E. Kanarfogel, a PhD in Medeival Jewish History. He found the idea "interesting" that the earlier arrival of later texts may have "idea framed" how Ashkenazim read the Bavli as it trickled into Europe. IOW, their minds were pretty much made up Before
The Bavli came - and every attempt was made to read the Bavli based upon the pre-existing texts and traditions.


Thus, dissonance grew between the simple read of the without any pre-conceived notions, and the read of the Bavli framed by incorporating Gaonic Texts as well as mimetic culture.



KT

RRW

Cognitive Dissonance - Subtracting from Talmud 2 (and adding)

The Mishna Model is to say 1 bracha at the beginning of laining and a closing bracha at the end.

The Talmud revised this to 2 brachot per aliyah - instead of 2 per q'riah


Issue #1: Number of aliyyot

Given

On the Mishnaic level, there is no problem,

A) since there is no issue of adding extra brachot

B) and there is no upward limit to aliyot on Shabbat


However

On the Talmudic Level

since The Talmud revised this to 2 brachot per aliyah


we have the following questions:

A) how can we be assured that the Mishnaic license to add olim applies on the Talmudic level?
Since s'feik brachot lehakeil - how can we be safe to add aliyot that trigger additional brachot?

B) Is this discussed in the Halachic Literature?


+++++++++++++++


Issue #2


The Mishna and Talmud require a Meturgemman. Since we are no longer literate in Aramaic, we have suspended with this Talmudic requirement


Questions:

A) how come we still lain w/o following the Talmudic format?

B) more importantly - Since s'feik brachot lehakeil - how can we recite brachot on the Torah when laining in a nonconformist fashion?

C) I'm timzei lomar we can lain and even do so with a bracha even "sans" Meturgeman, why not revert to the Mishnaic Model and reduce the brachot back to the [future] Mishnaic model?

Since no bracha would be involved - perhaps this would also therefore empower women and children to get an aliya again w/o issues of K'vod Tzibbur?



KT

RRW