The conclusion is hilarious. "We're different from the heretical rationalists because *in principle*, we are fine with Rashi saying that Og was 500 feet tall, even though in practice we are actually uncomfortable with it."
"And in some cases, it was downright offensive. Prof. Lawee draws attention to Rashi’s citation of a Midrash about Adam having relations with every animal before Eve was created. To many people today, it is “obvious” that this cannot be literal, because it would be so utterly distasteful. Accordingly, many explain that Rashi was not (here) speaking literally."
I have no idea which people you hang out with, but the Artscroll edition of Rashi quotes both peshatim.
"But Rashi became so popular that the opposition died out. And nowadays, people would simply insist that those who understood Rashi to be speaking literally must have been wrong. “Rashi wrote with ruach hakodesh” - which is understood to mean that he was basically infallible."
Again, you seem to be very attracted to mythical creatures. You don't need to think rashi was 'basically infallible' to insist that he wasn't being literal. You just need to believe 1) a literal reading implicates Adam as engaging in bestiality. 2) Bestiality is halachically unacceptable and/or morally reprehensible, and 2a) always has been. 3) Rashi (really, the midrash he's quoting) wasn't casually imputing halachically unacceptable/ morally reprehensible behavior to Adam Harishon, particularly before the cheit. *IF* you accept those 3 premises, the conclusion ineluctably follows. Now, that doesn't mean that everyone accepted those 3 premises. R Herzceg cites some meforshei Rashi (super-commentators b'academic la'az) who understand Rashi literally because they deny premise #2. But none of that chain of reasoning involves any of the sociological psychobabble about current charedi sensitivities.
"And I doubt that many people today, no matter what they profess to believe, actually really believe that Moshe was fifteen feet tall and Og was hundreds of feet tall." Interesting point--my impression is that there are many people who accept midrashim as being the "real" Torah and would uncritically accept Moshe as being 15 feet tall.
Most kids are taught literally and when they grow up they learn what the true meaning was (just like kids are taught that Hashem has 'hands'). But some people get older and keep their elementary school Judaism and then reject it - mind you, they're grown adults now - and they create this idea of 'two camps' in their brains. Their only opponents are the other small minded people who have grown up and accepted the words כפשוטם, but that has nothing to do with any ראשונים...
Dovid, just checking - it seems like you’re saying that those people who believe that midrashim are literally true are like “kids”, “small minded people who have grown up up and accepted the words k’pshutam”?
I’m not sure that’s what you were saying; If it is, I’d agree with you (though I wouldn’t express it in those words). Raising kids is difficult, I try to help mine understand that sometimes the Torah says something and the midrash says something completely different and sometimes they’re both simply trying to teach lessons rather than either being literally true. My youngest, who just turned 9y/o just had a brief discussion with me (this just happened an few days ago) about the fact that he doesn’t think dinosaurs were real because the world is only less than 6,000 years old. (I wish I could recall what precipitated the comments - it might have been that he was watching the “ice age” movie. Or those might have just been 2 separate things that happened this week.)
I don’t want to force beliefs on him, I want him to think. I just raised some questions maybe - dinosaurs are real …. there are bones and skeletons found in lots of places. Maybe the world is older. Maybe the Torah is telling us something different for a reason. Maybe it’s more important to learn moral, ethical, and halakhic lessons from the Torah rather than history lessons…
It’s difficult discussing that with kids. They like clarity and literalism. But as you say - some people never grow up and maintain childish outlooks into adulthood. Luckily, even if my 9y/o still believes the world
Is literally less than 6,000 years old, at least he does understand that not everything is literally true - if dinosaurs did exist, he does realize that they probably didn’t “speak English” likes they do in “ice age”. We looked at the voice actors together - he recognized “Josh Peck” telling me he was teaching a bar mitzvah boy in a different movie, and he also asked me if Queen Latifah was a real queen.
Let's be really clear though. When I speak of growing up, I use the Rambam's definition (hakdama to chelek): when you're mature enough to begin to learn about and conceptualize the world of the immaterial (which takes many years of mature training, I plan on writing a post about this pretty soon, probably the one after then next). When you get there, you can start to see how a lot of what Chazal meant wasn't in its 'literal' -meaning physical - sense, but based on its conceptual reality. Once you're there, it's not too difficult to distinguish between which things are and which things are most definitely NOT meant to be taken figuratively. Many people think they can start taking things non literally before they mature and still have no conception of the immaterial and end up too far the other way, close to kefirah or worse, taking very literal things, like Avraham Avinu being a real historical figure, non-literally.
Now, the details of which things we're allowed to and not allowed are not for everybody to decide willy-nilly - even the Rambam took things too far! Until ready, I would err on the side of caution otherwise one can fall off the deep end.
I'm probably not on the same page as you, for example, about the age of the earth, but that's a detail. For chinuch, while teaching to think is really REALLY important, one must ALSO teach that we don't know everything, which is equally, or even more important. Good chinuch is to give over the mesorah well, while also showing how to think for yourself and make proper and informed decisions. Showing how great our gedolim are (even if that gives the impression of infallibility for a few years) but then also teaching them how to deal with questions is a delicate balance but most reasonable people I know do a fine job bH.
A good example is science. One can teach his kid to think for himself and ignore the multitude of evidence because "why should you trust anyone else?" Such a kid will probably end up a flat earther and a climate change denier (not getting involved lol). We don't teach that. We teach to think for yourself but to also healthily trust the systems. And here also, not to trust the systems blindly (as believing Jews we don't buy a lot of the system's garbage such as the trans stuff), because that also leads to issues, but to be able to strike the right healthy balance.
I'm not sure where you stand on the issues I've mentioned (I tried to be relatively parve) but while we can debate the specific details, this nuance is very important. Learning how to think, but also when and how to trust.
“ For chinuch, while teaching to think is really REALLY important, one must ALSO teach that we don't know everything, which is equally, or even more important. ”.
I completely agree. Knowing (and being able to admit) that we don’t know stuff is extremely important. And I agree with the rest of that paragraph as well.
I agree with most of everything you wrote in this response as well.
One point I would raise a concern with is where you spoke of erring on the side of caution. If one believes that taking things literally in the physical sense (to borrow your words) when it was not meant so is wrong (because then the actual message is lost as mere history or whatever)… then it’s not always clear in respect to these issues which side caution is on.
"then it’s not always clear in respect to these issues which side caution is on" I would argue like the Rambam that the literal words are important as well, because they are 'in the language of man' and especially for kids who can't understand the undertones of nuance, we should teach them the literal and explain as they get older and more mature what to ad what not to take literally. So I think when it comes to chinuch specifically we should err on this side. The rambam says this in hakdama to chelek to a certain extent (famous analogy if a kid is abut to fall off a cliff R'l and he would never get it if we said 'stop there's a cliff!!', we say 'stop there' a fire!!' and 'lie'. Only here its not a lie because it is the actual meaning only a more non-physical plane)
ein mikra yotze midei peshuto. (As long as we know what “pshat” is - not always as obvious as it might seem)
“famous analogy if a kid is abut to fall off a cliff R'l and he would never get it if we said 'stop there's a cliff!!', we say 'stop there' a fire!!' and 'lie'. “
"Now, the details of which things we're allowed to and not allowed are not for everybody to decide willy-nilly"
One must follow reason not people.(rambam?)
"even the Rambam took things too far! "
Apparently we can decide that the rambam was wrong???!
The second question is the answer to the first you believe your chosen gedolim have access to a mesora that the Rambam didn't have. And strangely (laughably?) That rav saadia gaon didn't have either. (How can a mesora be legitimate if it's against the geonim? ( rav saadia calls thoese who believe in gilgulim " Kat hanikraim yehudim"!)
Now maybe your beliefs are correct but "Mesora" ? Certainly not.
A simple janitor does not just come in to his job on day one knowing everything. He learns the ropes first. A more complicated job requires more rope learning and more time learning from the experts. When we follow the Mesorah, the people, we are following those who know the ropes and can teach us. It is not reasonable to follow reason when you don't know what you are reasoning with.
"you believe your chosen gedolim have access to a mesora that the Rambam didn't have." correct, all except for the 'your chosen' part. If you want to debate the authenticity of the Zohar we can do that, but if that were a given, how is this not mesorah? When Rava was מחדש a הלכה that was different from the standard thinking of the time,a nd it turns out there was a ברייתא that was lost which follows רבא and we pasken like Rava, is that not מסורה, even though for at least a full generation everyone went the other way?
“And it turns out there was a ברייתא that was lost which follows רבא”.
I know it’s common that that people say things this way; but it’s not really accurate right? Didn’t the braita come several hundred years before Rava? It certainly doesn’t “follow” him; it supports him. He agrees with it.
My own impression generally is that many outsiders form impressions based purely on their own prejudices. (Example - an outsider at a tish, who thinks of himself (wrongly) as "open minded", sees thousands of mindless automatons, all in rapture, paying blind obeisance to their leader. But an insider knows how far very from the truth is such an impression.)
On the specific issue - its a big world. I'm sure you're right that there are those who would accept that Moshe was 15 feet tall. Are there "many", ie, a high statistical percentage of orthodox Jews who believe such a thing? No one here has ever taken a poll, but I would doubt it.
"But an insider knows how far very from the truth"
Why is it far from the truth? I have asked chasdidim what they are thinking of when the Rebbe eats bits of fish and carrot with his fingers whilst mumbling about nitzotzos which they cannot hear.
Believe you me, I never received a single response that leads me to believe their behavious is nothing more than mindless automatons, members of a cult. But its a lot easier than being in the beis hamedrash slogging over a tosfos on a long Friday night. So why not delude themselves into thinking they are performing some mitzvah.
The same exact thing any voluntarily assembled group of people think of the speaker at any given time: Some thinking "right on!",` some thinking "he's nuts!", and some whose minds are a million miles away.
I think that "All who go do not return" does a great job of describing both the positive and negative aspects of chassidic society. He talks about what drew him into Skver (it was his experience at a tish) and also how the people would hyperanalyze meaningless minute changes in the the Rebbe's actions from year to year. Chassidim who are not near a Rebbe get together to drink and sing in a similar way. It's not all about being an automaton. That said, it's not my cup of tea either.
Exactly. For some its religious, for others its social, and for probably the majority its a mix. Everything is like that. (But really my only point was that people impute all sorts of "beliefs" to groups, with no proof whatsoever.)
To make it clear, if you are one of the closed communities like New Square or KJ, there are cult-like aspects. There is a committee to ensure adherence to the party line (doing all religious functions within community institutions, ensuring complete hair shaving by women) with violence and threat of expulsion to back it up.
That's not really true, but I'll tell you what is - nothing comes close to the enforcement of dogma in left-wing liberal institutions or in corporate businesses controlled by left-wing investors.
PS Just for the avoidance of doubt, I take everything that academic 'scholars' like Lawee put out with a pinch of salt. I am sure Happy will shortly review some his writings and demonstrate the absolute nonsense that they tend to spout. Please do not read my comments as any sort of endorsement of academic scholorship.
The various views about Og's height is all "alteh toireh" (old news), as is Lawee's stuff, but the reverence v. beloved thing is interesting. The difference could be chalked up to Rambam's controversial views, or that Rashi is the one who leads us by the hand, both as children and still as adults. But I think its more likely because, as my teacher R. Wein once said (and he made movie biographies of both men), "Rashi is NICE." He emphasized the point. Rashi never uses strong or harsh language, against anyone. (There are one or two exceptions, which b/c of their outre nature have much commentary upon them.) Rambam, by contrast, doesn't suffer fools gladly. When he thinks something is dumb he doesn't hesitate to say so. Accordingly, while he is eminent, he isn't necessarily beloved. כנ"ל.
I obviously think there are so many stupid things here, but I'm going to focus on the one which is just a complete misnomer: the assertion that Rashi was really coming to explain the 'pshat,' and the 'rationally inclined' found it too 'drash.' The exact quote: "The reason was that Rashi’s “pshat” included what the more rationalistically-inclined Torah scholars considered to be drash. In other words, rabbinic exegeses which Spanish rationalists viewed as metaphorical (or as simply incorrect) were presented by Rashi as being the straightforward explanation of Scripture and thus true in their literal sense."
Anyone who has read a few פסוקים with Rashi knows that he wasn't coming to say just pshat (as the אבן עזרא famously points out). What he *was* coming to do was give the basic tradition of how to explain the פסוקים according to our תורה שבעל פה because the main point of the תורה שבכתב is to be blended with the בעל פה. This doesn't mean we shouldn't know the פשט - in fact, only if you know the פשט can you fully appreciate רש"י, and the פסוקים for that matter (I have no clue why that sefer was banned - now it's more expensive☹). But Rashi was just clearly not coming to say 'pshat.'
To reduce this whole discussion to saying that the 'rationally inclined scholars' thought it was too 'drash' is pretty shallow at best, and honestly has silly undertones, or perhaps explicit intentions, as if to say that 'mystics' don't know what 'pshat' is.
The reason why he was 'accepted' wasn't because he was our childhood friend (what the dickens was that??) but because he was literally coming to give over the basic מסורה of תושבע"פ on the תושב"כ, and besides being one of the first ever to do that, he was accepted because - hey, mission accomplished!
As opposed to the Rambam who, in his zeal to defend Chazal from those who made their words seem silly, ignored them from time to time. And as opposed to the פשטנים who weren't doing the same thing as Rashi.
Again, what exactly Rashi was coming to do is a complex topic, but what I said here is the at least the basix.
As far as the specific example at hand, about Og, I was just wondering about this on Shabbos (the Targum also says something interesting, אמת המלך or something), thanks for the extra push to really look into it!
What you are actually doing is transposing 2023 charedie views of Rashi back to 1070ish, and assuming that what 2023 charedie views are is what was in point 1,000 years ago.
Go into a dark room and carry out a thought experiment. Imagination. Imagine you were part of a small kehilla in France. A vintier (per legend) becomes known as a talmid chochom, one of many. They didn't refer to themselves as Rishonim, they were just talmidei chachochim. His talmidim (not many, remember yeshivas back them were a slightly smaller than BMG), began to distribute hand written sheets (probably a bit like today, all sorts of pamphlets are left lying around the Beis Hamedrash written by all sorts of people). They contained a somewhat radical pirush on chumash, blending midrash and peshat, in a cholunt. There was nobody back then to claim that 'Rashi had the 'basic mesorah' and was infallible. He was just another talmid chochom. There were no 'chumash rashi sedorim' back then. Nobody claimed back then that any body who learns the parsha with rashi each week is guaranteed olam haboh. In fact, until the 15th century his peshat on chumash was not revered more than any others.
In such a situation today you can imagine he had detractors and arguers and opponents and supporters of course. No different to Rabbis today, many of whom are at loggerheads with each other over all sorts of things.
Putting yourself in the year 1065, or even 1500 or 1700, why do you object to strenuously to other talmidei chachomim criticising rashi's mehalech? Why is it 'silly' to believe that? Have you never come acrosd Rabbis critical of other Rabbis mehalchim?
Rashi was revered world wide for his tremendous Torah knowledge and piety. And you're making up history about Rashi which was accepted by all who knew him pretty quickly as is evident from their many statements (Rabbeinu Tam, the Rosh etc.)
You don't even know what I am talking about by revered. I mean that they sat at his feet, drinking his every word like the משנה in אבות. They wouldn't dare disagree until they were close to his level of תורה ויראה (these two things are related btw)
My Roshei Yeshiva would say you can challenge anyone with your sources,logic,and reason.None of your ".. wouldn't dare disagree until they were close to his level...". We serve the Torah not the man himself.
Yah but if you are challenging before spending hours immersed in the sugya, that's not a challenge, that's just "hey buddy wait a few days, get into it and half your issues will be resolved" No one is serving anyone, just recognizing where we stand
It's funny when you accuse me of doing what you are guilty of doing. You think you are on the same level as Rashi, the Rambam and the Ramban and that there was no hidden levels because you've never experienced greatness in your life. Who's the one transposing?
I apologize if am misrepresenting your position. I should probably tone down the accusation. But you did say a lot of really weird things there, which are indicative of someone who doesn't get what Rishonim were about
I don't believe they were supernatural humans which is the yeshivaland view, I do not believe they are incapable of mistakes, true. I do not give them Papal infallibility. We leave that to Christians about there leaders. Human infallibility is not and has never been a Jewish thing about any person. Whatever yeshivaland believes.
But that does not mean I treat them as on my level.
No, that's just what you hear when you listen to yehivish people talk. It's like how physicists speak of their god Einstein, if we need a משל. We spend so many hours uncovering Rashi and the rishonim's depths that to us they are for all practical purposes infallible. No one thinks they can't make mistakes, it's just that in our vast experience, they never did.
EDIT I take that back, they were 'supernatural' in the sense that reached 'supernatural' levels of תורה ויראה (again, they go together). Do you know about these levels? As far as we're concerned, they were מלאכים! (including the Rambam) I shouldn't make light of that. חלילה to even bring a משל from einstein
"כן יאמר בהבלים כאלה אך עפרא לפומיה. [זה יאמר על המדבר דברים בלי כח השכלי כי יסוד העפר יכסה גם שכלו המיוחד להמדבר]” -אור שמח ה' תשובה פ"ד מאמר הכל צפוי
He's distilling many years of rigorous kiddush-club and coffee room observation, coupled with laser sharp analysis and a rigorous ethnographic sense of what *truly* motivates present day charedim. That's why his comments are so well reasoned and his arguments are so compelling.
You would do well to pay heed to his teachings. Mind you, he doesn't just call out any old charedi behavior. Only 'classic' ones.
Rashi himself writes that he comes to explain peshat (with drush as necessary to explain peshat)! Two or three times I think. He doesn't say he comes to weave 'basic mesorah drash' with peshat. The issue is he does, dispite stating he is only here for peshat, go and weave derash with peshat, the derush being unnecessary in many cases to explain the text. For example, you can understand the text perfectly well without believing soroh was hidden in a box.
that Rashi himself says so is an obvious issue, but take any five פסוקים with Rashi and see what he does and doesn't address and tell me he was coming to elucidate the 'pshat.' Most people I've seen discussing when Rashi says that he's coming to explain 'pshuto shel mikra' is that in context of figuring out תשב"פ sometimes it is necessary to understand pshat to get there. Another approach is that the word 'pshuto shel mikra' means the 'pshat' of what happened and what the פסוק is *really* trying to convey as opposed to the simpleton's reading which is usually far away from what a Jew is expected to know. I'm more inclined to the first approach, and even so I have my reservations and am not willing to sign off, but I'm also fine leaving it as a question. Add it to the list of things I don't yet understand.
What I unequivocally WON'T do is make a straw man and pretend that Rashi is here to say pshat and then knock down my straw man with every Rashi I read.
If Rashi was coming to provide pshat, he did a lousy job. He is silent on so many basic questions, and when he discusses matters, he quite often jumps to drash. There are hundreds of examples in every Parsha. Pshat, as in the simple reading of the Pasuk, while important to learn Chumash properly, it was just not what Rashi was doing. I guess anyone who learns Chumash Rashi like a mentch begins with thre pasuk at hand, and the parsha (I mean like פ to פ kind of parsha; inyan) and translates the words and asks the basic questions to himself. He thinks about what is being said and thinks of different solutions. Then he goes to Rashi, and sees what Rashi does and *does not* talk about. He may provide insight and start up pan approach to some of the points raised, but usually he is giving a very general picture that as you build up the different Rashi's, he clearly wants you to come away with a specific mehalech in the psukim, which is different than being a perush who is just here to explain pshat alone. When he deals with things, even pshat, it seems to be with a specific agenda, and as you get into the Rashi's it becomes more and more apparent (like learning a sugya).
That's basically what i meant by the first approach, that he explains the simple pshat in context of what he wants to show that the psukim are trying to convey in general. Which is very different then the first time reading of the psukim, the 'simpleton's reading'
Where do you get this stuff from. Your kindergarten Rebbe? What is 'basic mesorah'? As opposed to non-basic mesorah? And the Rambam and other Rishonim? Are they non-basic mesorah? not mesorah at all? Made up? what are they? Only Rashi had the 'basic mesorah', nobody else did?
Is all medrash torah sh'pal peh by the way? If I don't believe Avrohom saw a burning castle and wondered about its owner, does that make me a kofer in torah sh'pal peh? If I don't believe Avrohom hid Soroh in a box? Terach owned an idol shop? Is the burning castle 'basic mesorah'?
Why does rashi never quote vayokroh, bamidbor and devorim rabboh? Do you know why?
You must stop using these meaningless yeshivish phrases.
Your on point.כל הכבוד! On this blog from time to time we see comments about this elusive Mesorah. We have the Talmud and many scholars arguing about how to understand it etc. We adhere to certain basic concepts but there is no concrete written Mesorah. Basic beliefs,yes. But from there it is mostly what humans decided. Torah ," לא בשמים היא." Basic accepted procedures for determining Halacha but but no נבואה. In fact we do not determine Halacha because a נביא said it but byour rules and logic.
There is a difference between a נביא and a חכם. A נביא gets his directive from Hashem. A חכם figures it out things through spending a *lot* of effort and time, and as he does, things begin to become clear. The rishonim were not נביאים; they were חכמים. They spent a ton of effort and time on every detail, their ריכוז המחשבה was unbelievable, literally. And what happens after such tremendous toil is not just 'better understanding' but 'deeper understanding.' They get involved in the world of the Torah completely and are totally in line with the Torah on everything they say.
This includes the Rambam, of course, as anyone who *really* learns the Moreh knows. And many times when it turns out that the Ramban argues because of his knowledge of Kabbalah, the Rambam is still really, really close to the אמת, diverging in a small detail (as far as the big picture is concerned), Ramban beginning of Vayera about מלאכים is a great example of this.
The מסורה follows those who knew the most about this stuff. The Rambam didn't have the Zohar so he obviously missed some things, but he was miles closer to you and me. I'd suggest to anyone who needs help with these topics to read the Rambam really well, especially his long Hakdama to Moreh and his Hakdama to Chelek, as well as his many statements about Chazal and people who misread Chazal all over the place. (You can check out my blog https://rationalistjudaism2.substack.com/ to make it easier, we're getting there).
The Rambam was not a fan of פרישות. He thought it only necessary to sometimes correct a character flaw. He considered it a radical not preferred way to increase יראת שמים.
Btw this 'elusive' mesorah is something most people in yeshiva get after going through the system. Usually those who spent their time fighting the system were too busy (or lazy) to take the time to appreciate it. But it doesn't come in one comment thread. Meanwhile, you can check out my blog, we're exploring this issue slowly. https://rationalistjudaism2.substack.com/
I think that you have this backwards. Rashi is considered "basic mesorah" because the Aggadah he quotes is the Aggadah that everyone learns because it is quoted in Rashi. If he had quoted different midrashim, then they would have become considered "basic mesorah". Basic mesorah includes all sorts of things that are actually openly disputed. Dovid Hamelech not sinning and God's Providence over all details of the creation are good examples.
But your argument can be made about any system; most systems are self-confirming and we can be easily lead down the rabbit hole. I guess all I can say is that we can say the same thing with the Shulchan Aruch, which is a much easier topic to discuss. He was accepted as authoritative (to a certain extent) by all of כלל ישראל. Why? Is it because he was the first to write a kitzur and it became popular and therefore we follow it, or that his kitzur was accepted because it really covered everything and his greatness in Torah is what made him accepted? Two versions of history. How do we know which is true?
Here, I think most people understand that it was the latter. He was accepted because of his greatness to be able to pull out the best approach to halacha. He wasn't accepted because he was beloved and then we project meaning into that acceptance. Rather his בית יוסף was so lucid and clear and therefore his ש"ע which followed became the new "משנה".
While the rashi discussion is more complex, it really is the same idea. He was accepted because of his work and his greatness in Torah, evident in every line when you understand his work well, and that's why his work is still the basic.
OK but that undermines your original point which was that Rashi chose midrashim to reflect an existing mesorah. But there's really nothing inherently special about those vs others. What you refer to as "getting it" really just a sociological phenomenon; you figure out what everyone thinks and then conform. BTW, this explain your puzzle you raised on why they banned that version of the Chumash. It didn't conform to their sensibilities. But in reality there are more approaches in heaven and earth that can be dreamt of in their philosophy.
You really never got this whole mesorah thing, and since its meaningless to you, you assume it is meaningless to anyone else who uses that term, so it bugs you.
says you. You are saying explicitly that you don't get it. I am claiming to get it. Start with Moreh 3:8 or his hakdama to moreh where he talks about the lightning
Rashi often quotes Medrash and sometimes gives the פשט without citing the Medrash from which it is derived. There is a ספר( I can't remember the name) which presents the Medrash source for his פשט.
Any Rashi printed in any Mikras Gedolos today includes the sources. (Toras Chaim is also a kind of Mikras Gedolos, only without Achronim and in square-letter script.)
"...was give the basic tradition of how to explain the פסוקים according to our. תורה של בעל פה because the main point of the תורה שבכתב is to be blended with the בעל פה." Not everyone agrees with this. There are commentators who provide a seperate place for פשט even when it contradicts the Halacha.
It doesn't except to indicate that Medrashim are a vehicle to preach but necessarily dealing with real facts. See Maharitz Chayes Introduction to the Talmud.
If we accept the bed as being 14 feet long (assuming it means "bed" and not "cradle", and assuming our standard amma), it's even possible Og was more like 7 or 8 feet, and purposely used extra-large stuff to cultivate a reputation as being incredibly big. (Obviously, this is not Rashi...)
(Malbim says it was his *crib*, and had to be made of iron because he was such a strong toddler -- if he had a tantrum, he'd break a wooden one. The dimensions tell you his size, the material his strength. Perhaps something more like this: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa040933 .)
Rashi on the Gemara in Brachos says Moshe was ten Amos tall because so was the Mishkan, and his height measured up to it -- it would be easy to take that instead homiletically, that he had the merit of building the Mishkan.
The *Little Midrash Says* just shows the giant picture; the *Midrash Says* does suggest in a footnote that these measurements are references to his merits and life accomplishments.
Those pictures of mostly naked humans are not nice. Certainly the Rambam would never condone such a thing...its vulgar and crass...oh, you see it in so many books and so many websites....well the world is filled with people that aren't as refined as many Torah Jews...and you should maintain that sensitivity. Shame!
"“Rashi wrote with ruach hakodesh” - which is understood to mean that he was basically infallible."
In the Lubavitcher Rebbe's book "Hayom Yom" for 6th Shevat, he writes:
"My father [=Rabbi Sholem Dovber, the 5th Lubavitcher Rebbe] wrote that he heard in the name of the Alter Rebbe that all rabbinic authors until and including the Taz and Shach, composed their works with ruach hakodesh, the Divine Spirit. An individual's ruach hakodesh, as explained by Korban Ha'eida in Tractate Sh'kalim (Talmud Yerushalmi), end of ch. 3, means that the mysteries of Torah are revealed to him. This comes from the aspect of chochma in its pre-revelation state."
It's clear that writing with "ruach haKodesh" doesn't make a person infallible, since the Taz and Shach argue with each other!
Rather, it apparently means "having Divinely-assisted insight".
"Adam having relations with every animal before Eve was created. To many people today, it is “obvious” that this cannot be literal, because it would be so utterly distasteful"
Maybe when viewed through the lens of modern day western sensibilities, but before חטא, can you explain what was so "utterly distasteful" about it?
(I mean, for examples of דרוש being hard to comprehend you could have chosen better, such as Adam's sheer size....)
I see Rambam and Rashi a stretch in both directions if both are literal. If someone was 30 feet tall I can expect things to be exaggerated. But what's nine feet, if Moshe himself was at least taller than average.
See Netziv who says that the bed was of when he was a young boy, and citing another source that this cubit was the Royal cubit, known today in archeology to be around 21 inches.
"though, as Ibn Ezra and Mizrachi point out, with disproportionately short arms"
But more importantly if the passuk meant in "og ammos" then it actually says nothing at all about his height! It tells you that he either had a bed too big for him or a very strange arm:height ratio but nothing about his height relative to anyone else - he could equally have been a dwarf as giant by this measure. This would entirely defeat the point of making the statement at all.
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/
The conclusion is hilarious. "We're different from the heretical rationalists because *in principle*, we are fine with Rashi saying that Og was 500 feet tall, even though in practice we are actually uncomfortable with it."
Great that you enjoy!
For more entertainment, Lift the ban!!
"And in some cases, it was downright offensive. Prof. Lawee draws attention to Rashi’s citation of a Midrash about Adam having relations with every animal before Eve was created. To many people today, it is “obvious” that this cannot be literal, because it would be so utterly distasteful. Accordingly, many explain that Rashi was not (here) speaking literally."
I have no idea which people you hang out with, but the Artscroll edition of Rashi quotes both peshatim.
"But Rashi became so popular that the opposition died out. And nowadays, people would simply insist that those who understood Rashi to be speaking literally must have been wrong. “Rashi wrote with ruach hakodesh” - which is understood to mean that he was basically infallible."
Again, you seem to be very attracted to mythical creatures. You don't need to think rashi was 'basically infallible' to insist that he wasn't being literal. You just need to believe 1) a literal reading implicates Adam as engaging in bestiality. 2) Bestiality is halachically unacceptable and/or morally reprehensible, and 2a) always has been. 3) Rashi (really, the midrash he's quoting) wasn't casually imputing halachically unacceptable/ morally reprehensible behavior to Adam Harishon, particularly before the cheit. *IF* you accept those 3 premises, the conclusion ineluctably follows. Now, that doesn't mean that everyone accepted those 3 premises. R Herzceg cites some meforshei Rashi (super-commentators b'academic la'az) who understand Rashi literally because they deny premise #2. But none of that chain of reasoning involves any of the sociological psychobabble about current charedi sensitivities.
"And I doubt that many people today, no matter what they profess to believe, actually really believe that Moshe was fifteen feet tall and Og was hundreds of feet tall." Interesting point--my impression is that there are many people who accept midrashim as being the "real" Torah and would uncritically accept Moshe as being 15 feet tall.
Most kids are taught literally and when they grow up they learn what the true meaning was (just like kids are taught that Hashem has 'hands'). But some people get older and keep their elementary school Judaism and then reject it - mind you, they're grown adults now - and they create this idea of 'two camps' in their brains. Their only opponents are the other small minded people who have grown up and accepted the words כפשוטם, but that has nothing to do with any ראשונים...
Dovid, just checking - it seems like you’re saying that those people who believe that midrashim are literally true are like “kids”, “small minded people who have grown up up and accepted the words k’pshutam”?
I’m not sure that’s what you were saying; If it is, I’d agree with you (though I wouldn’t express it in those words). Raising kids is difficult, I try to help mine understand that sometimes the Torah says something and the midrash says something completely different and sometimes they’re both simply trying to teach lessons rather than either being literally true. My youngest, who just turned 9y/o just had a brief discussion with me (this just happened an few days ago) about the fact that he doesn’t think dinosaurs were real because the world is only less than 6,000 years old. (I wish I could recall what precipitated the comments - it might have been that he was watching the “ice age” movie. Or those might have just been 2 separate things that happened this week.)
I don’t want to force beliefs on him, I want him to think. I just raised some questions maybe - dinosaurs are real …. there are bones and skeletons found in lots of places. Maybe the world is older. Maybe the Torah is telling us something different for a reason. Maybe it’s more important to learn moral, ethical, and halakhic lessons from the Torah rather than history lessons…
It’s difficult discussing that with kids. They like clarity and literalism. But as you say - some people never grow up and maintain childish outlooks into adulthood. Luckily, even if my 9y/o still believes the world
Is literally less than 6,000 years old, at least he does understand that not everything is literally true - if dinosaurs did exist, he does realize that they probably didn’t “speak English” likes they do in “ice age”. We looked at the voice actors together - he recognized “Josh Peck” telling me he was teaching a bar mitzvah boy in a different movie, and he also asked me if Queen Latifah was a real queen.
Let's be really clear though. When I speak of growing up, I use the Rambam's definition (hakdama to chelek): when you're mature enough to begin to learn about and conceptualize the world of the immaterial (which takes many years of mature training, I plan on writing a post about this pretty soon, probably the one after then next). When you get there, you can start to see how a lot of what Chazal meant wasn't in its 'literal' -meaning physical - sense, but based on its conceptual reality. Once you're there, it's not too difficult to distinguish between which things are and which things are most definitely NOT meant to be taken figuratively. Many people think they can start taking things non literally before they mature and still have no conception of the immaterial and end up too far the other way, close to kefirah or worse, taking very literal things, like Avraham Avinu being a real historical figure, non-literally.
Now, the details of which things we're allowed to and not allowed are not for everybody to decide willy-nilly - even the Rambam took things too far! Until ready, I would err on the side of caution otherwise one can fall off the deep end.
I'm probably not on the same page as you, for example, about the age of the earth, but that's a detail. For chinuch, while teaching to think is really REALLY important, one must ALSO teach that we don't know everything, which is equally, or even more important. Good chinuch is to give over the mesorah well, while also showing how to think for yourself and make proper and informed decisions. Showing how great our gedolim are (even if that gives the impression of infallibility for a few years) but then also teaching them how to deal with questions is a delicate balance but most reasonable people I know do a fine job bH.
A good example is science. One can teach his kid to think for himself and ignore the multitude of evidence because "why should you trust anyone else?" Such a kid will probably end up a flat earther and a climate change denier (not getting involved lol). We don't teach that. We teach to think for yourself but to also healthily trust the systems. And here also, not to trust the systems blindly (as believing Jews we don't buy a lot of the system's garbage such as the trans stuff), because that also leads to issues, but to be able to strike the right healthy balance.
I'm not sure where you stand on the issues I've mentioned (I tried to be relatively parve) but while we can debate the specific details, this nuance is very important. Learning how to think, but also when and how to trust.
“ For chinuch, while teaching to think is really REALLY important, one must ALSO teach that we don't know everything, which is equally, or even more important. ”.
I completely agree. Knowing (and being able to admit) that we don’t know stuff is extremely important. And I agree with the rest of that paragraph as well.
I agree with most of everything you wrote in this response as well.
One point I would raise a concern with is where you spoke of erring on the side of caution. If one believes that taking things literally in the physical sense (to borrow your words) when it was not meant so is wrong (because then the actual message is lost as mere history or whatever)… then it’s not always clear in respect to these issues which side caution is on.
"then it’s not always clear in respect to these issues which side caution is on" I would argue like the Rambam that the literal words are important as well, because they are 'in the language of man' and especially for kids who can't understand the undertones of nuance, we should teach them the literal and explain as they get older and more mature what to ad what not to take literally. So I think when it comes to chinuch specifically we should err on this side. The rambam says this in hakdama to chelek to a certain extent (famous analogy if a kid is abut to fall off a cliff R'l and he would never get it if we said 'stop there's a cliff!!', we say 'stop there' a fire!!' and 'lie'. Only here its not a lie because it is the actual meaning only a more non-physical plane)
“that the literal words are important as well”
ein mikra yotze midei peshuto. (As long as we know what “pshat” is - not always as obvious as it might seem)
“famous analogy if a kid is abut to fall off a cliff R'l and he would never get it if we said 'stop there's a cliff!!', we say 'stop there' a fire!!' and 'lie'. “
But we can’t stay children forever.
"Now, the details of which things we're allowed to and not allowed are not for everybody to decide willy-nilly"
One must follow reason not people.(rambam?)
"even the Rambam took things too far! "
Apparently we can decide that the rambam was wrong???!
The second question is the answer to the first you believe your chosen gedolim have access to a mesora that the Rambam didn't have. And strangely (laughably?) That rav saadia gaon didn't have either. (How can a mesora be legitimate if it's against the geonim? ( rav saadia calls thoese who believe in gilgulim " Kat hanikraim yehudim"!)
Now maybe your beliefs are correct but "Mesora" ? Certainly not.
A simple janitor does not just come in to his job on day one knowing everything. He learns the ropes first. A more complicated job requires more rope learning and more time learning from the experts. When we follow the Mesorah, the people, we are following those who know the ropes and can teach us. It is not reasonable to follow reason when you don't know what you are reasoning with.
"you believe your chosen gedolim have access to a mesora that the Rambam didn't have." correct, all except for the 'your chosen' part. If you want to debate the authenticity of the Zohar we can do that, but if that were a given, how is this not mesorah? When Rava was מחדש a הלכה that was different from the standard thinking of the time,a nd it turns out there was a ברייתא that was lost which follows רבא and we pasken like Rava, is that not מסורה, even though for at least a full generation everyone went the other way?
“And it turns out there was a ברייתא that was lost which follows רבא”.
I know it’s common that that people say things this way; but it’s not really accurate right? Didn’t the braita come several hundred years before Rava? It certainly doesn’t “follow” him; it supports him. He agrees with it.
My own impression generally is that many outsiders form impressions based purely on their own prejudices. (Example - an outsider at a tish, who thinks of himself (wrongly) as "open minded", sees thousands of mindless automatons, all in rapture, paying blind obeisance to their leader. But an insider knows how far very from the truth is such an impression.)
On the specific issue - its a big world. I'm sure you're right that there are those who would accept that Moshe was 15 feet tall. Are there "many", ie, a high statistical percentage of orthodox Jews who believe such a thing? No one here has ever taken a poll, but I would doubt it.
"But an insider knows how far very from the truth"
Why is it far from the truth? I have asked chasdidim what they are thinking of when the Rebbe eats bits of fish and carrot with his fingers whilst mumbling about nitzotzos which they cannot hear.
Believe you me, I never received a single response that leads me to believe their behavious is nothing more than mindless automatons, members of a cult. But its a lot easier than being in the beis hamedrash slogging over a tosfos on a long Friday night. So why not delude themselves into thinking they are performing some mitzvah.
My friend, it may just be you who's delusional. You hear what you want to hear. You see what you want to see.
So what are they thinking of?
The same exact thing any voluntarily assembled group of people think of the speaker at any given time: Some thinking "right on!",` some thinking "he's nuts!", and some whose minds are a million miles away.
What do you mean by 'right-on' ? What is 'right-on' in thr context of a rebbe eating fish and carrots with his fingers?
I think that "All who go do not return" does a great job of describing both the positive and negative aspects of chassidic society. He talks about what drew him into Skver (it was his experience at a tish) and also how the people would hyperanalyze meaningless minute changes in the the Rebbe's actions from year to year. Chassidim who are not near a Rebbe get together to drink and sing in a similar way. It's not all about being an automaton. That said, it's not my cup of tea either.
Exactly. For some its religious, for others its social, and for probably the majority its a mix. Everything is like that. (But really my only point was that people impute all sorts of "beliefs" to groups, with no proof whatsoever.)
To make it clear, if you are one of the closed communities like New Square or KJ, there are cult-like aspects. There is a committee to ensure adherence to the party line (doing all religious functions within community institutions, ensuring complete hair shaving by women) with violence and threat of expulsion to back it up.
That's not really true, but I'll tell you what is - nothing comes close to the enforcement of dogma in left-wing liberal institutions or in corporate businesses controlled by left-wing investors.
Garvin did not in any way endorse Rebbes eating gefilte fish. That is entirely your projecting.
PS Just for the avoidance of doubt, I take everything that academic 'scholars' like Lawee put out with a pinch of salt. I am sure Happy will shortly review some his writings and demonstrate the absolute nonsense that they tend to spout. Please do not read my comments as any sort of endorsement of academic scholorship.
Impressive, test!
The various views about Og's height is all "alteh toireh" (old news), as is Lawee's stuff, but the reverence v. beloved thing is interesting. The difference could be chalked up to Rambam's controversial views, or that Rashi is the one who leads us by the hand, both as children and still as adults. But I think its more likely because, as my teacher R. Wein once said (and he made movie biographies of both men), "Rashi is NICE." He emphasized the point. Rashi never uses strong or harsh language, against anyone. (There are one or two exceptions, which b/c of their outre nature have much commentary upon them.) Rambam, by contrast, doesn't suffer fools gladly. When he thinks something is dumb he doesn't hesitate to say so. Accordingly, while he is eminent, he isn't necessarily beloved. כנ"ל.
I obviously think there are so many stupid things here, but I'm going to focus on the one which is just a complete misnomer: the assertion that Rashi was really coming to explain the 'pshat,' and the 'rationally inclined' found it too 'drash.' The exact quote: "The reason was that Rashi’s “pshat” included what the more rationalistically-inclined Torah scholars considered to be drash. In other words, rabbinic exegeses which Spanish rationalists viewed as metaphorical (or as simply incorrect) were presented by Rashi as being the straightforward explanation of Scripture and thus true in their literal sense."
Anyone who has read a few פסוקים with Rashi knows that he wasn't coming to say just pshat (as the אבן עזרא famously points out). What he *was* coming to do was give the basic tradition of how to explain the פסוקים according to our תורה שבעל פה because the main point of the תורה שבכתב is to be blended with the בעל פה. This doesn't mean we shouldn't know the פשט - in fact, only if you know the פשט can you fully appreciate רש"י, and the פסוקים for that matter (I have no clue why that sefer was banned - now it's more expensive☹). But Rashi was just clearly not coming to say 'pshat.'
To reduce this whole discussion to saying that the 'rationally inclined scholars' thought it was too 'drash' is pretty shallow at best, and honestly has silly undertones, or perhaps explicit intentions, as if to say that 'mystics' don't know what 'pshat' is.
The reason why he was 'accepted' wasn't because he was our childhood friend (what the dickens was that??) but because he was literally coming to give over the basic מסורה of תושבע"פ on the תושב"כ, and besides being one of the first ever to do that, he was accepted because - hey, mission accomplished!
As opposed to the Rambam who, in his zeal to defend Chazal from those who made their words seem silly, ignored them from time to time. And as opposed to the פשטנים who weren't doing the same thing as Rashi.
Again, what exactly Rashi was coming to do is a complex topic, but what I said here is the at least the basix.
As far as the specific example at hand, about Og, I was just wondering about this on Shabbos (the Targum also says something interesting, אמת המלך or something), thanks for the extra push to really look into it!
What you are actually doing is transposing 2023 charedie views of Rashi back to 1070ish, and assuming that what 2023 charedie views are is what was in point 1,000 years ago.
Go into a dark room and carry out a thought experiment. Imagination. Imagine you were part of a small kehilla in France. A vintier (per legend) becomes known as a talmid chochom, one of many. They didn't refer to themselves as Rishonim, they were just talmidei chachochim. His talmidim (not many, remember yeshivas back them were a slightly smaller than BMG), began to distribute hand written sheets (probably a bit like today, all sorts of pamphlets are left lying around the Beis Hamedrash written by all sorts of people). They contained a somewhat radical pirush on chumash, blending midrash and peshat, in a cholunt. There was nobody back then to claim that 'Rashi had the 'basic mesorah' and was infallible. He was just another talmid chochom. There were no 'chumash rashi sedorim' back then. Nobody claimed back then that any body who learns the parsha with rashi each week is guaranteed olam haboh. In fact, until the 15th century his peshat on chumash was not revered more than any others.
In such a situation today you can imagine he had detractors and arguers and opponents and supporters of course. No different to Rabbis today, many of whom are at loggerheads with each other over all sorts of things.
Putting yourself in the year 1065, or even 1500 or 1700, why do you object to strenuously to other talmidei chachomim criticising rashi's mehalech? Why is it 'silly' to believe that? Have you never come acrosd Rabbis critical of other Rabbis mehalchim?
Rashi was revered world wide for his tremendous Torah knowledge and piety. And you're making up history about Rashi which was accepted by all who knew him pretty quickly as is evident from their many statements (Rabbeinu Tam, the Rosh etc.)
We are not discussing emotion here. Whether somebody was 'revered' or not is totally irrelevant. I revere plenty of people I disagree with.
You don't even know what I am talking about by revered. I mean that they sat at his feet, drinking his every word like the משנה in אבות. They wouldn't dare disagree until they were close to his level of תורה ויראה (these two things are related btw)
My Roshei Yeshiva would say you can challenge anyone with your sources,logic,and reason.None of your ".. wouldn't dare disagree until they were close to his level...". We serve the Torah not the man himself.
Yah but if you are challenging before spending hours immersed in the sugya, that's not a challenge, that's just "hey buddy wait a few days, get into it and half your issues will be resolved" No one is serving anyone, just recognizing where we stand
With respect of course.
More transposing from today to back then.
You have absolutely no idea.
Uh huh. Got it.
I can repeat the same words. See my comment below https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/rashis-giants/comment/20975469
Oh, sure.
It's funny when you accuse me of doing what you are guilty of doing. You think you are on the same level as Rashi, the Rambam and the Ramban and that there was no hidden levels because you've never experienced greatness in your life. Who's the one transposing?
What makes you think I think I am on the same level of the Rishonim?
You've hinted such notions in previous conversations - https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/acceptance-of-the-torah-shebaal-peh/comments
I apologize if am misrepresenting your position. I should probably tone down the accusation. But you did say a lot of really weird things there, which are indicative of someone who doesn't get what Rishonim were about
I don't believe they were supernatural humans which is the yeshivaland view, I do not believe they are incapable of mistakes, true. I do not give them Papal infallibility. We leave that to Christians about there leaders. Human infallibility is not and has never been a Jewish thing about any person. Whatever yeshivaland believes.
But that does not mean I treat them as on my level.
No, that's just what you hear when you listen to yehivish people talk. It's like how physicists speak of their god Einstein, if we need a משל. We spend so many hours uncovering Rashi and the rishonim's depths that to us they are for all practical purposes infallible. No one thinks they can't make mistakes, it's just that in our vast experience, they never did.
EDIT I take that back, they were 'supernatural' in the sense that reached 'supernatural' levels of תורה ויראה (again, they go together). Do you know about these levels? As far as we're concerned, they were מלאכים! (including the Rambam) I shouldn't make light of that. חלילה to even bring a משל from einstein
And you live in cuckoo land.
"כן יאמר בהבלים כאלה אך עפרא לפומיה. [זה יאמר על המדבר דברים בלי כח השכלי כי יסוד העפר יכסה גם שכלו המיוחד להמדבר]” -אור שמח ה' תשובה פ"ד מאמר הכל צפוי
He's distilling many years of rigorous kiddush-club and coffee room observation, coupled with laser sharp analysis and a rigorous ethnographic sense of what *truly* motivates present day charedim. That's why his comments are so well reasoned and his arguments are so compelling.
You would do well to pay heed to his teachings. Mind you, he doesn't just call out any old charedi behavior. Only 'classic' ones.
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/censorship-in-the-modern-orthodox/comment/18527581
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/a-good-example-of-the-academic-style/comment/20988180
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/censorship-in-the-modern-orthodox/comment/18530106
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/the-fallacy-of-economic-catastrophism/comment/18204773
Rashi himself writes that he comes to explain peshat (with drush as necessary to explain peshat)! Two or three times I think. He doesn't say he comes to weave 'basic mesorah drash' with peshat. The issue is he does, dispite stating he is only here for peshat, go and weave derash with peshat, the derush being unnecessary in many cases to explain the text. For example, you can understand the text perfectly well without believing soroh was hidden in a box.
that Rashi himself says so is an obvious issue, but take any five פסוקים with Rashi and see what he does and doesn't address and tell me he was coming to elucidate the 'pshat.' Most people I've seen discussing when Rashi says that he's coming to explain 'pshuto shel mikra' is that in context of figuring out תשב"פ sometimes it is necessary to understand pshat to get there. Another approach is that the word 'pshuto shel mikra' means the 'pshat' of what happened and what the פסוק is *really* trying to convey as opposed to the simpleton's reading which is usually far away from what a Jew is expected to know. I'm more inclined to the first approach, and even so I have my reservations and am not willing to sign off, but I'm also fine leaving it as a question. Add it to the list of things I don't yet understand.
What I unequivocally WON'T do is make a straw man and pretend that Rashi is here to say pshat and then knock down my straw man with every Rashi I read.
What is this pshat that you deny Rashi is providing? You should define the term, at least in this context.
I'm also having trouble with your statement that provides only two options:
1) " the 'pshat' of what happened and what the פסוק is *really* trying to convey" (These are two things!)
2) "the simpleton's reading which is usually far away from what a Jew is expected to know"
If Rashi was coming to provide pshat, he did a lousy job. He is silent on so many basic questions, and when he discusses matters, he quite often jumps to drash. There are hundreds of examples in every Parsha. Pshat, as in the simple reading of the Pasuk, while important to learn Chumash properly, it was just not what Rashi was doing. I guess anyone who learns Chumash Rashi like a mentch begins with thre pasuk at hand, and the parsha (I mean like פ to פ kind of parsha; inyan) and translates the words and asks the basic questions to himself. He thinks about what is being said and thinks of different solutions. Then he goes to Rashi, and sees what Rashi does and *does not* talk about. He may provide insight and start up pan approach to some of the points raised, but usually he is giving a very general picture that as you build up the different Rashi's, he clearly wants you to come away with a specific mehalech in the psukim, which is different than being a perush who is just here to explain pshat alone. When he deals with things, even pshat, it seems to be with a specific agenda, and as you get into the Rashi's it becomes more and more apparent (like learning a sugya).
That's basically what i meant by the first approach, that he explains the simple pshat in context of what he wants to show that the psukim are trying to convey in general. Which is very different then the first time reading of the psukim, the 'simpleton's reading'
The Radak was a more rationalist commentator, and usually tries to explain the text by grammatical analysis.
I vaguely remember reading in his introduction to his commentary that he'll bring midrashei Chazal "because people enjoy reading midrashim".
banned for leaving endless comments with zero content, just insults.
"...basic מסורה of תושבע"פ on the תושב"כ"
Where do you get this stuff from. Your kindergarten Rebbe? What is 'basic mesorah'? As opposed to non-basic mesorah? And the Rambam and other Rishonim? Are they non-basic mesorah? not mesorah at all? Made up? what are they? Only Rashi had the 'basic mesorah', nobody else did?
Is all medrash torah sh'pal peh by the way? If I don't believe Avrohom saw a burning castle and wondered about its owner, does that make me a kofer in torah sh'pal peh? If I don't believe Avrohom hid Soroh in a box? Terach owned an idol shop? Is the burning castle 'basic mesorah'?
Why does rashi never quote vayokroh, bamidbor and devorim rabboh? Do you know why?
You must stop using these meaningless yeshivish phrases.
Your on point.כל הכבוד! On this blog from time to time we see comments about this elusive Mesorah. We have the Talmud and many scholars arguing about how to understand it etc. We adhere to certain basic concepts but there is no concrete written Mesorah. Basic beliefs,yes. But from there it is mostly what humans decided. Torah ," לא בשמים היא." Basic accepted procedures for determining Halacha but but no נבואה. In fact we do not determine Halacha because a נביא said it but byour rules and logic.
There is a difference between a נביא and a חכם. A נביא gets his directive from Hashem. A חכם figures it out things through spending a *lot* of effort and time, and as he does, things begin to become clear. The rishonim were not נביאים; they were חכמים. They spent a ton of effort and time on every detail, their ריכוז המחשבה was unbelievable, literally. And what happens after such tremendous toil is not just 'better understanding' but 'deeper understanding.' They get involved in the world of the Torah completely and are totally in line with the Torah on everything they say.
This includes the Rambam, of course, as anyone who *really* learns the Moreh knows. And many times when it turns out that the Ramban argues because of his knowledge of Kabbalah, the Rambam is still really, really close to the אמת, diverging in a small detail (as far as the big picture is concerned), Ramban beginning of Vayera about מלאכים is a great example of this.
The מסורה follows those who knew the most about this stuff. The Rambam didn't have the Zohar so he obviously missed some things, but he was miles closer to you and me. I'd suggest to anyone who needs help with these topics to read the Rambam really well, especially his long Hakdama to Moreh and his Hakdama to Chelek, as well as his many statements about Chazal and people who misread Chazal all over the place. (You can check out my blog https://rationalistjudaism2.substack.com/ to make it easier, we're getting there).
"The מסורה follows those who knew the most about this stuff"
How do I apply to the panel that decides who 'knew the most about this stuff'?
You troll so much, you're getting hard to troll.
learn a bit about how יראת שמים ופרישות is connected to ידיעת התורה
You didn't answer my question.
The Rambam was not a fan of פרישות. He thought it only necessary to sometimes correct a character flaw. He considered it a radical not preferred way to increase יראת שמים.
lol
Start with Moreh 3:8
The Rambam did not believe in גילגול נשמות. He thought that these ideas are from pagan sources.
K...?
Btw this 'elusive' mesorah is something most people in yeshiva get after going through the system. Usually those who spent their time fighting the system were too busy (or lazy) to take the time to appreciate it. But it doesn't come in one comment thread. Meanwhile, you can check out my blog, we're exploring this issue slowly. https://rationalistjudaism2.substack.com/
I think that you have this backwards. Rashi is considered "basic mesorah" because the Aggadah he quotes is the Aggadah that everyone learns because it is quoted in Rashi. If he had quoted different midrashim, then they would have become considered "basic mesorah". Basic mesorah includes all sorts of things that are actually openly disputed. Dovid Hamelech not sinning and God's Providence over all details of the creation are good examples.
no question that Rashi canonized certain things (see ש"ך in נקודת הכסף about honoring grandparents for example https://www.sefaria.org/Nekudat_HaKesef_on_Shulchan_Arukh%2C_Yoreh_De'ah.240.3?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en (240:3) )
But your argument can be made about any system; most systems are self-confirming and we can be easily lead down the rabbit hole. I guess all I can say is that we can say the same thing with the Shulchan Aruch, which is a much easier topic to discuss. He was accepted as authoritative (to a certain extent) by all of כלל ישראל. Why? Is it because he was the first to write a kitzur and it became popular and therefore we follow it, or that his kitzur was accepted because it really covered everything and his greatness in Torah is what made him accepted? Two versions of history. How do we know which is true?
Here, I think most people understand that it was the latter. He was accepted because of his greatness to be able to pull out the best approach to halacha. He wasn't accepted because he was beloved and then we project meaning into that acceptance. Rather his בית יוסף was so lucid and clear and therefore his ש"ע which followed became the new "משנה".
While the rashi discussion is more complex, it really is the same idea. He was accepted because of his work and his greatness in Torah, evident in every line when you understand his work well, and that's why his work is still the basic.
You seem to take the opposite view.
Am I coming off clear?
OK but that undermines your original point which was that Rashi chose midrashim to reflect an existing mesorah. But there's really nothing inherently special about those vs others. What you refer to as "getting it" really just a sociological phenomenon; you figure out what everyone thinks and then conform. BTW, this explain your puzzle you raised on why they banned that version of the Chumash. It didn't conform to their sensibilities. But in reality there are more approaches in heaven and earth that can be dreamt of in their philosophy.
"Your kindergarten Rebbe?"
No need to get so testy. (Plus, דוד must have been quite the gifted tot had he learned רש"י in kindergarden!)
I do think that דוד should clarify his remarks, though. Specifically what he means by פשט in the context of his comments.
You are right. But he bugs me with his constant references to 'the mesorah'.
Blah blah blah.
You really never got this whole mesorah thing, and since its meaningless to you, you assume it is meaningless to anyone else who uses that term, so it bugs you.
You don't get it either. You are just talking the talk.
Those who don't get it assume others also don't:(
Tell it to the marines.
says you. You are saying explicitly that you don't get it. I am claiming to get it. Start with Moreh 3:8 or his hakdama to moreh where he talks about the lightning
See a shrink.
".....I have no clue why that sefer was banned - now it's more expensive☹"
It's not for you to query da'as torah in that manner.
Great line. Not.
Lol
Rashi often quotes Medrash and sometimes gives the פשט without citing the Medrash from which it is derived. There is a ספר( I can't remember the name) which presents the Medrash source for his פשט.
Start with תורת חיים published by מוסד רב קוק.
No doubt there are others. (Of the hundreds of volumes on Rashi, I doubt if even ten percent of them are in print in a modern edition.)
Any Rashi printed in any Mikras Gedolos today includes the sources. (Toras Chaim is also a kind of Mikras Gedolos, only without Achronim and in square-letter script.)
Thanks
"...was give the basic tradition of how to explain the פסוקים according to our. תורה של בעל פה because the main point of the תורה שבכתב is to be blended with the בעל פה." Not everyone agrees with this. There are commentators who provide a seperate place for פשט even when it contradicts the Halacha.
I'm sorry, can you explain?
Yes it is important to know the פשט . This does not necessarily align with the Medrash.
true. how does that contradict my statement?
It doesn't except to indicate that Medrashim are a vehicle to preach but necessarily dealing with real facts. See Maharitz Chayes Introduction to the Talmud.
do you mean "aren't" necessarily...?
If we accept the bed as being 14 feet long (assuming it means "bed" and not "cradle", and assuming our standard amma), it's even possible Og was more like 7 or 8 feet, and purposely used extra-large stuff to cultivate a reputation as being incredibly big. (Obviously, this is not Rashi...)
(Malbim says it was his *crib*, and had to be made of iron because he was such a strong toddler -- if he had a tantrum, he'd break a wooden one. The dimensions tell you his size, the material his strength. Perhaps something more like this: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa040933 .)
Rashi on the Gemara in Brachos says Moshe was ten Amos tall because so was the Mishkan, and his height measured up to it -- it would be easy to take that instead homiletically, that he had the merit of building the Mishkan.
The *Little Midrash Says* just shows the giant picture; the *Midrash Says* does suggest in a footnote that these measurements are references to his merits and life accomplishments.
Those pictures of mostly naked humans are not nice. Certainly the Rambam would never condone such a thing...its vulgar and crass...oh, you see it in so many books and so many websites....well the world is filled with people that aren't as refined as many Torah Jews...and you should maintain that sensitivity. Shame!
It's actually blocked by my filter. But based on your description, I'm guessing it was a museum exhibit which got out of hand.
"“Rashi wrote with ruach hakodesh” - which is understood to mean that he was basically infallible."
In the Lubavitcher Rebbe's book "Hayom Yom" for 6th Shevat, he writes:
"My father [=Rabbi Sholem Dovber, the 5th Lubavitcher Rebbe] wrote that he heard in the name of the Alter Rebbe that all rabbinic authors until and including the Taz and Shach, composed their works with ruach hakodesh, the Divine Spirit. An individual's ruach hakodesh, as explained by Korban Ha'eida in Tractate Sh'kalim (Talmud Yerushalmi), end of ch. 3, means that the mysteries of Torah are revealed to him. This comes from the aspect of chochma in its pre-revelation state."
It's clear that writing with "ruach haKodesh" doesn't make a person infallible, since the Taz and Shach argue with each other!
Rather, it apparently means "having Divinely-assisted insight".
Yes. If you believe rashi wrote with ruach hakodesh how could ramban ever argue?
How rashi is okay with nach being mistaken
Nechemia 7:7
Or how he quotes josephus against the seder olam (Daniel 11:2)
(I have heard it argued that rashi does not quote josephus rather yosipon which was written 10 century).
Heres a short exploration of four approaches in reconciling Chazals notion of peshat with our more modern conception thereof
https://musingsonthetorah.blogspot.com/2023/07/on-pardes-of-peshat.html
Was this post specially timed for Rashi's Yahrzeit, 29th Tammuz?
"Adam having relations with every animal before Eve was created. To many people today, it is “obvious” that this cannot be literal, because it would be so utterly distasteful"
Maybe when viewed through the lens of modern day western sensibilities, but before חטא, can you explain what was so "utterly distasteful" about it?
(I mean, for examples of דרוש being hard to comprehend you could have chosen better, such as Adam's sheer size....)
I see Rambam and Rashi a stretch in both directions if both are literal. If someone was 30 feet tall I can expect things to be exaggerated. But what's nine feet, if Moshe himself was at least taller than average.
See Netziv who says that the bed was of when he was a young boy, and citing another source that this cubit was the Royal cubit, known today in archeology to be around 21 inches.
"though, as Ibn Ezra and Mizrachi point out, with disproportionately short arms"
But more importantly if the passuk meant in "og ammos" then it actually says nothing at all about his height! It tells you that he either had a bed too big for him or a very strange arm:height ratio but nothing about his height relative to anyone else - he could equally have been a dwarf as giant by this measure. This would entirely defeat the point of making the statement at all.
(btw DNS, I apologize for kinda hijacking the comment section here. I voiced my opinion and am following up, not trolling, hope that's clear...)