Unique Medieval Jewish Philosophers
Michael A. Torczyner
There has been much recent debate regarding the Ibn Ezra's
opinions on the authorship of the last Perek of the Torah. I am not enough
of an authority on the entirety of Ibn Ezra's writing, to be able to
comment on this area. I must wonder, though, why the possible existence
of a single dissenting opinion automatically justifies our own acceptance
of that opinion.
To create an admittedly imperfect analogy, if Tosafot rules a
Halachah one way, and Rashi, Rambam, Ran, Rosh, Mordechai and Shulchan
Aruch rule otherwise, don't we reject Tosafot's minority opinion? In fact,
aren't many Conservative and Mod. Orthodox rabbis very upset about people
who choose to promote such minority stringencies as may exist?
So why does Ibn Ezra's supposed opinion, standing in opposition to
that of the near-entirety of the canon of his peers, carry any weight at
all regarding our own positions?
Mordechai
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
WEBSHAS! http://www.virtual.co.il/torah/webshas & Leave the Keywords at Home
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Lapidus
On 7 May 1997 17:07:47 GMT, in article <5kqct3$2v8$1...@news.nyu.edu>,
> There has been much recent debate regarding the Ibn Ezra's
>opinions on the authorship of the last Perek of the Torah. I am not enough
>of an authority on the entirety of Ibn Ezra's writing, to be able to
>comment on this area. I must wonder, though, why the possible existence
>of a single dissenting opinion automatically justifies our own acceptance
>of that opinion.
Dear Mordechai,
IE is more than just the proponent of "a single dissenting opinion."
He is considered among the giants of his period. Only a handful of
commentaries are included in standard editions of the Mikraot Gedolot
and his is one of them. No Orthodox Jew today, not even Yehuda, would
dare to cast aspersions on him.
> To create an admittedly imperfect analogy, if Tosafot rules a
>Halachah one way, and Rashi, Rambam, Ran, Rosh, Mordechai and Shulchan
>Aruch rule otherwise, don't we reject Tosafot's minority opinion? In fact,
>aren't many Conservative and Mod. Orthodox rabbis very upset about people
>who choose to promote such minority stringencies as may exist?
You are correct that the analogy is imperfect. Halakha is not
necessarily simply a matter of fact (e.g., What is the law?), but it
can be a matter of application and nuance.
On the other hand, higher criticism deals ultimately with back and
white facts - i.e., questions of authorship, sources, origins and
dating, even if one cannot yet determine those facts. Specifically,
either Moshe wrote down all or part of Devarim 34 or he did not. If
he did not, who did? Joshua? D? R? The Tannaim already had reason to
question the Mosaic transcription of the final eight verses and
attributed them to Joshua. That is a form of higher criticism. IE
had reason to go further - he questioned the final twelve verses - and
he made cryptic references to other anachronistic verses in the Torah,
which previous giants had merely harmonized or explained away.
Spinoza, as quoted in the MeHoqeqei Yehuda - a commentary to IE - and
the Shadal, went too far by claiming that IE had rejected the Mosaic
authorship of the Humash. IE had done nothing of the sort. With the
exception of the final chapter and the possible exceptions of some
anachronisms, he maintained the basic Mosaic authorship of the Humash.
> So why does Ibn Ezra's supposed opinion, standing in opposition to
>that of the near-entirety of the canon of his peers, carry any weight at
>all regarding our own positions?
When a scholar of IE's credentials, methodology and acceptance raises
groundbreaking, critical questions, how can his position not carry any
weight?
Jay Lapidus <jlap...@usa.net> ******************************
| | * "Nonsense is nonsense, but *
__ |__ |__ * the history of nonsense is *
| | | | | | | | \| | | * a very important science." *
|__| | __| \|/ __| |\ | * -- R' Saul Lieberman, z"l *
******************************
Jay Lapidus
On 7 May 1997 17:07:47 GMT, in article <5kqct3$2v8$1...@news.nyu.edu>,
mat...@is.nyu.edu (Michael A. Torczyner) wrote:
> There has been much recent debate regarding the Ibn Ezra's
>opinions on the authorship of the last Perek of the Torah. I am not enough
>of an authority on the entirety of Ibn Ezra's writing, to be able to
>comment on this area. I must wonder, though, why the possible existence
>of a single dissenting opinion automatically justifies our own acceptance
>of that opinion.
Dear Mordechai,
IE is more than just the proponent of "a single dissenting opinion."
He is considered among the giants of his period. Only a handful of
commentaries are included in standard editions of the Mikraot Gedolot
and his is one of them. No Orthodox Jew today, not even Yehuda, would
dare to cast aspersions on him.
> To create an admittedly imperfect analogy, if Tosafot rules a
>Halachah one way, and Rashi, Rambam, Ran, Rosh, Mordechai and Shulchan
>Aruch rule otherwise, don't we reject Tosafot's minority opinion? In fact,
>aren't many Conservative and Mod. Orthodox rabbis very upset about people
>who choose to promote such minority stringencies as may exist?
You are correct that the analogy is imperfect. Halakha is not
necessarily simply a matter of fact (e.g., What is the law? Who is
did the deed?), but it can be a matter of application and nuance as
well.
On the other hand, higher criticism deals ultimately with black and
white facts - i.e., questions of authorship, sources, origins and
dating, even if one cannot yet determine those facts definitively.
Specifically, either Moshe himself wrote down all or part of Devarim
34 or he did not; there is no in between. If he did not, who did?
Joshua? D? R?
The Tannaim already had reason to question the Mosaic transcription of
the final eight verses and attributed them to Joshua. That is a form
of higher criticism. IE had reason to go further - he questioned the
final twelve verses - and he made cryptic references to other
anachronistic verses in the Torah, which previous giants had merely
harmonized or explained away.
Spinoza, as quoted in the MeHoqeqei Yehuda - a commentary to IE - and
the Shadal, went too far by claiming that IE had rejected the Mosaic
authorship of the Humash. IE had done nothing of the sort. With the
exception of the final chapter and the possible exceptions of some
anachronisms, he maintained the basic Mosaic authorship of the Humash.
But what if IE, as well as Rashi, Rashbam, Rambam, Ramban, etc., etc.,
had the tools of modern scientific methodology available in their
days? I don't know, but neither do my Orthodox friends.
> So why does Ibn Ezra's supposed opinion, standing in opposition to
>that of the near-entirety of the canon of his peers, carry any weight at
>all regarding our own positions?
When a scholar of IE's credentials, methodology and acceptance raises
groundbreaking, critical questions, how can his position not carry any
weight? IE was the father of Biblical criticism and his scholarship
paved the way for Wissenschaft and contemporary critical Jewish
religious scholarship. And, he believed no less in Torah min
haShamayim than did his contemporaries and predecessors.
Michael A. Torczyner
Jay Lapidus (jlap...@usa.net) wrote:
: mat...@is.nyu.edu (Michael A. Torczyner) wrote:
:
: > There has been much recent debate regarding the Ibn Ezra's
: >opinions on the authorship of the last Perek of the Torah. I am not enough
: >of an authority on the entirety of Ibn Ezra's writing, to be able to
: >comment on this area. I must wonder, though, why the possible existence
: >of a single dissenting opinion automatically justifies our own acceptance
: >of that opinion.
: IE is more than just the proponent of "a single dissenting opinion."
: He is considered among the giants of his period. Only a handful of
: commentaries are included in standard editions of the Mikraot Gedolot
: and his is one of them. No Orthodox Jew today, not even Yehuda, would
: dare to cast aspersions on him.
How one got into the Mik. Ged. aside, I am not attacking or foolishly
attempting to discredit IE. The bottom line is that even if the Rambam,a
giant among giants in Halachah, adopts Halachic opinion X against a
multitude of other authorities, his view is _not_ accepted. [Yes, I can
provide cases if you desire.]
: > To create an admittedly imperfect analogy, if Tosafot rules a
: >Halachah one way, and Rashi, Rambam, Ran, Rosh, Mordechai and Shulchan
: >Aruch rule otherwise, don't we reject Tosafot's minority opinion? In fact,
: >aren't many Conservative and Mod. Orthodox rabbis very upset about people
: >who choose to promote such minority stringencies as may exist?
:
: You are correct that the analogy is imperfect. Halakha is not
: necessarily simply a matter of fact (e.g., What is the law?), but it
: can be a matter of application and nuance.
:
: On the other hand, higher criticism deals ultimately with back and
: white facts - i.e., questions of authorship, sources, origins and
: dating, even if one cannot yet determine those facts. Specifically,
: either Moshe wrote down all or part of Devarim 34 or he did not. If
Why does _this_ render the analogy imperfect? I have other problems with
my own analogy, but I don't see why this should be an issue.
:
: > So why does Ibn Ezra's supposed opinion, standing in opposition to
: >that of the near-entirety of the canon of his peers, carry any weight at
: >all regarding our own positions?
:
: When a scholar of IE's credentials, methodology and acceptance raises
: groundbreaking, critical questions, how can his position not carry any
: weight?
As stated above, you would never adopt a stringency which Rambam himself
adopts against all others; why would you adopt IE against all of his peers
on this issue?
Jay Lapidus
On 8 May 1997 07:14:30 GMT, in article <5krugm$4at$1...@news.nyu.edu>,
>How one got into the Mik. Ged. aside, I am not attacking or foolishly
>attempting to discredit IE.
Granted. I hope that I did not seem to imply otherwise.
>The bottom line is that even if the Rambam,a
>giant among giants in Halachah, adopts Halachic opinion X against a
>multitude of other authorities, his view is _not_ accepted. [Yes, I can
>provide cases if you desire.]
Irrelevant. The discussion is not on halakha but rather on parshanut
- Bibilical commentary. But see my words below.
>
>: > To create an admittedly imperfect analogy, if Tosafot rules a
>: >Halachah one way, and Rashi, Rambam, Ran, Rosh, Mordechai and Shulchan
>: >Aruch rule otherwise, don't we reject Tosafot's minority opinion? In fact,
>: >aren't many Conservative and Mod. Orthodox rabbis very upset about people
>: >who choose to promote such minority stringencies as may exist?
>:
>: You are correct that the analogy is imperfect. Halakha is not
>: necessarily simply a matter of fact (e.g., What is the law?), but it
>: can be a matter of application and nuance.
>:
>: On the other hand, higher criticism deals ultimately with back and
>: white facts - i.e., questions of authorship, sources, origins and
>: dating, even if one cannot yet determine those facts. Specifically,
>: either Moshe wrote down all or part of Devarim 34 or he did not. If
>
>Why does _this_ render the analogy imperfect? I have other problems with
>my own analogy, but I don't see why this should be an issue.
Mordechai, you have responded to a canceled post, which I had sent
out by accident. Please find my corrected post. If you don't have
it, I'll forward it. Perhaps, it will clarify the issue.
Rest deleted for now. Posted and emailed.
Micha S. Berger
Jay Lapidus <jlap...@usa.net> wrote:
: Spinoza, as quoted in the MeHoqeqei Yehuda - a commentary to IE - and
: the Shadal, went too far by claiming that IE had rejected the Mosaic
: authorship of the Humash. IE had done nothing of the sort. With the
: exception of the final chapter and the possible exceptions of some
: anachronisms, he maintained the basic Mosaic authorship of the Humash.
...
: IE was the father of Biblical criticism and his scholarship
: paved the way for Wissenschaft and contemporary critical Jewish
: religious scholarship.
Is it just me, or do these two paragraphs contradict?
Ibn Ezra, based on the halachic dictum that "midivar sheker tirchak" (distance
yourself from a falshood) means not only that one shouldn't lie, but that
one shouldn't even do anything similar to lieing, believed that Moshe could
not have wrote the words "And Moshe died".
He then says that Joshua wrote those words. He still limits the writing of
the Torah to one short period in human history.
This is a far cry from being "the father of Biblical criticism" -- his
entire methodology was intra-halachic. There was no external criticism,
or "scientific method". And his results aren't the least bit similar,
either.
--
Micha Berger 201 916-0287 Help free Ron Arad, held by Syria 3792 days!
mi...@aishdas.org (16-Oct-86 - 8-May-97)
For a mitzvah is a candle, and the Torah its light.
http://aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed
Micha S. Berger
Jay Lapidus <jlap...@usa.net> wrote:
: Oh?! I'm not sure what you mean by "intra-halakhic" and how halakha
: applies here in your conception. Nevertheless, IE questioned not only
: "And Moses died..." as had prior generations, but he challenged the
: previous four verses as well. He had no "halakhic" precedent for
: that.
By intrahalachic, I mean that he used the common medrashic mechanism
of re-interpreting texts so that they conform to halachah. As I wrote
earlier in that post, ibn Ezra's objection was based on the concept
of avoiding falsehood -- a halachic prohibition against doing things even
similar to lying.
: Certainly not by today's standards. But his mind operated
: scientifically when he was willing to set aside the cherished belief
: that Moshe had written 34:1-4.
Now for the "intra" parst of that word I coined. He did it so that
Moshe would comply with his notion of what Judaism requires. Not because
of some linguistic or archeological concern.
The philosophy of BC has nothing to do with the motivation behind
IE's comments.
Jay Lapidus
On 8 May 1997 21:33:15 GMT, in article
<5ktgqr$6...@nnrp3.farm.idt.net>,
>Jay Lapidus <jlap...@usa.net> wrote:
>: Oh?! I'm not sure what you mean by "intra-halakhic" and how halakha
>: applies here in your conception. Nevertheless, IE questioned not only
>: "And Moses died..." as had prior generations, but he challenged the
>: previous four verses as well. He had no "halakhic" precedent for
>: that.
>
>By intrahalachic, I mean that he used the common medrashic mechanism
>of re-interpreting texts so that they conform to halachah.
Where does he do that? For example, he does not interpret Dt. 6:8
that way. BTW, the Rashbam expressly refused to reinterpret texts to
conform with halakha. See his introduction to Parshat Mishpatim.
>As I wrote
>earlier in that post, ibn Ezra's objection was based on the concept
>of avoiding falsehood -- a halachic prohibition against doing things even
>similar to lying.
Where do you find that in IE? The "avoiding falsehood" rationale is
not in his commentary to 34:1.
>: Certainly not by today's standards. But his mind operated
>: scientifically when he was willing to set aside the cherished belief
>: that Moshe had written 34:1-4.
>
>Now for the "intra" parst of that word I coined. He did it so that
>Moshe would comply with his notion of what Judaism requires.
Again, where in IE did you read that?
>Not because of some linguistic or archeological concern.
Regarding 34:1-4, linguistics and archeology do not apply. IE used
reason. Moshe could not have written, "Moshe went up the mountain..."
because he never lived to descend the mountain to tell about it.
>
>The philosophy of BC has nothing to do with the motivation behind
>IE's comments.
What do you mean by "the philosophy of Biblical criticism"?
Michael A. Torczyner
Jay Lapidus (jlap...@usa.net) wrote:
:
: Mordechai, you have responded to a canceled post, which I had sent
: out by accident. Please find my corrected post. If you don't have
: it, I'll forward it. Perhaps, it will clarify the issue.
The only posts showing up for me so far are your cancelled post, and my
own. Micha, your letter hasn't shown up yet, either; that's why I haven't
responded.
Michael A. Torczyner
Jay Lapidus (jlap...@usa.net) wrote:
: mat...@is.nyu.edu (Michael A. Torczyner) wrote:
:
: > There has been much recent debate regarding the Ibn Ezra's
: >opinions on the authorship of the last Perek of the Torah. I am not enough
: >of an authority on the entirety of Ibn Ezra's writing, to be able to
: >comment on this area. I must wonder, though, why the possible existence
: >of a single dissenting opinion automatically justifies our own acceptance
: >of that opinion.
:
: IE is more than just the proponent of "a single dissenting opinion."
: He is considered among the giants of his period. Only a handful of
: commentaries are included in standard editions of the Mikraot Gedolot
: and his is one of them. No Orthodox Jew today, not even Yehuda, would
: dare to cast aspersions on him.
As noted in my response to your cancelled post, and as we have both agreed
since, nobody here is attempting the spurious task of discrediting Ibn
Ezra. [Just noting it for any observers]
: > To create an admittedly imperfect analogy, if Tosafot rules a
: >Halachah one way, and Rashi, Rambam, Ran, Rosh, Mordechai and Shulchan
: >Aruch rule otherwise, don't we reject Tosafot's minority opinion? In fact,
: >aren't many Conservative and Mod. Orthodox rabbis very upset about people
: >who choose to promote such minority stringencies as may exist?
:
: You are correct that the analogy is imperfect. Halakha is not
: necessarily simply a matter of fact (e.g., What is the law? Who is
: did the deed?), but it can be a matter of application and nuance as
: well.
:
: On the other hand, higher criticism deals ultimately with black and
: white facts - i.e., questions of authorship, sources, origins and
: dating, even if one cannot yet determine those facts definitively.
I don't understand why this is a weakness in the analogy. I have another
problem with the analogy, but I am still trying to figure that out, and so
I am not going to bring it up yet. Your flaw, though, is not clear to me.
Granted that Halachah takes circumstance into account, what does that have
to do with IE's position? A minority, which is not accepted as normative
by anyone's imagination, is not going to be counted in Halachah. It would
not be counted in court. Why should it count in philosophy?
: But what if IE, as well as Rashi, Rashbam, Rambam, Ramban, etc., etc.,
: had the tools of modern scientific methodology available in their
: days? I don't know, but neither do my Orthodox friends.
This has nothing to do with the existence of Ibn Ezra's opinion, though.
You could make the same exact claims [and many do] without awareness of
Ibn Ezra's position.
: > So why does Ibn Ezra's supposed opinion, standing in opposition to
: >that of the near-entirety of the canon of his peers, carry any weight at
: >all regarding our own positions?
:
: When a scholar of IE's credentials, methodology and acceptance raises
: groundbreaking, critical questions, how can his position not carry any
: weight? IE was the father of Biblical criticism and his scholarship
: paved the way for Wissenschaft and contemporary critical Jewish
: religious scholarship. And, he believed no less in Torah min
: haShamayim than did his contemporaries and predecessors.
:
And the Rambam is considered to believe in Torah and Halachah, whether
people accept all of his philosophy or not; yet, when he writes that Eruv
requires that there be no gaps of more than ten Ammot, he is rejected by
all but the Briskers and some Sephardim. Doesn't he have the credentials,
methodology and acceptance? Of course. And yet, if I would tell people
that they couldn't carry with accepted Eruvin, I would be justly and
correctly drummed out. Why? B/c we don't grab minority opinions which
happen to fit in with the things we want to say.
[I don't mean that last statement as strongly as it sounds on re-reading,
but I am leaving it in b/c it expresses the issue exactly.]
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
In article <337331d2...@news.concentric.net>, jlap...@usa.net (Jay Lapidus) writes:
> On 7 May 1997 17:07:47 GMT, in article <5kqct3$2v8$1...@news.nyu.edu>,
>
>> There has been much recent debate regarding the Ibn Ezra's
>>opinions on the authorship of the last Perek of the Torah. I am not enough
>>of an authority on the entirety of Ibn Ezra's writing, to be able to
>>comment on this area. I must wonder, though, why the possible existence
>>of a single dissenting opinion automatically justifies our own acceptance
>>of that opinion.
>
>
> IE is more than just the proponent of "a single dissenting opinion."
> He is considered among the giants of his period. Only a handful of
> commentaries are included in standard editions of the Mikraot Gedolot
> and his is one of them. No Orthodox Jew today, not even Yehuda, would
> dare to cast aspersions on him.
The Ibn Ezra is mentioned twice in the Tosaphot (Rosh Hashana 13a
and Kiddushin 37b).
In his introduction on the commentary to the Chumash, the Ibn Ezra states
his intention of establishing the LITERAL meaning of the text (PSHAT) but
in the legislative part (halacha) he will follow the interpretation
of the Talmud.
Etymological and grammatical explanations are the main features of his
commentary on Tanach. Characteristic to Ibn Ezra's thinking are his veiled
allusions to doubts on the belief, that even minute parts of the Chumash
were written by Moses himself. Yet he believed that the second half of
Isaiah (from Chapter 40) were the work of a prophet who lived during the
Babylonian Exile and the early return to Zion.
Incidentally, Jeffrey Silver should be aware that the Rambam in a letter to
his son Avraham wrote, "I instruct you to not turn your attention to
commentaries other than those written by the Ibn Ezra. This wise man has
a clear mind; he penetrates deep into the meaning of obscure verses and
fearlessly expresses his views".
Josh
>
>> To create an admittedly imperfect analogy, if Tosafot rules a
>>Halachah one way, and Rashi, Rambam, Ran, Rosh, Mordechai and Shulchan
>>Aruch rule otherwise, don't we reject Tosafot's minority opinion? In fact,
>>aren't many Conservative and Mod. Orthodox rabbis very upset about people
>>who choose to promote such minority stringencies as may exist?
>
> You are correct that the analogy is imperfect. Halakha is not
> necessarily simply a matter of fact (e.g., What is the law? Who is
> did the deed?), but it can be a matter of application and nuance as
> well.
>
> On the other hand, higher criticism deals ultimately with black and
> white facts - i.e., questions of authorship, sources, origins and
> dating, even if one cannot yet determine those facts definitively.
> Specifically, either Moshe himself wrote down all or part of Devarim
> 34 or he did not; there is no in between. If he did not, who did?
> Joshua? D? R?
>
> The Tannaim already had reason to question the Mosaic transcription of
> the final eight verses and attributed them to Joshua. That is a form
> of higher criticism. IE had reason to go further - he questioned the
> final twelve verses - and he made cryptic references to other
> anachronistic verses in the Torah, which previous giants had merely
> harmonized or explained away.
>
> Spinoza, as quoted in the MeHoqeqei Yehuda - a commentary to IE - and
> the Shadal, went too far by claiming that IE had rejected the Mosaic
> authorship of the Humash. IE had done nothing of the sort. With the
> exception of the final chapter and the possible exceptions of some
> anachronisms, he maintained the basic Mosaic authorship of the Humash.
>
> But what if IE, as well as Rashi, Rashbam, Rambam, Ramban, etc., etc.,
> had the tools of modern scientific methodology available in their
> days? I don't know, but neither do my Orthodox friends.
>
>> So why does Ibn Ezra's supposed opinion, standing in opposition to
>>that of the near-entirety of the canon of his peers, carry any weight at
>>all regarding our own positions?
>
> When a scholar of IE's credentials, methodology and acceptance raises
> groundbreaking, critical questions, how can his position not carry any
> weight? IE was the father of Biblical criticism and his scholarship
> paved the way for Wissenschaft and contemporary critical Jewish
> religious scholarship. And, he believed no less in Torah min
> haShamayim than did his contemporaries and predecessors.
>
>
Jay Lapidus
On 9 May 1997 16:24:30 GMT, in article <5kvj3u$lvg$1...@news.nyu.edu>,
>Jay Lapidus (jlap...@usa.net) wrote:
>: mat...@is.nyu.edu (Michael A. Torczyner) wrote:
>:
>: > There has been much recent debate regarding the Ibn Ezra's
>: >opinions on the authorship of the last Perek of the Torah. I am not enough
>: >of an authority on the entirety of Ibn Ezra's writing, to be able to
>: >comment on this area. I must wonder, though, why the possible existence
>: >of a single dissenting opinion automatically justifies our own acceptance
>: >of that opinion.
[snip]
>: > To create an admittedly imperfect analogy, if Tosafot rules a
>: >Halachah one way, and Rashi, Rambam, Ran, Rosh, Mordechai and Shulchan
>: >Aruch rule otherwise, don't we reject Tosafot's minority opinion? In fact,
>: >aren't many Conservative and Mod. Orthodox rabbis very upset about people
>: >who choose to promote such minority stringencies as may exist?
>:
>: You are correct that the analogy is imperfect. Halakha is not
>: necessarily simply a matter of fact (e.g., What is the law? Who is
>: did the deed?), but it can be a matter of application and nuance as
>: well.
>:
>: On the other hand, higher criticism deals ultimately with black and
>: white facts - i.e., questions of authorship, sources, origins and
>: dating, even if one cannot yet determine those facts definitively.
>
>I don't understand why this is a weakness in the analogy. I have another
>problem with the analogy, but I am still trying to figure that out, and so
>I am not going to bring it up yet. Your flaw, though, is not clear to me.
>Granted that Halachah takes circumstance into account, what does that have
>to do with IE's position? A minority, which is not accepted as normative
>by anyone's imagination, is not going to be counted in Halachah. It would
>not be counted in court. Why should it count in philosophy?
[snip]
>: > So why does Ibn Ezra's supposed opinion, standing in opposition to
>: >that of the near-entirety of the canon of his peers, carry any weight at
>: >all regarding our own positions?
>:
>: When a scholar of IE's credentials, methodology and acceptance raises
>: groundbreaking, critical questions, how can his position not carry any
>: weight? IE was the father of Biblical criticism and his scholarship
>: paved the way for Wissenschaft and contemporary critical Jewish
>: religious scholarship. And, he believed no less in Torah min
>: haShamayim than did his contemporaries and predecessors.
>:
>And the Rambam is considered to believe in Torah and Halachah, whether
>people accept all of his philosophy or not; yet, when he writes that Eruv
>requires that there be no gaps of more than ten Ammot, he is rejected by
>all but the Briskers and some Sephardim. Doesn't he have the credentials,
>methodology and acceptance? Of course. And yet, if I would tell people
>that they couldn't carry with accepted Eruvin, I would be justly and
>correctly drummed out. Why? B/c we don't grab minority opinions which
>happen to fit in with the things we want to say.
>[I don't mean that last statement as strongly as it sounds on re-reading,
>but I am leaving it in b/c it expresses the issue exactly.]
Dear Mordechai,
To use your example of eruvin, when the Rambam paskins one way and the
majority paskins another way, the dispute is over practice and
customs. There can be one or more than one correct answer. But
regarding the origin of a particular text - in our case, Devarim 34 -
there can one and only one answer, even if we lack the means at this
time of knowing that answer.
Shalom,
Michael A. Torczyner
Jay Lapidus (jlap...@SPAMBLOCKusa.net) wrote:
: >And the Rambam is considered to believe in Torah and Halachah, whether
: >people accept all of his philosophy or not; yet, when he writes that Eruv
: >requires that there be no gaps of more than ten Ammot, he is rejected by
: >all but the Briskers and some Sephardim. Doesn't he have the credentials,
: >methodology and acceptance? Of course. And yet, if I would tell people
: >that they couldn't carry with accepted Eruvin, I would be justly and
: >correctly drummed out. Why? B/c we don't grab minority opinions which
: >happen to fit in with the things we want to say.
: >[I don't mean that last statement as strongly as it sounds on re-reading,
: >but I am leaving it in b/c it expresses the issue exactly.]
: To use your example of eruvin, when the Rambam paskins one way and the
: majority paskins another way, the dispute is over practice and
: customs. There can be one or more than one correct answer. But
: regarding the origin of a particular text - in our case, Devarim 34 -
: there can one and only one answer, even if we lack the means at this
: time of knowing that answer.
This sounds like an argument For my position- since there can be
more than one view of a situation, there can be more than one possible
pesak, where both poskim are established giants. _And yet_, we don't
follow two piskei halachah at once- the Rambam is not followed on Eruv,
despite his expertise in just about everything imaginable tied to the
Halachah.
Yet, when dealing with an issue which you say has "one and only
one answer," we ought to include the individual who stands against all of
his peers and whose opinion is rejected by them?
Jay Lapidus
On 12 May 1997 12:52:10 GMT, in article <5l73pq$poi$1...@news.nyu.edu>,
[snip]
> Yet, when dealing with an issue which you say has "one and only
>one answer," we ought to include the individual who stands against all of
>his peers and whose opinion is rejected by them?
Regarding the issue of the origin of Devarim 34: Yes! It's not just an
issue of numbers of people but of methodology.
BTW, I cannot top Alan's reply to you. Note as well Josh Backon's
report of the Rambam's letter to his son regarding the reliability of
Ibn Ezra.
Michael A. Torczyner
Jay Lapidus (jlap...@SPAMBLOCKusa.net) wrote:
: mat...@is.nyu.edu (Michael A. Torczyner) wrote:
:
: > Yet, when dealing with an issue which you say has "one and only
: >one answer," we ought to include the individual who stands against all of
: >his peers and whose opinion is rejected by them?
:
: Regarding the issue of the origin of Devarim 34: Yes! It's not just an
: issue of numbers of people but of methodology.
Same regarding Halachah; and Ibn Ezra, Rashi, Rambam, Ramban, etc have
access to the same methodology. Once an opinion is rejected, it is
rejected.
: BTW, I cannot top Alan's reply to you. Note as well Josh Backon's
: report of the Rambam's letter to his son regarding the reliability of
: Ibn Ezra.
Regarding Alan's reply, I am impressed by the depth (I read Shapiro's
article when it came out, but my memory of it is quite dim), but none of
the cited sources are peers, in level and age, to Ibn Ezra and his peers.
As to Josh Backon's post, when are you going to stop intimating that I am
attempting to discredit Ibn Ezra? This is getting to be ridiculous.
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
In article <5l8i3j$1mb$1...@news.nyu.edu>, mat...@is.nyu.edu (Michael A. Torczyner) writes:
> Jay Lapidus (jlap...@SPAMBLOCKusa.net) wrote:
> : mat...@is.nyu.edu (Michael A. Torczyner) wrote:
> :
> : > Yet, when dealing with an issue which you say has "one and only
> : >one answer," we ought to include the individual who stands against all of
> : >his peers and whose opinion is rejected by them?
> :
> : Regarding the issue of the origin of Devarim 34: Yes! It's not just an
> : issue of numbers of people but of methodology.
>
> Same regarding Halachah; and Ibn Ezra, Rashi, Rambam, Ramban, etc have
> access to the same methodology. Once an opinion is rejected, it is
> rejected.
>
> : BTW, I cannot top Alan's reply to you. Note as well Josh Backon's
> : report of the Rambam's letter to his son regarding the reliability of
> : Ibn Ezra.
>
> Regarding Alan's reply, I am impressed by the depth (I read Shapiro's
> article when it came out, but my memory of it is quite dim), but none of
> the cited sources are peers, in level and age, to Ibn Ezra and his peers.
>
> As to Josh Backon's post, when are you going to stop intimating that I am
> attempting to discredit Ibn Ezra? This is getting to be ridiculous.
>
> Mordechai
It seems that Rabbi Lapidus misconstrued my post. Contrary to what he
intimated (that CHAS V'CHALILA the Ibn Ezra thought that Moses didn't
write EVERY part of the Torah as dictated by God), the Ibn Ezra has
many veiled allusions to doubts that even minute parts of the Chumash
were written by Moses himself. Lets parse that comment: Ibn Ezra believed
that every line was dictated by God. Why he inserted the allusions ? I
don't know.
Josh
Michael A. Torczyner
: >attempting to discredit Ibn Ezra? This is getting to be ridiculous.
: I'm not so intimating. Where do you see me doing otherwise?
In making additional note of Josh's post, as to the Rambam's
recommendation of the Ibn Ezra for study.
Mordechai
Jay Lapidus
On 14 May 1997 01:13:13 GMT, in article <5lb3j9$eiu$1...@news.nyu.edu>,
>Jay Lapidus (jlap...@usa.net) wrote:
>: mat...@is.nyu.edu (Michael A. Torczyner) wrote:
>:
>: >As to Josh Backon's post, when are you going to stop intimating that I am
>: >attempting to discredit Ibn Ezra? This is getting to be ridiculous.
>:
>: I'm not so intimating. Where do you see me doing otherwise?
>
>In making additional note of Josh's post, as to the Rambam's
>recommendation of the Ibn Ezra for study.
And?
Michael A. Torczyner
DavidYaakovbenTuvia (DJR...@aol.com) wrote:
For brevity, I will condense a well-thought-out post:
1. The issue of [non-]Mosaic authorship is one of fact, whereas
Halachah, and even philosophy, are not necessarily determined solely be
the relevant "facts," but rather include such concerns as "majority
rules."
2. There is assistance lent to Ibn Ezra's apparent position, by a
text ascribed to R' Yehudah HaChasid.
Regarding point 1, this is the position which several
posters/mailers have taken. However, there is a central sticking point in
applying it: It has little do with Ibn Ezra's position.
As the issue is declared to be one of fact and not of Halachah, we
must question the mthods by which the fact is determined. What methods
would encourage a 20th century reader to question Mosaic authorship of
Perek 34, and what methods would encourage an 11th century reader to
accept Mosaic authorship?
Knowing that I am not fully versed in the field, the only
methodology which seems to be available now which was not available a
millenium ago, seems to be knowledge of Akkadian and other related Semitic
tongues. While this issue is brought to bear by several scholars in their
attempts to ascribe sections of the Torah to legend, or to explain strange
usages within the Torah text, I don't see that this has any bearing on the
current issue - with one key exception.
This exception lies in the general fearlessness with which many
people approach "higher criticism." With the advent of the ascription of
sections of the Torah to non-Divine sources, we have seen people lose
their reluctance to tamper with the issue of authorship.
However, this has nothing to do with adopting Ibn Ezra's position.
This is a result of adopting a methodology which Ibn Ezra did not have,
either. Ibn Ezra is not a justification of a view which rejects Divine
authorship of the Torah, so long as that view is not predicated on Ibn
Ezra's methods.
As far as Point 2, I think that R' Yehudah haChasid warrant a new
thread, if someone is brave enough to begin it. I have not, do not, and
will not question the authority, validity, righteousness, etc of Ibn Ezra
or of R' Yehudah haChasid. I will say, though, that if you read through
the "will" which is _written in his name_, you find some very strange
things...
Micha S. Berger
Jay Lapidus <jlap...@usa.net> wrote:
: Oh?! I'm not sure what you mean by "intra-halakhic" and how halakha
: applies here in your conception. Nevertheless, IE questioned not only
: "And Moses died..." as had prior generations, but he challenged the
: previous four verses as well. He had no "halakhic" precedent for
: that.
By intrahalachic, I mean that he used the common medrashic mechanism
of interpreting texts so that they conform to halachah. As I wrote
earlier in that post, ibn Ezra's objection was based on the concept
of avoiding falsehood -- a halachic prohibition against doing things even
similar to lying. It had nothing to do with holding up the Torah to
external standards.
: Certainly not by today's standards. But his mind operated
: scientifically when he was willing to set aside the cherished belief
: that Moshe had written 34:1-4.
Now for the "intra" parst of that word I coined. He did it so that
Moshe would comply with his notion of what Judaism requires. Not because
of some linguistic or archeological concern.
The philosophies are entirley disjoint.