[Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim

[Micha Berger via Avodah]

On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 06:49:53PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
: We are supposed to learn how to act from the avot.

: The problem is that we frequently we have opposite mefarshim on what
: happened

Meaning, we are supposed to learn how to act from how the avos are
portrayed, which is all we really know about how they act.

This "problem" is true all over halakhah; why should this be any more
immune to machloqes? We do what we always do: find which of the paths
up the Har Hashem is going to be ours, and follow it. In terms of the
lessons drawn, eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim Chaim.



On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 01:04:38AM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote:
: Let's review. RnTK (referring to Chushim) submitted that if Chazal
: understood someone to be a good guy, it is proper to follow that
: attitude. You agreed to this, invoking chiddush vs shinui stated
: by halachic mesorah...

Making that comparison, yes. Not quite saying it's an example.

...
:> I mean that a number of the rishonim who give peshat in Tanakh are
:> perfectly willing to translate and/or explain the pasuq differently than
:> the gemara did.
: 
: So what happened to the sevara behind the sevara that those who are
: "more culturally removed by [from] the authors of the aggadita... [are]
: therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story"?
: Why should we and the rishonim apply this attitude only to what Chazal
: say about things not written in the Torah, and not to things Chazal
: say about what is written in the Torah? (And anyway, is the matter of
: Chushim not something to do with what is written in the Torah?)

I tried to explain why.

Peshat in the pasuq is less TSBP and more TSBK. The notion of a chain
of oral tradition is a less relevant concept.

Second, disagreeing with peshat is an argument about what words or
phrasing mean. A basically theoretical debate, with no nafqa mina
lemaaseh. Medrashim are there to teach mussar and hashkafah, which
hopefully do impact behavior. If all a rishon did was argue about the
story in a medrash, and the story had no nimshal that had behavioral
implications, it would be more comparable. But that's not what medrash is.

Similarly, if a rishon who presents a unique peshat were to draw a lesson
from the difference that is also at odds with chazal's, then we would
have a real issue. But as long as the difference is only in theory, or
understanding it to be maqor to an idea Chazal derive from elsewhere,
mah bekakh?

It is one thing to propose a new theory about what the pasuq means,
quite another to propose a conflicting lesson about values.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns
micha at aishdas.org        G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four
http://www.aishdas.org   corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets
Fax: (270) 514-1507      to include himself.     - Rav Yisrael Salanter