[Avodah] literalism

[Richard Wolpoe]

On 10/8/07, saul mashbaum <smash52 at netvision.net.il> wrote:
>
> RRW wrote:
>
> >>
> Hazal were rarely highly literal.  Applying highly literal standards are
> mis-leading and often can lead to mis-perceptions of what is meant.  Often
> the Gmara itself reformulates statemnts wti h"hachi Ko'amar...
> >>
>
> I am in considerable sympathy with the above position, although it is
> somewhat overstated; I would have said *at most* "Hazal were often not
> highly literal", and in fact prefer "Hazal were sometimes not highly
> literal". The question of the literalness of a given Talmudic statement is
> of course a complex one, which one may decide from the specific context,
> and by comparison to other texts and principles. One needs a *very* good
> proof to be able to say that a given statement is not to be taken literally.
> We would be be throwing the baby out with the bath water if we were to
> state, without proof, about any given Talmudic statement "It is not meant to
> be taken literally". However, when judiciously applied, RRW's priciple about
> literalness is sound. Too bad it's so difficult to determine when the
> principle applies.
>
> Saul Mashbaum
>

Let me rephrase it.
Hazal are often to be taken literally but rarely HIGHLY literally.
Even when Hazal are telling you something straight, it can be misleading to
take it TOO stiaight.

Example,

> OR l'arba'a asar "bokdim es hechametz"
> An overly literal position would mean
> On the eve of the 14th we inspect the Chametz.  This begs the qeustion
> what are you inspeccting the chametz for? To find bugs? The meforshim say,
> on the eve of the 14th we search [the house] FOR chametz. but if we were
> reading it "highly literal" we would get a mis-leading halachah.
>

Example 2:

> V'tzivanu al netillat Lulav
> That might be taken literally at one level but if taken HIGHLY literally
> we MIGHT presume that a lulav w/i the other 3 minnim triggers a bracha.  of
> course, that is not so. Thus, we should not see LULAV in this context as
> highly literal Lulav but Lulav among the 4 minim.


Example 3:

> As pointed out before lo sochal al hadam is a d'orraisso taht tells us NOT
> to eat before davening. Problem: Davening is NOT a d'orraisso and even the
> Rambam who holds it IS has not set time for davening mi'doraisso.  Taking
> this mitzva highly literally as applying to davening is a bit mis-leading.
> But that does not take away from teh fact thatythe Torah may indeed be
> suggesting something that applies to a derabbanan in 1 instance.


Example 4:

> Ein bein implies there is ZERO difference except what is listed. As is the
> case in many of the items on this list, the  differences listed are NOT
> exhaustive.



Most of us realize that these statements were never meant to be taken THAT
literally in the first place. However, to a person from Mars looking from
the outside the FIRST premise is to tell him that Hazal are rarely HIGHLY
literal. I'll stick with that terminology


Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe at Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071009/2d2ff1df/attachment-0002.htm>