[Avodah] mesorah

[Micha Berger]

On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 11:44:37AM +0300, Michael Makovi wrote:
: Indeed. I forgot to mention that Professor*** Leiman brings a sevara
: as well...
: *** I am only referring to him as I have seen him most commonly
: referred to in literature; R' Micha points out that Professor Leiman
: does have smiha. I'd note that similarly, Professor Marc Shapiro also
: has smiha, even though he is *never* referred to as R' Marc Shapiro.

I wasn't clear about my point behind picking this nit.

If RSZL has any authority WRT the discussion of the CI from an
impact-on-halakhah POV, it's because of the "R", not the "Prof".

On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 01:28:38PM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: If I understand Micha correctly he feels that halacha only takes into account
: the mesorah of the generations and any new or academic evidence is ignored.

Not at all! <He objects, looking down at his own murex-dyed tzitzis.
-narrator>

What I'm saying is that talmud Torah means dealing with the mesorah.
Academic approaches to Torah aren't talmud Torah, and don't shape
halakhah. IOW, if one could prove through academic tools that some
peirush dechuqah in the gemara was not actually the mishnah's intent,
or that we base a practice on Tosafos's resolution that we can now prove
wasn't the amora's intent, that sort of anaylsis has no impact.

Nothing about ignoring evidence WRT defining the metzi'us.

Which is why I couldn't give an answer about finding an authoritative
seifer Torah without first knowing whether relying on the majority
of sifrei Torah was a din in birur, defining the metzi'us al pi rov,
or a din in pesaq, and a means of doing acharei rabim lehatos of the
people who wrote, checked and used the sefarim. I personally would have a
different opinion if the archeology is being used to overturn a mistaken
idea about the metzi'us of a correct seifer Torah or if it's being used
to overturn pesaq by a means other than the historical flow of TSBP.

What I'm disagreeing with is RMM's assumption that halakhah without a
Sanhedrin is a science, not a legal tradition (as he explained himself
on RRW's blog), and therefore that we can discuss RMS's opinion and
the CI's in the same breath. I'm saying that as a tradition of legal
development, it's only through immersion into the flow and being part
of it that one produces more Torah. Analyzing objectively may get the
truth of someone's intent or what his words "mean to me" (depending on
whether we speak of the classical or post-modern academic), but not Torah.

I see an important place for O Wissenschaft, but it's not the same place
as the classical beis medrash. Determining what R' Chiya really meant
is significant; but it turns the statement into a text, static. TSBP is
oral, a dynamic. The professor who analyzes the Torah from a historian's
persective is studying "About It", not "It".

The reference to RRW's blog is
<http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/2009/08/cognitive-dissonance-between-halachah.html>
or <http://bit.ly/1W5JtA>; you can see RRW's post and an exchange of
long comments between RRW and myself.

Another place where this discussion overflowed into was my own blog at
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2009/08/postmodernism-and-mesorah.shtml>
and in particular the copy that got propogated to FaceBook
<http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/note.php?note_id=117153247262&comments>.
R' Ira tick writes a long reply in 5 parts. I didn't digest it all yet,
but I presume I will be replying at some point.

On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 08:17:44AM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
[RET:]
:> 4. I brought separately that R. Dessler felt that Rabbenu Tam changed
:> the order of the parshiyot in the tefillin based on his learning of the
:> gemara. He obvious was not overly concerned about the previous Mesorah.
:> R. Dessler explains that this was because there was no clear written
:> mesorah in Talmudic or Gaonic writings. The mesorah of what was
:> practiced by the kehilla was not of paramount importance.

: More interesting to me is that R' Dessler aiui did not have this as a
: mesorah - the question is which highly valued constructs required him to
: come up with this approach to minimize his cognitive dissonance?

And I would argue that REED, or chiddushei RCB for that matter, are
based on trying to make the mesorah work on its own terms. He comes up
with a kelal in Torah, that one may change common practice when there is
no textual backing in favor, and your understanding is against. If this
is what Rabbeinu Tam was doing, it is an exception to the usual rule --
the baalei Tosafos tended to explain gemara in light of the assumption
that it and common practice don't diverge unless one proves otherwise.
IOW, R' Tam would have to be very convinced that Rashi's understanding
of Menachos couldn't possibly have been right.

And actually, from a historical perspective, REED's assumption is wrong
-- there is no indication that from the time of bayis sheini until R'
Tam that either of the two orders of parshiyos was dominant; we find
the remains of tefillos shel rosh in both arrangements among finds from
throughout that period. That's not to say his new kelal is therefore
unsupported and to be repealed -- THAT's the very kind of "halachic
argument" I am objecting to.

I should point out that Historical School didn't manage to remain O.
Mixing academic study of halakhah with halakhah itself historically
didn't work. Someone who wishes to convince me out of my position has
to explain to me what it is the Historical School did that led to C that
isn't inherent in their version of the project.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Strength does not come from winning. Your
micha at aishdas.org        struggles develop your strength When you go
http://www.aishdas.org   through hardship and decide not to surrender,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      that is strength.        - Arnold Schwarzenegger