[Avodah] [Areivim] Halacha of speeding/Jewish ethics curriculum development help

[Micha Berger]

On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 01:16:16PM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
:> How reconcile "we are like donkeys" reverence of predecessors
:> with clear fact that later generations seem to be (are) doing more
:> sophisticated analysis/thinking [me - I hope R'Klapper's got an escape
:> pod J].

:> 1) Shev Shmeitzah (ktzot) - they thought so much more clearly and
:> straight forwardly; they didn't need our "pilpul"...

:> 2) Netziv - Hamek shailah was a commentary on a geonic work..

The Sh'eiltos, R' Achai Gaon. A primary text that would have saved us a
LOT of "how is halakhah made, how may halakhah change" discussions here
on Avodah.

:> 2)                                                       ... Since
:> time of Yehoshua there have been disagreements which would be resolved
:> by intellect. There will be those who specialize in specific cases
:> application (spiritual intuition) and others in abstract law. There will
:> be times (e.g. Bavli) where can only rely on intellect/abstract. Geonim
:> went back to more "intuitive" approach but then lost when went to Europe,
:> etc. However, Rambam was more a throwback to gaonim (don't try to wrestle
:> the Rambam into a similar approach to Rashi/Tosfot).

You seem to be describing the Netziv's concept of "das" when you speak of
"who specialize in specific cases application (spiritual intuition)",
and aish as "abstract law".

One more bit, "gemiri", as in "nimnu vegamru", is the transformation
of "aish" to "das". Thus the Rambam distinguishes between "halakhah
leMosheh miSiniai" and "hilkhisa gemiri lah". The first class, as the
Netziv understands the Rambam, were always "das".

"Das" was given to sheivet Levi, but because it didn't involve sevarah,
their rulings were only for the particular case. Sheivat Yehudah
was given the chokhmah necessary for aish, but they didn't have the
shiqul hada'as to turn it into halakha. Kind of like R' Chaim -- he
was a master of sevarah, but pesaqim went to the Brisker Dayan. THus
the gemara (Eiruvin 53a) says that Shaul was "lo galei mesechta", but
David was "galei mesechta". Rashi says this means that David was capable
of hora'ah, but Sha'ul was not. However, the pasuq the gemara cites
for Shaul is "uvekhol asher yifneh yarshi'ah" -- a lashon of praising
ability, not inability! The Netziv says that sheivet Binyamin too were
gifted in aish. This comes from MRAH's berakhah "yishqon lavetach alav"
(Dev 33:12). Therefore, Sha'ul was able to decide, but not reveal the
mesechtah, the underlying big picture, that David could.

A major shift to greater emphasis in aish happened with the loss of
nevu'ah. Nevu'ah serves well for das; as chokhmah takes over, we had more
aish. (This is akin to R' Tzadoq's portrayal of what happened with Anshei
Keneses haGedolah.) Another difference is that EY has more reliance on
das than Bavel does -- just compare the styles of the two talmudim.


All of the above "shtims" with R' Dr Moshe Koppel's theory in
Metahalkhah. With each break in Jewish culture, we have less cultural
knowledge, gefeel, and have to rely more on formalisms. Kind of like RCS's
"Rupture and Reconstruction". Thus we forgot Torah with Moshe's petirah,
but Osniel "chazar veyasdum" using textual, formal rules. Similarly the
"chazar beyasdum" of Anshei Keneses haGedolah of the osios sofios and
numerous other dinim.

RMK's understanding is roughly as follows. Lemashal, there are two ways to
learn a language: The native speaker doesn't learn rules of grammar before
using them, he just knows what "sounds right". In contrast, an immigrant
builds his sentences by using formalized rules, learning such terms as
"past imperfect" and memorizing the forms that fit each category. R'
Koppel notes that the rules can never perfectly capture the full right
vs wrong. A poet has to know when one can take license.

He argues that halakhah is similarly best transmitted by creating "native
speakers". It is only due to loss of our progressive loss of the Sinai
culture with each generation that we need to rely on transmitting codified
rules. However, the rules are limited compared to Torah and the mind.
Mind goes beyond algorithm. What's captured is not the complete picture;
we're missing the equivalent of what "sounds right" and the limits of
"poetic license".

We are kachamorim (perhaps: more chomer, this being the Gra's general
pisgam for "chamor" in aggadita) because we don't have reactions based in
as much of the Sinai culture. However, because of that, we rely more on
sevarah, on formal thought, which can not capture as much of the truth,
but did push us to develop those skills.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder]
micha at aishdas.org        isn't complete with being careful in the laws
http://www.aishdas.org   of Passover. One must also be very careful in
Fax: (270) 514-1507      the laws of business.    - Rav Yisrael Salanter