[Avodah] dinosaurs

[Micha Berger]

Joys of thread drift.... Someday someone is going to hit the archives
and wonder why a thread about the nature of machloqes and eilu va'eilu
is titled "dinosaurs".

On Fri, Nov 06, 2009 at 02:39:47PM -0500, hankman wrote:
: R' Micha, for the most part, I hear what you are saying, and it is
: as good an attempt at explaining EvE as I have seen (though I have not
: seen much on this)...

The blog entries I pointed to earlier refer to two articles:
Moshe Halbertal, Controversy in Halacha
    http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/Gruss/halbert.html
and R' Michael Rosensweig, Elu Va-Elu Divre Elokim Hayyim: Halakhic
    Pluralism And Theories Of Controversy
    http://www.lookstein.org/articles/elu_ve_elu.htm

And then of course there is RZL's "The Dynamics of Dispute", or whatever
the next edition is going to be titled <plug, plug>.

: Let me try and paint a picture that includes (and perhaps elaborates)
: I think much of what you wrote. correct me if I am wrong or you disagree
: with my summary.

You may be demonstrating that I was very far from clear. I didn't
provide a single explanation.

0- There are rishonim, IMHO including the Rambam, who believe that
there is one truth. Machloqes comes from attempts to retrieve forgotten
truths. EvE has to do with the value of the search for truth, even an
unsuccessful one. RMF appears to support the opinion in his haqdamah,
but there is a teshuvah that indicates otherwise. I invite RDE to explain
at more length.

But I didn't mention position #0, since that's not an approach to
halachic plurality. I'm just giving it now for completeness sake.

1- Halahah is built analytically from what was given, or that the power
to define halakhah is given to the poseiq. RMHalbertal lists these two
as separate, but I don't see how the difference is relevent to us. Or
even if the "constitutive" approach (my seifa) isn't an implication of the 
"acccumulative" one allowing for analysis producing differing
conclusions. Between the two, we have the opinion of the Rambam, Ramban,
Ritva and Ran.

2- Since each soul was at Sinai, each has its own perspective on Emes.
This is the Maharshal's approach. The Maharal appears to say similarly,
that there is an ideal pesaq as manifest in heaven, and the pesaq that
fits within this world.

This is not a nebich situation, that people can't grasp the whole Torah
and our limitations force imperfect understanding. Rather, the Torah was
written to be used this way, as a means of communicating Divine Thought
to finite minds.

Notice that these two aren't mutually exclusive.

3- R' Tzadoq (Resisei Lailah 17) writes (I'm quoting my translation,
   since you found it problematic):
    Whenever a new thing found about the Torah by any wise person,
    simultaneously arises its opposite.... When it comes to the realm of
    action (po'al) it can not be that two things true simultaneously.
    In the realm of the mind (machshavah), on the other hand, it is
    impossible for a man to think about one thing without considering
    the opposite.

This contradicts the Maharal, which says that plurality is a consequence
of our using models, not a consequence of the intellectual ability to
contemplate conflicting premises. But it too could fit the rishonim's
discussion of extrapolating or constructing law from what already was
established. (Compare to the Netziv's aish+das in the introduction to
Haameq She'eilah, also mentioned in RMRosensweig's article.)

I'm advocating the Maharshal and Maharal's position, as that's the one
I best understand, perhaps as an explanation why Hashem gave a law from
which a poseiq can derive/construct different pesaqim. I do not "get" R'
Tzadoq's stance any more than you do, although I believe we do consider
man's ability to entertain conflicting possibilities when it comes to
safeiq and laws of birur...

: 1) There is but one reality, it is the existence of G-d and his
: "boundless self-knowledge" which is one and inseparable from him. (If
: I knew him, I would be him). Since "ain od milvado" then in a real
: sense there is no other knowledge, it is all a reflection of some truth
: about G-d.

This last sentence is more Chabad than Maharal. I therefore have little
to say about it. And in general, my speculations on Qabbalah topics
aren't worth the electrons they're written with.

...
: 3) I may be on shaky ground here in my assumptions: In a real sense
: (G-d's perspective), Torah is the "boundless self-knowledge"...

I would argue, as per the introduction to the Qetzos, that Torah is the
path to truth, not the truth. "Emes mei'eretz tatzmiach", or as R' Chaim
notes, "vechayei olam *nata* besocheinu" -- the Torah is the seed, not
the chayei olam itself. See <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2008/04/geulah.shtml>.

:          I presume this is in some way expressed in a finite TSBK and a
: limitless TSBP?

Perhaps the combintation of Maharal and Qetzos that I find most to my
taste would say that TSBP is potentially limitless, in that it could in
theory get as close to limitless as the minds who think it can. But you
can't actually reach infinity.

: 4) Olam Haba, the ultimate gemul, is greater attachment to G-d through
: more understanding of greater (but still limited) parts of the supraset
: of our Torah, that we could not grasp within the more limiting structure
: of olam hazeh.

Understanding? I'm not sure redemption is through understanding.

: 6) My issues begin here. If men are fungibly equal, then our appropriate
: and correct view should be the same (we should all see the same shadow)
: for every individual and if we do not, it is only due to error. Thus
: we are not all fungible, and this fits well with the notion that the
: shoresh of our neshama for each individual comes from a different part
: of the overall whole, so they are not fungible and therefore might
: logically and naturally view a different shadow...

Pretty much what the Maharshal says, above. However, people from similar
cultures and backgrounds would have similar views.

:                                    If this is correct, then there should
: be a whole spectrum of pesak (and EvE) appropriate to each individual,
: why are we all shoehorned into the views of only BH and BS as there
: should be as many perspectives as there are individuals? ...

Because creating a unity of perspective across a kehillah, and potentially
across kelal Yisrael, is a good thing.

...
: 7) Along the same lines of thought, I would imagine from mathematical
: analogy, just as in mathematical analysis in a well behaved function,
: a small change in x will produce a small change in y, why are we
: getting diametrically opposed results (eg., tamei or tahor)? Why are
: the shadows we see so different? ...

However, our mashal wasn't a well behaved function, it's a 3D object
and its shadow. If you look at a cube side-on, it's a square. If you
look at it corner-on, it's a hexagon. Both are looking at cubes.

Also, the permissability of a beitzah shenaleda beYT may be 180deg apart
between the two schools, but how big of a difference is that WRT looking
at the Torah as a whole? The entire topic is tiny.

One of the roles of pesaq, such as when Sanhedrin nimnu vegamru (like
BH and BS) is to get people to look at the cube from closer to the
same direction.

So the way I see it, Torah is our means to reach Emes, or to get ever
closer since the goal is infinite. We are where we are, and thus we see
the emes from different angles, thus giving us different pesaqim. The
need for unity pulls us together, trying to make the differences between
those angles smaller; at least in cases where our differences divide us
socially. Therefore at times pesaq is standardized, thereby forcing those
of us further away from the norm to assume stances closer to the rest.

BTW, about the goal being infinite... OhB is lehanos miziv haShechinah,
more removed unity with Her.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and
micha at aishdas.org        this was a great wonder. But it is much more
http://www.aishdas.org   wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "mensch"!     -Rav Yisrael Salanter