[Avodah] Weird Exceptions

[Micha Berger]

On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 08:28:46PM +0000, kennethgmiller at juno.com wrote:
: I think that today, Shushan Purim, is another example worth
: remembering. In my mind, the most logical rule would have been to observe
: Purim on the 15th in any city which had a wall in Esther's day. We could
: then make an exception to that rule, and give kavod to Yerushalayim...

: But that's NOT the rule Chazal chose to make. The actual rule is to
: observe Purim on the 15th in any city which had a wall in Yehoshua's
: day, which includes Yerushalayim, but *excludes* Shushan. So they made
: a logical exception to that rule, and set the 15th as Purim for Shushan...

: It seems to me that the answer is found in Gemara Megilla 3b, which
: brings a pasuk (regarding redeeming one's land, Vayikra 25:29) to show
: that certain halachos d'Oraisa apply in a walled city, but not elsewhere,
: and therefore we must carefully define exactly what counts as a "walled
: city". I don't recall or see where that Gemara makes an explicit comment,
: but it seems simple to me that if the Torah is declaring a law about the
: walled cities of Eretz Yisrael, then that status ought to be established
: upon entering the Land.

It seems to my mind a parallel to RYBS's thesis that minhagim alway
imitate the forms of halakhah. (An idea I have voiced questions about
in the past.) Here, we see Chazal choosing to follow the categories
of deOraisos when creating a derabbanan when they were "close enough",
rather than creating new categories.

...
: The Torah is one entire system, and the parts cannot be separated...

I suggested that this is an inherant difference between Yefetic (Western)
and Semitic (including Jewish, our cousins, other Asian) thinking.

http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/12/semitic-perspective.shtml

    Another difference can be seen by contrasting the style of Aristotle
    with that of Rav Yehudah haNasi. Aristotle catalogues. He divides
    a subject into subtopics, and those subtopics even further, until
    one is down to the individual fact. Greek thought was focused on
    reductionism. To understand a phenomenon, break it down into smaller
    pieces, and try to understand each piece. This is typical of the
    Yefetic perspective....

    As opposed to the way Rav Yehudah haNasi redacted the first
    mishnah. The beginning of the mishnah could have said that the time
    for evening shema is from sunset until 1/3 the night. But instead it
    uses referents involving kehunah, taharah and ashmores. This is not to
    confuse the issue, but because from the Semitic perspective the key to
    understanding one mitzvah is from its connections to everything else.

I think this dovetails with what RAM is saying, "The Torah is one entire
system, and the parts cannot be separated."

Which could mean that when
Chazal choose a non-obvious rule in order to refer to something deOraisa,
it could well be because they see a connection between the new law and
that deOraisa that is eluding us.

Anyway, to continue explaining what I mean about not trying to understand
Torah -- or anything -- by reducing it to its parts:

    Yefes is reductionist, believing the world can be understood as
    the sum of its smallest pieces. Sheim is holistic, looking at the
    interconnections between those pieces, and the pieces only gaining
    meaning from the relationships in which they partake.

    ...

    (Even look at the difference between Western and Eastern idolatry:
    Semitic idolatry is not about polytheistic people-gods, reducing
    godhood to an easily understandable super-powerful "person" like
    Zeus. It's about notions that seem to us far blurrier. Buddha nature
    in which everything is godly, but just isn't aware of it. Hinduism's
    single Divine that has 3.3 million expressions called "gods". One
    fact, many perspectives. Is it avodah zarah or isn't it? The cases in
    the gemara become difficult to apply. Christianity started on this
    road when it adopted trinitarianism, but at some point the church
    got too Westernized...)

    There is also a likelihood this issue played a role in the Maimonidian
    Controversy. For all his ties to mesorah, the Rambam's project was
    from what we identified as a Yefetic perspective. Unlike the mishnah,
    his Mishneh Torah categories, divides and subdivides in Aristotilian
    style, with some connections overlaid, and far more often simply
    left implied.

	While there is a historic debate whether there are 13 principles
	or three, I really don't know what difference this makes except in
	semantics. Furthermore, according to the qabbalists there is no such
	thing a foundation principle in the Torah because every aspect of
	the Torah is a foundation principle without distinction one part from
	another...
		- Chasam Sofer, Yoreh Deah 2:356; tr. R' Daniel Eidensohn

    The Rambam tried to establish basics, from which everything flows. The
    Chasam Sofer presents the opposing qabbalistic camp, in which any
    Torah idea can be seen as an equally place to start exploring a
    complex network of truths. The issue was never articulated, but
    perhaps because "perspective" is something so primary that it's
    difficult to establish a common dialogue across its borders.

    Des Cartes famously said, "Cogito ergo sum -- I think therefore I
    am." A true skeptic can't be sure of much.... The only thing one can
    be sure of is that there is an "I" doing the thinking, being sure....

    But even the Cogito is subject to this distinction. Are we
    individuals who interact, or only defined as individuals by the
    set of interactions we have with others? Moshe Rabbeinu lacked
    his full prophetic gift from the time of the Golden Calf until the
    rise of the next generation. The Or haChaim explains that this is
    because "Kol Yisrael areivim zeh bazeh" (Shevu'os 39a), which is
    usually translated "All Jews are guarantors one for another". That's
    consistent with another version of the quote, which ends "lazeh" (for
    this). However, "ba-", in, implies a different meaning of the word
    "areivim", mixture. All Jews are mixed, one into the other. Moshe's
    soul did not stand alone, it is connected and overlaps those of
    the rest of the nation. When they lowered themselves with the calf,
    Moshe's soul was diminished.

    Even the "I" is not reductionist, but defined by its connections.

Weirdly, I didn't invoke R' Shimon Skop's "im ein ani li" on this
last point.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision,
micha at aishdas.org        yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507