[Avodah] Explanation of the Tur?

[Micha Berger via Avodah]

On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 11:21:05PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote:
: > I think the word "source" in your translation is misleading "Al pi
: > haqabalah hasherashim vehakelalos" doesn't really mean mean textual sources,
: > like the mishnah or QSA. This teshuvah could well mean "qabalah"
: > in the same sense as a mohel or a shocheit, knowledge of practice rather
: > than knowledge of abstract ideas.

: No problem with that, as I was trying to get across the idea that these
: were not "textual" sources - how would you translate [sheyilmedu al pi
: haqabalah hashorashim vehakelalios] better though, to keep the flow and
: that something is being taught "al pi hakabalah"?

"They learned by osmosis the root principles and the general rules..."

:> However, the Maharil also touches on the topic in Shu"t Maharil haChadashos
:> 45, #2, in a discussion of women saying Birkhas haTorah. 

: These two Maharil's are such chalk and cheese, that it does seem difficult
: to understand them as having been written by the same person...

Meaning, he isn't useful as a source either way, as a harmonization
of the quotes (or a rejection of them) would itself require proof, and
can't be used to make the Majaril a source of a position.

...
:: And then the Chofetz Chaim in his defence of Beit Ya'akov type schooling in
:: Lekutei Halachot Sotah 21...

::> But it seems that all this was dafka in the times that were prior to us
::> when each on lived in the place of his fathers and the tradition of the
::> fathers was very strong by each one to go in the way that our fathers
::> went and like it says "ask your father and he shall tell you" and in this
::> it was possible to say that one should not teach Torah and rely in their
::> practice on their upright fathers.

:> Notice the CC is talking about mimetic chinukh, cultural absorbtion.

: Yes and no.  "ask your father and he shall tell you" [Devarim 32:7] is the
: pasuk used to justify saying "vitzivanu" on Chanukah candles [Shabbat 23a]
: and other rabbinic mitzvot.  It is not exactly a mimetic pasuk...

But that doesn't mean that's the CC's intent. As you write:
:                                   Yes the CC is clearly talking about in the
: context of the family (as boys were originally taught prior to the setting
: up of schools)...

Using the word "avikha" to refer to morei hora'ah is not peshat in the
pasuq. The CC appears to be using the peshat, and ignoring the gemara's
derashah.

I am uncomfortable with your reading something into the CC which isn't
quite what he said on the basis of his choice of prooftext. (Especially
anyone living after the normalization of out-of-context quote as slogan
with "chadash assur min haTorah".)

:> Even oral, the "textual" TSBP was formal, rules and ideas, existing
:> rulings. An intellectual excercise, rather than an experiential one.

: Agreed that there were some aspects of TSBP that was formal, rules and ideas
: etc - but that is not the question.  The question is, can or does anybody
: define TSBP as *only* those formal rules and ideas *without* including at
: all the experiential aspect...

Isn't the question: Does anyone force the CC to define the set of
TSBP that classically one was prohibited from teaching girls as being
more than those formal rules and ideas and as including at all the
experiential aspect?

:> I don't think he is talking about Oral Transmission in general, only when
:> you don't know what they did or would do in a given situation to have an
:> example to imitate.

: The Rambam says if you recall - "Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is
: as if he teaches her tiflut.  With regard to what are we speaking, with
: Torah she baal peh but Torah she bichtav even though he should not teach her
: ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut."

: The Rambam does not say - "with regard to what are we speaking, with regard
: to that portion of torah she ba'al peh that is formal rules and ideas,
: excluding those aspects that can be taught mimetically, but that portion of
: Torah she ba'al peh that can be or is taught mimetically or not necessarily
: in a formal educational setting is actually absolutely fine".  

I think the Rambam is using the word "lelameid" to mean formal education.
After all, does the father set out to actively teach informally? Hineni
muchan umezuman to teach by demonstrating behavior?

In which case, that would be exactly what the Rambam is saying. Watching
mom and asking questions as gaps arise is how Teimani girls were expected
to grow up up until Al Kanfei Nesharim in '49.

: And nobody seems to understand him as saying this (because otherwise, they
: could use this kind of TSBP as the subject of the brachot, or for her reward
: etc), seems to suggest that nobody is differentiating between these two
: types of TSBP...

Lehefech, the fact that formal reducation requires a berakhah and learning
informally / culturally does not strengthens the possiblity that it is
not equally that lelameid, just like it is not equally talmud Torah.

:                                          Is not the gemora etc filled with
: this kind of teaching?  I can't see us suggesting this is not TSBP.

The gemara isn't filled with cultural instruction; no text (written
or memorized) can be. Pehrpas a story or two describing a case of
it occuring...

So I am toally lost here. Maybe the "this" has been stretched further
than I can follow.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             If you won't be better tomorrow
micha at aishdas.org        than you were today,
http://www.aishdas.org   then what need do you have for tomorrow?
Fax: (270) 514-1507              - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov