<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 2:06 PM, <<a href="mailto:cantorwolberg@cox.net">cantorwolberg@cox.net</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
The question was asked:<br>
Nowadays.... I wonder if people still challenge their rebbes? ... .<br>
<br>
It seems to me that the more secure a rebbe (or scholar) is, the less defensive he would be. I have always asked my students to actively disagree with me if they disagree. There is also nothing wrong with saying: I don't know, but I will check sources, etc. In addition, the whole structure of the gemara is arguing and challenging each other.
Kol tuv,<br>
ri
</blockquote><div><br>In the context of the give-and-take of a shiur, I really do not expect students to be 100% polite. They need to be more spontaneous and so being a bit less polite is OK.<br><br>When a student is outside the parameters of the give-and-take it is always roper to be mindful of etiquette. In my parshah Shiur at Cong. Mt. Sinai, I used to explain Rashi and show how I respectfully disagreed and I would make an effort to sho what forced Rashi's hand<br>
<br>I had several rigid types of attendees:<br><br><ol><li>For SOME people, IF I said a Shiur on the parsha it meant I at least was resposible to KNOW every Rashi on the Parshah</li><li>some were even MOE machmir and were upset if what I said did NOT conform with Rashi. </li>
</ol></div></div>Illustration: At Friday night dinners inthe Heights I once posited that the brothers did NOT sell Yosef and that the Yishma'elim did so -even thought that IS the peshuto shel mikra! I had a VERY hard time defending myself [even though by then I had leined vayeshev maybe 20+ times]!<br>
<br>Finally, I mentioned the Rashbam and reluctantly they concede that I MIGHT be OK after all, even though the passuk SAYS Yishma'elim yanked Yosef out of the pit.<br><br>To such an extent, many people are rigidly conformists on these matters. <br>
<br>I might add taht other p'sukkim DO back up Rashi's read [e.g. in Mikketz yosef accuses his brothers of selling him.] so in now way do I mean to say Rashi is WRONG, only that he is forcing the simple read of Vaeyshev because of external problems. I call forcing a local read to match an external read the simplest form of PILPUL viz. Ignore what it says here and over-ride it in favor of more "global" harmony.<br>
<br>Knowing that Rashi has a point I need to answe that and so I myself pilpul Yosef's accusation to MEAN "I am Yoseph whom YOU CAUSED to be sold down to Egypt" or "who are responsible for my ultimate sale to Egypt, etc." IOW fair is fair, Rashi has a valid point, but the way he wiggles out of it is IMHO not the simplest read.<br>
<br>But w/o allowing oneself the luxury of thinking,analyzing and scrutinizing, then Torah is not learning but indoctrination, and we can digress from teaching students to a form of "CONTROLLING" them via mind games.<br>
<br>Read the Rema's inro to his Mappah on SA and se why he felt it necessary to provide an alternative read to RY karo's p'sak. We true-blue Ashkenazim have been engaged in this kind of alternate reading for perhaps approaching a millenium. I hate to see it go away in favor of some kind of perceived politcal correctness.<br>
<br><br><br>Kol Tuv / Best Regards,<br>RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com<br>see: <a href="http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/">http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/</a>