<div dir="ltr"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 4:58 PM, Micha Berger <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:micha@aishdas.org">micha@aishdas.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
What RYBS is objecting to is new methodologies. The question isn't<br>
what he would say about using game theory to explain an odd case of<br>
yerushah. It's more about things like revadim, <br>
<br>
<br>
Tir'u baTov!<br>
-Micha</blockquote></div><br>Disclaeimer: I am NOT an expedrt on Revadim per se...<br><br>Revadim's methodology has a number of precedents. <br><ol><li>Bach Even Ho'ezer 6 describes the Rambam's use of this method</li>
<li>Chachmas Shlomoh [I forget where[ himself uses the term "stama desugyah" to desscribe the anonymous voice of the Gamara</li><li>This Stam is unlikely either Rra Ashi or his son mar Bar Rav Ashi. This can be proven "scientifically"* but the way the Mehsrshal uses it pretty much presumes that difference</li>
<li>The Later R. SY Weinberg [my rebbe] descbied thee opening Sugya in Qiddushin as Saboraic</li><li>When I posted the previous as radical RYGB iirc said that this was NOT radical and in fact the Reshash had already said the same thing</li>
<li>R. Gorelick was not fan of the Chochmas Yisroel methodology but even he concede that "frummies" such as maharitz Chayes were leigtimate adovcates of same. Or iow there is a "frum wissenshaft" and a non-frum or anti-frum wissenshaft</li>
<li>R. MS Efldblum claimedto be foollwing inthe footsteps of D DZ Hoffmann</li><li>Dikdukei Soferim has solid "frum" credentials.</li><li>I queried Rabbi Dr. E Kanarfogel re: RYBS and Wissenshaft: He replied that RYBS was mixed. When it made sense he used itotherwise he did not. If rYBS were 100% against it, I doubt his son would have pursued it.<br>
</li></ol>Bottom Line:<br>Revadim [at leat in its most basic form] is just putting together a series of existing points under a new rubric> it's like saying R. Yishma;e ORIGINATED instead of merely categorized the 13 middos of the Torah. Revadim is perhpas no more an innovation in learning Gamara than Brisker Torah is an innovation in how to make a hilluk. <br>
<br>** As far as Hiddush vs. Shinuy I am reminded of the following logic [silly syllogism?] Lemashal<br><ul><li>I enjoy my food.</li><li>You over-eat</li><li>He is a glutton</li></ul>Nimshal:M<br><ul><li>My Torah Is fulll of Hidushim</li>
<li>Your Ttorah is full of Shinuyyim</li><li>His Torah is full apikorsus </li></ul><br>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>Notes:<br><br>*The Scientific METHOD for showing that Rav Ashi NOT being idnetical with the Sram is simple: Just go through Shas and show that the Stam and Rav Ashi either disagree or are working on different assumptions. <br>
Illustration: <br><div style="margin-left: 40px;">The Shach takes it for granted that the Sefer hachinuch WAS authroed by the famous Re'ah but we can show dfeeinitvely that the Hinuch in places ARGUES with the Re'ah. And this is well articulated itneh haqdamah to the Hinuch in the Feldheim edition.<br>
</div><br>Point?<br><div style="margin-left: 40px;">Many POPLUAR atrributions of authroship are either wrong, misleading or over-simplified. E.G.: A Rav gets up infront of a large audience and asks "how come the Shulchan Aruch puts Hilchos Hanukkah BEFORE Purim while the Rambam has them in reverse order? I pointed out to said Rav [privately after the shiur was over] that the question on Maran RY Karo is misplaced because it was the TUR who made the order. So to ask why RY Karo did not follow his mentor, viz. the Rambam, is a specious question based upon a false premise viz. that the SA was an orignal owrk instead of an appendage to the existing Tur/BY. But Rabbonim will make these kinds of divrei Torah up anyway.<br>
</div><br>Another illustration of mis-leading authorship: <br><div style="margin-left: 40px;">The Rema refers to the "tur Ho'aruch" and quotes something the TUR didn't say. One of the nos'eio kelim picks this up and explains the Rema MEANT the Turr WITH the [then new] BY as his Tur ho'aruch. Because in HIS day, the Tur's new Edtions had the Addition of BY for the very first time. Hence, to the Rema it was not the old "shor"t Tur but the NEW "long" Tur. But we would be confused later on by what he really meant. </div>
<br>** When I was in Rav Weiss' YD shiur he asked a question: I gave a Hilluk. He said: "Wolpoe, your Hilluk is TOO balebatish for me." I then flipped to the back of my SA and found either Pri Mmegaddim or Pri Chadash [I forget which fruit] and I rasied my hand and pointed this out to R. Wess: He replied: "it's STILL too balebatish" I give him credit for being consistent and I igve myself credit for "balebatishly" being mechavein to a simple peshat - perhasp one that made the longer lamdus probably unncessary.<br>
-- <br>Kol Tuv / Best Regards,<br>RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com<br>see: <a href="http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/">http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/</a><br>
</div>