tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post1751091099324808202..comments2024-03-05T21:22:43.426-05:00Comments on parshablog: Covering One's Succah With the Arba Minim?joshwaxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03516171362038454070noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-29003250911863887432009-02-02T07:32:00.000-05:002009-02-02T07:32:00.000-05:00As a short followup, just to demonstrate that answ...As a short followup, just to demonstrate that answers exist:<BR/><BR/><I>"If your interpretation were correct, the Torah would have commanded "we-ni`anatem" (= you shall wave)."</I><BR/>If only every pasuk were unambiguous, then you might be absolutely correct. But do you really claim to be able to write Biblical verse, to be able to dictate which lexical choice Moshe should have made. Rather, there are *many* ambiguous verses, which lend themselves to more than one interpretation. And for each of those, someone can say "if X was intended, it would have said explicitly X." And the other can rejoin "if Y was intended, it would have said explicitly Y." But there are idioms in every language, and ambiguous language, and words which change their meaning. E.g. I could say "if it meant on the head-pate," it would have said "upon your kodkod" rather that "bein einecha." But we all know now that this is precisely what "bein einecha" means, now that we have the Chronicles of Baal. So yes, it would have been *clearer*, but that does not mean that its absence means *absolutely* that "velakachtem" does not mean that they should take for the purpose of shaking, or that they should take up. (Also, though this is obviously later, I would note the taking up of palm fronds and shaking them as noisemakers in joy in Christian practice and Chashmonean practice.)<BR/><BR/><I>"Unfortunately you have a seriously flawed idea of what Peshat is. Putting it mildly"</I><BR/><BR/>As I noted earlier, you do not know me, or what my conception of peshat is, except from one or two short blogposts which you objected strongly to. I certainly know methods of peshat as distinguished from midrashic methods. By insulting me like this, you lay claim to expertise in peshat yourself, without any evidence that this is so. Indeed, it seems likely to me that I read more deeply than you do. And also that you do not fully understand what it is I am doing here.<BR/><BR/>However, one idea that I have developed (and IIRC parallels something Halivni wrote) and have seen in certain scenarios, is that what is presented using classic *midrashic* methods as the meaning of the text actually accords with *a* reading of the Biblical text, albeit not one that is obvious at first glance. This is not "clinging to Rabbinic hermeneutical methods" as a means of reading peshat, even as they are indeed binding as halacha.<BR/><BR/>And what I am trying to do hear is seriously consider the established Pharisaic position (among others) and see how they may have read the relevant verses on a peshat level.<BR/><BR/>Here, by the way, is a small sampling of posts on parshablog which will either gratify or deeply annoy you:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://parsha.blogspot.com/2004/09/belated-ki-teitzei-1.html" REL="nofollow">A post</A> (not the only one) about וְהֶחֱזִיקָה בִּמְבֻשָׁיו.<BR/><A HREF="http://parsha.blogspot.com/2008/09/shofetim-capital-punishment-based-on.html" REL="nofollow">A post</A> on capital punishment based on the testimony of two or three witnesses.<BR/><A HREF="http://parsha.blogspot.com/2008/08/shadal-on-tithes.html" REL="nofollow">A post</A> presenting Shadal's take on tithes.<BR/><BR/>KT,<BR/>Joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-80963729367310785852009-02-01T06:16:00.000-05:002009-02-01T06:16:00.000-05:00"Has it ever occurred to you..."you obviously do n..."Has it ever occurred to you..."<BR/><BR/>you obviously do not know me.<BR/><BR/>KT,<BR/>Joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-44115263210965319472009-02-01T03:19:00.000-05:002009-02-01T03:19:00.000-05:00Shalom Josh Waxman.Ignorance: Indeed, the differen...Shalom Josh Waxman.<BR/><BR/><I>Ignorance: Indeed, the different interpretation offered by the Karaites, or quite likely by the Tanna Rabbi Yehuda. But if we want to be extremely committed Pharisees, we can still maintain that that interpretation was incorrect. As to the rediscovery in this scenario, I could come up with two answers</I><BR/><BR/>Comment: <BR/>I submit that the ignorance is on the part of you people, the modern-day Pharisees.<BR/>You (pl.) arrogantly refuse to seriously consider that the original interpretation for the "taking" was to take the Four Species solely for making the <I>skhakh</I>, and that this interpretation was never forgotten -- just not carried out most or many years between Yehoshu`a and `Ezra.<BR/><BR/>Your (pl.) almost Pavlovian resort to all those fairy tales (including but not limited to midrashim) you (pl.) need to resort to to justify your Halakhic views on this topic goes a long way to explain why only about 20% of Jewry in North America are Orthodox. If the Qaraite Jewish point of view had had a broad hearing in the Jewish World, your p.o.v on this theme would likely have been squeezed into a minority position in the practicing Jewish arena.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Sincerely,<BR/>a caring JewAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-38631985130128128902009-02-01T03:03:00.000-05:002009-02-01T03:03:00.000-05:00Shalom lakhem.What of this strange practice, of ma...Shalom lakhem.<BR/><BR/><I>What of this strange practice, of making a Succah from local produce?</I><BR/><BR/>Comment: <BR/>Has it ever occurred to you that the reason for your viewpoint is that you're accustomed to the Rabbinic interpretation and never tried to interpret the verses independently?<BR/><BR/><I>I personally believe that pashut peshat in the pasuk is exactly what we do, waving the lulav bundle (perhaps just as earlier in the perek there was an omer hatenufa).</I><BR/><BR/>Comment:<BR/>Everyone is entitled to their beliefs and opinions, but not to their own sets of facts.<BR/>If your interpretation were correct, the Torah would have commanded "we-ni`anatem" (= you shall wave). <BR/>Unfortunately you have a seriously flawed idea of what Peshat is. Putting it mildly...<BR/><BR/>Your post betrays a poignantly feeble and pathetic attempt to avoid the obvious by way of clinging to Rabbinic hermeneutical methods, exposing the worst facets of Rabbinic thought in the process, eg the childish attitude of avoiding the adoptation of certain interpretations just so as to avoid the appearance of agreeing with the rivals of the Pharisees in olden times.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Sincerely,<BR/>a caring JewAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-41997012020754419442008-11-01T22:02:00.000-04:002008-11-01T22:02:00.000-04:00Thanks. And good points.1) Taking: Indeed. And as ...Thanks. And good points.<BR/><BR/>1) Taking: Indeed. And as the Karaites note, we have an idea of "taking" by Pesach, where it is also the first day.<BR/><BR/>2) Olives: And indeed, the Karaite Aharon ben Yosef suggests the same idea, saying "o yihyeh etz hadar hu hanizkar beEzra alei zayit."<BR/><BR/>3) Ignorance: Indeed, the different interpretation offered by the Karaites, or quite likely by the Tanna Rabbi Yehuda. But if we want to be extremely committed Pharisees, we can still maintain that that interpretation was incorrect. As to the rediscovery in this scenario, I could come up with two answers: (1) While Ezra and Nechemiah were great leaders and good at kiruv, perhaps the real talmidei chachamim who knew this tradition were back in Bavel; (2) There is already an idea of restoring forgotten original halachot, mentioned in a midrash that in the days of mourning for Moshe Rabbenu, thousands of halachot were lost, but Otniel ben Kenaz restored them with his dialectics. See here:<BR/>http://books.google.com/books?id=Hmvdv6YU13UC&pg=PA62&lpg=PA62&dq=mourning+moshe+restored+laws&source=bl&ots=mZJphyvhZD&sig=Pg36WXLjZ7lFfxs0BV8LEVWprN0&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result<BR/>Indeed, the different interpretations here also have their own dialectics, though each can be read into peshat in the various sources.<BR/><BR/>4) Maharil: Indeed very interesting. Perhaps I'll put up another post in the series with the relevant Maharil.<BR/><BR/>Kol Tuv,<BR/>Joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-32894761352775780212008-11-01T18:09:00.000-04:002008-11-01T18:09:00.000-04:00Very interesting post (as are your two follow-up p...Very interesting post (as are your two follow-up posts). I wish I had seen them earlier -- there's been a discussion of this very topic going on in a <A HREF="http://www.haloscan.com/comments/dovbear/4627768376666834806/#479398" REL="nofollow">comment thread</A> on DovBear.<BR/><BR/>A couple of comments:<BR/><BR/><I>However, <B>perhaps</B> one could interpret this [Vayikra 23:40] as taking this produce for the purpose of building the succah.</I><BR/><BR/>It should be noted that such an interpretation is strongly suggested by the fact that the instruction to "take" the <I>arba minim</I> on the first day (which does not include any explicit instruction regarding what to <I>do</I> with them) is almost immediately followed by the instruction to dwell in sukkot for seven days.<BR/><BR/><I>And of the things taken were וַעֲלֵי הֲדַס וַעֲלֵי תְמָרִים וַעֲלֵי עֵץ עָבֹת, which certainly sounds like things in the lulav bundle. But then, there is also the עֲלֵי-זַיִת וַעֲלֵי-עֵץ שֶׁמֶן. Perhaps we can associate the latter with the instruction of Devarim, of the produce of the goren and yekev, such that also oil pressings would be included?</I><BR/><BR/>A more likely explanation, IMHO, is that the Jews in the time of Ezra and Nehemia used olive branches (with the olives still on them), and branches from other oil-bearing fruits, as their interpretation of "פְּרִי עֵץ הָדָר". Thus, the list in Nehemia can be read as referring to the very things presribed in Vayikra.<BR/><BR/><I>If we read this together with a literal reading of the later declaration that they had not had such a sukkot since the days of Yehoshua bin Nun (pasuk 17), then we could just they that they were simply ignorant, and did not know the correct interpretation of the pasuk.</I><BR/><BR/>I wouldn't call them ignorant; I'd just say that they followed a different interpretation that the one given later by the tannaim. You seem to be suggesting that the tannaitic interpretation is the original and correct one, but that it was lost by the the time of Ezra and Nehemia -- and that even Ezra and Nehemia themselves were unaware of it. But if that's true, then how was this long-lost intepretation "rediscovered" in a later period?<BR/><BR/><I>And a few weeks ago, I was reading in the sefer of Minhagim of the Maharil about how they covered their Succot in Aravot, which the children would burn in festivities at the end of Succot.</I><BR/><BR/>This is quite interesting indeed, in light of the Samaritan custom to burn the sukkah's branches at the end of Sukkot (mentioned at the end of the <A HREF="http://www.thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c352_a13660/News/Briefs.html" REL="nofollow"><I>Jewish Week</I> article</A> you cited).<BR/><BR/>A couple weeks ago on hol hamoed, Jameel and I visited the Samaritan community on Har Gerizim, where we had the opportunity to see (and photograph) some of the Samaritan sukkot. You can see the pictures <A HREF="http://muqata.blogspot.com/2008/10/samaritan-sukkot-from-har-greizim-to.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>. (I'm the guy with the green head :-)Lurkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05516196101946513020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-75452364200225908722008-10-29T15:21:00.000-04:002008-10-29T15:21:00.000-04:00interesting. thanks! i'll check it out.interesting. thanks! i'll check it out.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-18125226706973813002008-10-29T15:04:00.000-04:002008-10-29T15:04:00.000-04:00The Samaritan halachah is actually an opinion that...The Samaritan halachah is actually an opinion that is recorded in Chazal. R' Yehudah (in Sifra Emor and Bavli Sukkah 36b) holds that the schach can only be from the 4 minim, although his stated reason is far from a literalist reading.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com