tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post9155267831668474778..comments2024-03-05T21:22:43.426-05:00Comments on parshablog: How did Moshe remove his shoes?joshwaxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03516171362038454070noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-69430436140374040592012-01-09T11:48:25.913-05:002012-01-09T11:48:25.913-05:00I appreciate the point the Yeshiva Guy Says... vid...I appreciate the point the Yeshiva Guy Says... video is making, but I'm sad the vort mentioned in it is getting such a bad rap. The video leaves out the vort's punchline, which is that even today there are people who obsess over saying the right brachot while committing much worse transgressions. The vort isn't just being cute for the sake of cuteness; it builds up to a reminder for people to get their priorities straight. Sometimes it's easier to accept such a message if it's presented in a humorous way.Sarahhttp://twitter.com/sarahbrodskynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-77756838938181651542011-03-10T08:06:20.418-05:002011-03-10T08:06:20.418-05:00The idea that the Avot kept the tarya"g mitzv...The idea that the <i>Avot</i> kept the <i>tarya"g mitzvot</i> is midrashic, and like many <i>midrashim</i> we need to think about what it <b>means rather than what it says</b>. I'd like to compare this idea of pre-existing <i>mitzvot</i> with the secular Common Law that underlies the English (and North American, Australian, etc.) legal systems. <br /><br />Common Law is based entirely on precedent - the decisions made by earlier courts are binding on their successors unless formally overturned, which rarely happens. If a court needs to decide a case differently it might claim that it is merely "restating" the law, although it is really redefining it, or it might say that the earlier decision "should be confined to the facts" - that is, the previous decision was right under those very precise circumstances (that the crime was committed by a thief aged 37 years between the hours of 2 and 3 AM in London, 1848) but that the law <b>generally</b> is actually different. You will even find older law books claiming that judges do not create but merely "discover" the law.<br /><br />You might say that all this is pointless formalism and that we should frankly admit that the Common Law is merely accumulated jurisprudence. I think that this argument may be true, as far as it goes, but it misses the point. We don't want judges to decide things arbitrarily. The whole song-and-dance about precedent is designed to encourage a conservative approach, and it means that judges today can (and do) usefully study cases that are five or six hundred years old. When we say that the judges "discover" the Common Law we are really saying that it is coherent and consistent, and we implicitly commit ourselves to keeping it that way.<br /><br />The same goes for these <i>midrashim</i>. Did Avraham really keep <i>Pesach</i>? Almost certainly not. But when we treat him as if he did, <b>on a midrashic level</b>, we are declaring that our religious practices are part of a continuum that extends to the earliest exemplars of our religion. In effect we are saying that we stand by them - that their actions are justifiable within our system of <i>halacha</i>. So this cute idea that Yaakov was <b>really</b> worried about Esov saying the wrong <i>bracha</i> isn't an attempt at a historical discovery. The Torah isn't a history book. It's really a statement about us - that we respect our forebears and that we ascribe good qualities to them, so that any midrashic "hook" in the text can become an opportunity to think well of our forebears.Joe in Australianoreply@blogger.com