Thursday, August 27, 2009

Interesting Posts and Articles #203

  1. At Daat Torah, explaining the position of the Meshaneh Halachos on child abuse. And though I don't typically link here, see Failed Messiah for an expansion of this view. The mustering of sources in this way to make those who report into moserim and rodefim and so on seems like a perversion of Judaism, and reminds me of the midrash of the laws of Sodom.

  2. At Rationalist Judaism, three more posts in his review / critique of Rabbi Reuven Schmeltzer's Chaim BeEmunasam.

    In part five, he discusses how the sefer copes with Rambam denying demons. After all, if every word of Chazal is true, and they talk about demons, how could the Rambam deny the reality of demons? The two answers offered, based on sources, are apologetics that the Rambam did not really deny the existence of demons, and that Rambam did do this but was wrong, led astray by philosophy. But if the point of the book is that there is only one acceptable masorah about statements of Chazal being all true, then the Rambam himself is a bar plugta with those who condemn him; and furthermore, there are several, who remain unmentioned -- in this book purporting to be comprehensive -- who read the Rambam in a straighforward manner and some of whom even agree with him.

    In part six, he considers how the book treats Moreh Nevuchim, as either outreach but not seriously intended; with a hidden kabbalistic meaning; or invalid because it was before Kabbalah was revealed. These, though, are not the only positions on the Moreh. It is selective quoting on the part of the book.

    In part seven, he considers how the book treats the issue of Rabbi Avraham, son of the Rambam, who explicitly says we need not defend Chazal's knowledge of science. It is relegated to a footnote, together with a claim that it is a forgery, and that it is not in our masorah, possibly conflating the two statements. And then Rabbi Slifkin responds.
  3. At Vos Iz Neias, a Jerusalem court decides there is enough evidence to think it possible that the mother accused of Munchhausen by Proxy poses a danger to her other children. Watch the comment section for the reactions.

  4. Life in Israel about how Rav Chaim Kanievsky served in the IDF.

  5. At the OU, Rabbi Dr. Zivitovsky discusses the idea that the kohen gadol wore a golden rope, so that they could pull him out if he died. He notes this only occurs in Zohar but not in the Talmud; that there are halachic issues with the kohen wearing this extra beged, especially one of gold; and that there are contrary stories in the gemara which indicate the lack of such a gold rope.

    Though he does not note this, that the Zohar is a much later source is also important. If it is a late 13th century forgery, falsely attributed to a Tanna, then we should lend it no credence where it is contrary to halacha and history as related in the gemara.

  6. The Loch Ness monster spotted on Google Earth... or, not.

  7. Hirhurim cites an interesting segment of a book review, in order to spark a discussion, about wearing Tzitzit out. I am reminded of Rabbi Gorelick's famous retort.

  8. Rabbi Avi Billet discusses shiluach hakan in the Jewish Star. Though I don't agree with the assumptions that lead to his questions. It is only if you need the eggs or baby birds -- to eat -- that the instructions are given, perhaps to mitigate the cruelty involved. Putting them back might fulfill the mitzvah, but this is cruelty in and of itself, not to mention just silliness. Of course, there are kabbalistic reasons that some have proposed.

  9. Emes veEmunah comments on the awful comic which appears to have been published by the Edah Chareidis (they give an email address), which compares Hadassah hospital to Nazis who kill chareidim and let chilonim live.

  10. My roundup of parshablog posts on the parsha.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

Meshaneh Halachos? Did you write it this way on purpose or was it inadvertent?

I am reminded of Rabbi Gorelick's famous retort.

For those of us who dont know what that famous retort was can you please enlighten us

joshwaxman said...

well, the rabbi's first name is Menasheh, no? shouldn't we keep the vowel pattern? ;)

the story, iirc, was of a talmid who always came late to his shiur, but also had an overt show of frumkeit by kissing the mezuza. (in an alternate versions, cleaner version: had his tzitzis hanging out.)
the good rabbi, in annoyance one day, said: why are you letting your tzitzis hang out like that?
talmid: rebbe, it's a mitzvah!
rabbi gorelick: Zvynu vf nyfb n zvgminu!

(text has been rot13-ed)
:)

kt,
josh

joshwaxman said...

the question for the first version was: why are you kissing the mezuzah? (and that was perhaps by doing this, he was delaying his entrance and making a bigger disruption of shiur)

kt,
josh

Yosef Greenberg said...

Isn't it a classic case of letzanos. (I don't really mean to castigate, but, but... its Elul ;) )

I miss the Milah joke.

joshwaxman said...

which one?

if you want explanation of the Milah joke, email me privately.

kt,
josh

Yosef Greenberg said...

Okay, I got it. :)

I meant the "Meshaneh Halachos".

Anonymous said...

Re your #8:

IIRC, it's shiluach haKein (not kahn).
Moreover, looking at sefer HaChinuch and elswhere, I was surprised to discover that it is not limited to "need/hunger" but an absolute mitzva in and of itself.

joshwaxman said...

i know, but i say shiluach hakan anyway, as a rebellious act in line with a descriptivist rather than proscriptivist grammar.

in terms of the mishaneh halachos, while i didn't innovate it, it was, similar to the other joke, non-overt, and known only to those who were privy to it already. but it does reflect my reaction in general to some of the chiddushim i found in his teshuvot -- and i am not talking about controvertial matters such as this one, but rather even in relatively tame matters, such as the day to launder for Shabbos.

kt,
josh

joshwaxman said...

see by the way the ki teitzei roundup, and how the proper spelling of it led to my choice of the particular image there, for 2008. ;)

kt,
josh

joshwaxman said...

in the case under discussion, it seems that not only is it predicated on a misunderstanding of the metzius of pedophiles, but the *style* is such that it *feels* as if he is *hunting* the victims; not only disbelieving them, but turning them and those who are honestly trying to help them into rodefim. if so, this would be a true perversion of the spirit of the halacha.

kt,
josh

Yosef Greenberg said...

Fine,

As long as you believe that its only an "inside" joke. I don't know if it help completely. It does minimize the effect drastically, though.

I have many issue with his psakim as well, reverting to letzanos still isn't a valid option. (Unless you consider him an apikores. Then you get a Tizku Lemitzvos. But I don't see why.)

joshwaxman said...

i know people who believe the name of the sefer is indeed Meshaneh Halachos, and that Meshaneh means both learn and change. Proof is the statement Kol HaMeshaneh Halachos Bechol Yom... (Yes, I know it is Shoneh, but I can't help but think back and think that maybe there *was* such a nusach.) It was intended as an oblique reference to my disapproval of the methodology -- though of course now, it is expanded in the comments to this post!

(Also, if I'm not embarrassed about saying this during the rest of the year, I might b'shitta not change such conduct during Elul...)

kt,
josh

joshwaxman said...

the problem, to my mind, of mocking what one considers an apikores, is that everyone has their own definition of "apikores", and it becomes a moreh heter for mocking and not considering seriously the words of people you vehemently disagree with. and this is a deficiency in שמע האמת ממי שאמרו.

a case in point was me (though i am nobody) and a certain prominent Judaic scholar of Rambam, in a recent thread on Hirhurim.

while i have my own drastic chiddushim, and while Rav Moshe Feinstein did as well, my recollection of my impression of reading through some of his teshuvot was that i was greatly distressed, such that i thought that he was either deliberately misinterpreting sources or else doing so out of ignorance of how understand a source. this is my recollection, so perhaps it is not accurate. a better approach might be to lay out in a series of posts just what i found objectionable in his innocuous teshuvot; though i don't have the time to do that at the moment.

also, was Geniva an apikores?

kt,
josh

Yosef Greenberg said...

If you subscribe to the notion of of Kol HaMeshaneh, then your fine. :)

Do you Beshittah hold that one shouldn't try to improve in the month of Elul?

Obviously, if you don't think its wrong there is no reason to change in Elul. I just think one should try to pay more attention.

i know people who believe the name of the sefer is indeed Meshaneh Halachos

Do you?

You would never call anyone an apikorus?

Regarding Geniva; I don't know. It doesn't seem like the Amora'im cared that he was sent to the gallows.

joshwaxman said...

indeed, two people; i won't name them. but there is the famous teretz about some grammatical irregularity that Pharaoh was not an expert in Hebrew dikduk.

;)

LinkWithin

Blog Widget by LinkWithin