Re: the maximalistic position (Was: Children and Observance/Davening)
- From: "Rafael" <jmalfatto@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 21:09:06 +0000 (UTC)
"Yisroel Markov" <ey.markov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:24d4n154qdal4fh72uk5ek8op3himndk6f@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 14:46:01 +0000 (UTC), "Rafael"
> <jmalfatto@xxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
>
> >"Yisroel Markov" <ey.markov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >> >In calling the maximalistic view "asinine", I suspect that you're
reading
> >> >your culture into theirs.
> >>
> >> Suspect based on what, exactly? (Literalism is the first sign of an
> >> out-of-culture reading, BTW.)
> >
> >If anything, I agree with the gist of your earlier statement; the first
sign
> >of an out-of-culture reading is dismissing it as "asinine."
>
> "Heck, I think alot of what's said in the name of religion is asinine,
> but that doesn't change the fact that people say such things."
Do you have a problem with my admitting a personal flaw?
In this case, however, I think it's you (and your ideological allies) who
are demonstrating the flaw, in that I'm not the one who called the literal
understanding of Halivni's talmudic examples "asinine."
> >And I don't know where you learned that the default reading of a text
should
> >be metaphorical, but I disagree with it.
>
> Perhaps I misspoke. Generally, the default reading should be literal.
> Once it doesn't make sense (like here), it's time to depart from it.
It's not my personal view (which, I suspect, is even more naturalistic than
yours), but it still makes sense to me.
> Not so with a midrashic statement, where the default is non-literal.
I suspect that exception says more about the interpretive mindsets of later
readers than it does about the actual intent of the early rabbinic authors.
Besides, this is no ordinary aggadah, as it pertains to halakhic material.
<snip>
> >As I've told Jacko directly, I'll take Halivni's word over his any day.
>
> Yes, I've noticed. Why? Because you like Halivni's conclusions?
> I understand that Jacko's manner of discourse has pissed you off (as
> evidenced by your dismissive responses to his IMHO informative posts
> and valid points), but that doesn't change the substance of what he
> has to offer.
Call it a personal intuition, if you prefer. I trust my judgment of
character. (I used to daven in R. Halivni's shabbat minyan, btw. The man is
a talmid chakham if I've ever met one.)
<snip>
> >The trend is attributing to material a sinaitic origin. The kabbalists
may
> >have been particularly liberal about it,
>
> They attributed a tannaitic origin to their material, then hitched a
> ride on that, so to speak.
And these amoraim (variably) attributed a sinaitic origin to their teachings
(while others were more reserved, stressing basic hermeneutical principles
only). Nu?
Rafael
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Re: the maximalistic position (Was: Children and Observance/Davening)
- From: Yisroel Markov
- Re: the maximalistic position (Was: Children and Observance/Davening)
- From: Yisroel Markov
- Re: the maximalistic position (Was: Children and Observance/Davening)
- From: Yisroel Markov
- Re: the maximalistic position (Was: Children and Observance/Davening)
- From: Rafael
- Re: the maximalistic position (Was: Children and Observance/Davening)
- From: Rafael
- Re: the maximalistic position (Was: Children and Observance/Davening)
- From: Yisroel Markov
- Re: the maximalistic position (Was: Children and Observance/Davening)
- Prev by Date: Re: the maximalistic position (Was: Children and Observance/Davening)
- Next by Date: Re: Rabin murder: ball game is over
- Previous by thread: Re: the maximalistic position (Was: Children and Observance/Davening)
- Next by thread: Re: the maximalistic position (Was: Children and Observance/Davening)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|