Re: Are women allow to blow Shofar in Rosh Hashana?


Yisroel Markov wrote:
What you said may very well be true (they felt they had the power to
legislate). Maimonides did NOT codify the PESAQ of the Geonim, he
codified the pesaqim of the Talmud. The Geonic qabbala tells you how
to READ the Talmud.,

In his last hasaga on the introduction to the Mishne Tora, the Ra'avad
observes, among other things (QFM-CW): "Also, there are matters on
which the Geonim disagree, and this author [Rambam] chose one of the
opinions. If he is greater than me, then good, but if not, why should
I drop my understanding of who is right in favor of his?" Is that not
a valid criticism regarding matters on which the Geonim disagree?

Short answer -- no. The criticism is not valid.

This is precisely why Maimonideans get nervous. Ra'abad does not play
by the rules.

1. Maimonides had a dispute about an issue in reshuyoth shabbath with
Samuel Ben Ali, a gaon in Baghdad. At least R. Ben Ali could cogently
cite chapter and verse. Ra'abad speaks in vague generalities. WHICH
matters? WHERE? Which Geonim?

He makes it sound like the Talmud often takes no position, and "geonim"
disagree, and M chose one of the geonic opinions where no Talmudic
conlcusion was ever reached. But on those facts M always TELLS you
"horu miqsath hagge'onim". Or, as in the case of 7 clean days for every
nidda, that the **people** adopted a custom in the times of the Geonim.

***Show me**** the instances when Ra'abad disagrees with M where the
law in question is ONLY a Geonic dispute with NO Talmudic source.


And Rabbenu Tam has no proof. He has a half-assed inference, as
usual. I do not agree that he believed this. YOU SAY HE DID. I say
he LEGISLATED. A concept you hate but cannto ever address cogently.

Meir did address it, even if the response was not up to your standard
of cogency. The part that you deleted read:

"Rabbeinu Tam was of the opinion that there is indication in the
Talmud that a b'racha was said -- in Babylon -- prior to Hallel on
Rosh Chodesh, and it certainly is a (if not the) most reasonable
interpretation of the words of the Talmud."

1. This "opinion" regarding an "indication" is based on what? What is
the precise source for this indication? Did perhaps the rabbi in
question think it was a teqana, making R"H within the days REQUIRED
for recitation of Hallel?

If the Rabbi in question thought you say a berakha on a minhag, doesn't
that contradict the famous pronouncement on Hoshana Rabba of "habit
habit vela barikh" and this particular minhag is a minhag NEBI'IM!!

I do not accept hearsay or "Rabbi X said so." Nobody intellgient does.
If you are a dayyan it is FORBIDDEN to use a precedent if you do not
agree with the analysis and reasoning of it. Viz. statement of Rabha
Bathra 130 "she'en ladayyan ella ma she'enav ro'oth."

An argument falls flat if not developed. We all live by that standard
in all our modern dealings. In courts, in agreements, in scholarly
papers, in managerial reports, etc. So we now advocate trainign our
young boys **not to think properly* because we MUST pledge allegiance
to the French?

I do not accept such a proposition.

The disagreement seems to be on how normative such examples can be. I
would say that even when a practice of Rabbi X is cited as proof that
the halakha is thus-and-so, it still isn't the final word on the
matter - the Gemara's conclusion is.

Obviously. The Talmud registers ALL opinions, and decides one way.

After all, we have seen examples
cited and rejected either out of hand (as in Sanhedrin 52b, the case
of R' Hama bar Tuvia, who was not up to date on current legislation)
or acknowledged but overruled (as in the case of R' Yose permitting
fowl with milk - well, this may not be the best example, but there are
others). Also, this reliance seems to be selective even among
Ashkenazim -

Indeed! This is why I call it rhetorical. The Tosafoth had a
**practice** in mind they wanted to JUSTIFY. They found "sources" in
the Talmud, either as you describe here or by these "half-assed"
inferences, which they knew were just rhetoric. Only E. European
yeshives took the RHETORIC as **LOGICAL** DEDUCTIONS AND INFERENCES,
and this lead to millions rejecting the entire Rabbinic system as
"illogical" and "casuistry." Viz. Hermna Rubin's arguments regarding
Rabbinic "logic" which we have all heard at least once.

every once in a while there's a discussion here about
whether women can put on tefillin. Invariably the example (that our
Tosafot cites!) of Mikhal bat Shaul is trotted out, and suddenly, it
stops being authoritative. Finally, reliance on actions and opinions
of a single sage that were not acknowledged as normative is frequently
cited by O as the reason why Conservatism is not a halakhic movement!

For this to register, IMHO we need to establish that Meir knows the
nature of that controversy. It's not common knowledge, AFAIK.

It is AFAIK. Every Wissenschaftnik knows about it, many have written
about it. Yeshive bochrim CHOOSE to not know about it, because they
identify with the anti-Maimonideans.

Meir may
be an intellectual heir of the anti-Maimonideans, but does he deserve
berating for that? I speak from experience that it is *hard* to break
free from one's core assumptions.

But at what point are people held to be responsible? How long need I
indulge self imposed ignorance, and the agressive charges made against
me for not towing what he thinks is the "Jewish" party line?

Don't we routninely criticise the German people for turning a blind eye
and doing nothing, preferring to mentally esacpe into the slogans and
revisionist histories of the party? Wasn't it much **harder** for a
German citizen to break free from his core assumptions than say to read
the JQR, HUCA, Dine Israel, Tarbitz, or the like once in a while?

You cannot have it both ways. Enemies of Israel have to do what is
right, but yeshive bochrim can escape from reason in pilpul and
"logical" justifications for pre-existing minhagm that if taken
seriously make a carefully written text seem unreadable.

BTW there is an article in Dine Israel called "The Legal Thinking of
Tosafoth" published in the 1970s or 1980s which analyzes exactly what
Tosafoth were doing.

Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov

Jacko

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Girls reading Torah
    ... (Rashi & Rambam vs. Rabbenu Tam and the Geonim) ... If you look in the 7th question that the hakhme Lunel asked Maimonides ... textual readings" of the Talmud, and only obtained them after having ... always have a correct girsa, and Maimonides arrival int he East caused ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Geonic Tradition (was Re: The Joys and Terrors of reading the Bible)
    ... the Talmud, not their own legislation. ... Does this mean that he rolled back geonic legislation, and if so, why ... ISTR that the geonim made a few important takanot ... create a code of law that would be a nationally acceptable one. ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: The Joys and Terrors of reading the Bible
    ... the Talmud, not their own legislation. ... Does this mean that he rolled back geonic legislation, and if so, why ... ISTR that the geonim made a few important takanot ... create a code of law that would be a nationally acceptable one. ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: Shabbat Candles Question
    ... It is their claim that they all agree to the law as stated ... These people recognized the authority of the Talmud, ... court in Judaism). ... Did Maimonides say that Rab Ashe and Rabena had the Sanhedric ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: Are women allow to blow Shofar in Rosh Hashana?
    ... independent equivalent authority to Maimonides' Code. ... Maimonides does not disagree with the Rif. ... Talmud was to be interpreted differently, ... Rabbeinu Tam is "legislating" and is not "in accord with the Geonic ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)