NLC: I am of the opinion that Abraham, by being prepared to do so, to sacrifice his son, failed the test. I think that the reading of the binding of Isaac should be different from the conventional approach as some chassidic texts indeed seem to suggest . For an excellent overview read: The Fear, the Trembling and the Fire by my dear friend, Professor Jerome (Yehudah) I. Gellman, published by University Press of America in 1994.
Today’s Chief rabbis are not like the famous Rav Avraham Yitschak Kook, Rav Ben Zion Uziel or Rav Isaac Yitschak Herzog. I think that in the Ashkenazi Rabbinate the last person of greatness was Rav Shlomo Goren. He had the knowledge and he had the creativity. Afterwards this whole Institution disintegrated.
Both the Shulkhan Arukh and earlier Maimonides' famous codification of Jewish Law, the Mishneh Torah ("Repetition of the Torah", a code of Jewish religious law compiled between 1170 and 1180) are tremendous scholarly achievements. But what Maimonides did was extremely dangerous. By writing down the Mishneh Torah, Maimonides finalized the halakha. He basically said, this is the halakha and nothing else. He even wrote in the forward to this masterpiece, that there is no longer any need to study the Talmud because he had put it all in front of us. Here it is! For once and for all. He provides no minority opinions, he acts precisely as what he probably he was, as the greatest talmudic genius of his time and possibly of all time, and we - after a period of resistance when his books were burned in some communities - have turned him into an halachic idol: If Maimonides says so, then there's nothing left to discuss. We canonized him.
Yes, Maimonides was great, but rashi was also great, Raavad was great, nachmanides was great, ibn Ezra was great, rabbeinu tam was great, etc etc
ReplyDeleteWhy did you post this nonsense from Bozo Cardozo?
ReplyDeleteNLC: "I am of the opinion that Abraham, by being prepared to do so, to sacrifice his son, failed the test."
IR: This arrogant twit has the audacity to argue on an explicit Mishnah (Avos 5:3) which states that Abraham passed ALL his tests.
NLC: If Maimonides says so, then there's nothing left to discuss. We canonized him.
IR: Cardozo is disingenuous, and ignores the fact that the Shulchan Aruch left open the possibility that we do not always rule like the Rambam, and he only uses the Rambam in order to create a majority of opinions, by which he decided the Halacha. So while the Rambam’s work was awarded a very prominent place in Halacha, the Shulchan Aruch posited that it was NOT the final word.
And the Maharal said something similar about Shulchan Aruch and its effect on halakhic creativity.
ReplyDeletewe had this discussion a few weeks ago regarding Avraham - and whether or if he should have protested ? It is actually an obvious question to most people who read about the Akedah. He passed the test - on one level. We cannot say what would have happened if he protested the test. Would he have passed the test then as well, and would be a higher pass than the test he did take?
ReplyDeleteOr perhaps he did both - perhaps he went ahead and anticipated Hashem to come from somewhere to stop the sacrifice.
"IR: Cardozo is disingenuous, and ignores the fact that the Shulchan
ReplyDeleteAruch left open the possibility that we do not always rule like the
Rambam, and he only uses the Rambam in order to create a majority of
opinions, by which he decided the Halacha."
KA: The Raavad also was critical of the Yad, and made these kind of criticisms about it. Raavad brings sources that sometimes contradict or disprove Rambam's claims - so obviously he was of the same mind as R' Cardozo. Rambam makes quite bold claim, that all you need is a Tenach and his Mishneh Torah, and no longer require the Talmud! (obviously , you need to be a Rambam to make such a claim - any ordinary person would be laughed out of the Beis Midrash).
the Shulchan Aruch shares the same fate of the Rambam - there are all sorts of updates, the Mapah, SA HaRav, the MB, the Arukh, etc etc. If the SA was the ultimate book, there would be no further updates to it.
馃弳馃弳馃弳馃弳馃弳馃弳馃憦馃憦馃憦馃憦馃憦馃憦
ReplyDeleteI don't remember having any such conversation.
ReplyDeleteBozo Cardozo claimed that Abraham FAILED the test of the Akeidah. Bozo apparently thinks that he's cleverer, than the Mishnah that I quoted, which states that Abraham PASSED all his tests.
Bozo Cardozo’s comments were in the context of how we view the Rambam today, claiming, “we canonized him”. That is patently false.
ReplyDeleteIf Bozo would be writing a history book, telling how things looked at the time of the Rambam, that would be a separate matter, and he would still be wrong, because the fact is, that that the Raavad, and others, were critical of the Yad, and argued on his rulings. This indicates that even in the Rambam’s day, contrary to Bozo’s claim, the Yad was NOT canonized.
Here on the blog, perhaps you were absent
ReplyDeleteWhen I bring a Raavad against the rambam. Rde says that we go by the rambam. When I bring a rambam against hareidi practice, RDE says we don't always follow the rambam.
ReplyDeleteThe book - the codification is canonical. We can't just ignore it and decide to learn from the gemara. Same with the shulchan aruch. If that were not the case, then solving agunot would be much simpler.
howabout the 13 ikkarim? Do you thnk they are canonized? (i knwo you will turn around and say he was talking about the Yad, but this is in a way connected - regarding canonization.
ReplyDeleteDr. Marc Shapiro wrote a book on this topic-read it
ReplyDeleteNonsense!
ReplyDeletefor thesamereasonyoucommented
ReplyDeleteNonsense, or difficult to accept?
ReplyDeleteIs he the final authority?
ReplyDeleteWithout rambam and shulchan aruch, poskim could work directly from the gemara. A solution was brought to R Moshe, and he said although it's in the gemara, it's not in the poskim.
ReplyDeleteCherry picking. When misrepresentation is done by someone inside your group, the post highlighting it is censored.
ReplyDeleteMevazeh _ IR- zeh
ReplyDeleteSo you are authorizing a new approach?!
ReplyDeletesaid what? And your point is?
ReplyDeleteNope.
ReplyDeleteGo to a yeshiva, everything is asking questions, answering, back and forth.
In any case, I don't necessarily agree with everything rabbi Cardozo said.
There is no requirement to respect someone who promulgates ideas that run contrary to the Torah.
ReplyDeleteI don't live on this blog, or any blog.
ReplyDeleteAll the more so, about this blog, since it started devoting itself to partisan USA politics.
Ok
ReplyDeleteSince you are fond of both Dr Shapiro, and Kaplan, why are you not allowing this article to go through? Would you accept a critical post on the matter?
ReplyDeletehttps://seforimblog.com/2021/03/an-unpublished-1966-memorandum-from-rabbi-aryeh-kaplan-answers-questions-on-jewish-theology/
his comment is a generalization, as opposed to being contrary to Torah.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is , ....
2. Kaplan states unequivocally that Maimonides does not believe in a literal resurrection. In support of this statement he cites Guide 2:27. If all we had were the Commentary on the Mishnah and the Guide, it would make sense to assume that when Maimonides refers to the Resurrection of the Dead that he intends immortality, not literal resurrection. Even the Mishneh Torah can be read this way, and Rabad, in his note on Hilkhot Teshuvah 8:2, criticizes Maimonides in this regard: “The words of this man appear to me to be similar to one who says that there is no resurrection for bodies, but only for souls.” Furthermore, in Hilkhot Teshuvah 3:6, in speaking of the heretics who have no share in the World to Come, Maimonides writes: 讜讛讻讜驻专讬诐 讘转讞讬转 讛诪转讬诐 讜讘讬讗转 讛讙讜讗诇, “Those who deny the Resurrection and the coming of the [messianic] redeemer.” Throughout his works Maimonides is clear that the ultimate reward is the spiritual World to Come. So how could he not mention among the heretics those who deny the World to Come, and only mention those who deny the Resurrection? It appeared obvious to many that when Maimonides wrote “resurrection of the dead” what he really meant is the spiritual “World to Come.”
ReplyDeleteThe article doesn't provide evidence for anything. His understanding of the Rambam at that time is not unique,
Your slanderous summary of the article was the problem - not the article itself,
you forgot (or neglected to) cite your beloved Prof Shapiro's 2nd paragraph:
ReplyDelete"As noted, if the works mentioned in the previous paragraph were all we
had, then one would have good reason to conclude that for Maimonides
resurrection of the dead means nothing other than the World to Come. Yet
it is precisely because people came to this interpretation that
Maimonides wrote his famous Letter on Resurrection in which he states
emphatically that he indeed believes in a literal resurrection of the
dead, after which the dead will die again and enjoy the spiritual World
to Come. It is true that some have not been convinced by the Letter on
Resurrection and see it as an work letter that does not give us
Maimonides’ true view, but such an approach means that one is accepting a
significant level of esotericism in interpreting Maimonides, as we are
not now concerned with a passage here or there but with an entire letter
that one must assume was only written for the masses. Since Kaplan
ignores what Maimonides says in his Letter on Resurrection, I think we
must conclude that, at least when he wrote this letter, he did not
regard it as reflecting Maimonides’ authentic view.[7] In Kaplan’s later
works, there is no hint of such an approach to Maimonides.[8]"
However, even without maamar Techiya Hameitim,
he already has mentioned the techiyat hameitim in his 13 principles, in his commentary to the Mishnah Sanhedrin, Helek.
Here , this article explains them, and why /hwo they differen slightly from Hilchot teshuva.
https://www.torahmusings.com/2013/09/rambams-13-principles/
Did he, or did he not, contradict the words of the Mishnah?
ReplyDeleteAlso, Rambam and Raavad had a scholarly tradition of attacking each others views. Rav kapach ztl told me Rambam had read Raavad's comments, and retorted to him in the guide, 1.36 .
ReplyDeletesaid that he withstood 10 tests. Which were they?
ReplyDeletePerhaps there were sub-tests too?
The Gemara said that he pushed Ishmael away too hard, and for this we suffer so much from ishmaelis. Are you going to censor that Gemara again like the goyim did?
I'm not saying Rabbi Cardozo is qualified to do that, but if contradicting the mishnah was assur, you'd have to throw out half the Gemara and some of the Mephorshim on Tanach and the Talmud.
ReplyDeleteI think you are missing the greatness of Rav Cardozo' shlita comment.
ReplyDeleteOn a certain level , Avraham passes the test. But , he is suggesting, that on another level, he may be actually failing it. Why, in the case of Sdom and Amara, does he negotiate so much with Hashem, to keep bringing the price down and the threshold for punishment up?
And why does he not do this in the case of the Akeidah?
Rav Soloveitchik sees this as surrendering to Hashem, surrendering to halacha. And, in fact, Hashem does not allow Avraham to enact the akeidah with Isaac. Now we use the Akeidah as means to ask for mercy, just in the same way that Avraham withheld his mercy, we ask Hashem to withold his anger against us.
If you believe the Torah was already written before it happened, then the peopel inthe Torah had no choice to do what they did. If they had free choice, then their actions are recorded in the Torah, so had they chosen differently, then the Torah would tell a different story on these human choices.
Even after all your twisting and dancing; to audaciously suggest, that on some level, Abraham actually failed the test of the Akeidah, is still contradicted by the Mishnah (Avos 5:3), which posited, UNEQUIVOCALLY, that Abraham passed ALL the ten tests, of which the Akeidah is one of them.
ReplyDelete注ֲ砖ָׂ专ָ讛 谞ִ住ְ讬讜ֹ谞讜ֹ转 谞ִ转ְ谞ַ住ָּ讛 讗ַ讘ְ专ָ讛ָ诐 讗ָ讘ִ讬谞讜ּ 注ָ诇ָ讬讜 讛ַ砖ָּׁ诇讜ֹ诐 讜ְ注ָ诪ַ讚 讘ְּ讻ֻ诇ָּ诐, 诇ְ讛讜ֹ讚ִ讬注ַ 讻ַּ诪ָּ讛 讞ִ讘ָּ转讜ֹ 砖ֶׁ诇 讗ַ讘ְ专ָ讛ָ诐 讗ָ讘ִ讬谞讜ּ 注ָ诇ָ讬讜 讛ַ砖ָּׁ诇讜ֹ诐
ReplyDeleteHe stood by them all.
OK , we are not told what the result would be if he negotiated.
Was he wrong for negotiating sdom? Was Yaakov wrong for negotiations on his parnassah as a requirement for him to keep Torah?
1. Tosfos Yom Tov (ad loc.) cites Rashi, that “He stood by them all”, includes that he didn’t even question Hashem, regarding these tests.
ReplyDelete2. What would be the result if Avraham negotiated? Based on the above, it would be a considered a lack of perfection in his withstanding the test; even if he eventually went through with doing the Akeidah; since that would imply questioning Hashem’s actions or orders.
3. Was he wrong for negotiating with Hashem regarding Sodom? What would possibly be wrong with that? [Note, that this was not one of the 10 tests, alluded to in the Mishnah].
4. Chazal actually see greatness in Avraham, who tried to intervene on behalf of the people of Sodom; as opposed to Noach, who did not pray for the people of his generation, that they should be spared from the great Flood.
5. “Was Yaakov wrong for negotiations on his parnassah?” What would possibly be wrong with that?
IR: 5. “Was Yaakov wrong for negotiations on his parnassah?” What would possibly be wrong with that?
ReplyDeleteKA: see your answer to 2 ( Based on the above, it would be a considered a lack of perfection in his withstanding the test; even if he eventually went through with doing the Akeidah; since that would imply questioning Hashem’s actions or orders.)
IR: Chazal actually see greatness in Avraham, who tried to intervene on
behalf of the people of Sodom; as opposed to Noach, who did not pray for
the people of his generation, that they should be spared from the great
Flood.
KA: Noach was a Tzaddik - perhaps he passed on a certain level, but not on a certain higher level. That is the point that Cardozo is making - Perhaps Avraham , who showed hsi greatness in trying to intervene, did not do the same with the akeidah.
The fact is we don't know what would have been if he had negotiated on the Akeidah. Maybe it would have made him even greater, and Moshiach would have come, or maybe not. His choices were not based on him first reading Rashi, and then to act acordingly. he acted according to his own high level decision making, and the meforshim show how great these decisions were. he did make mistakes, eg leaving E'Y in the time of famine, whcih we are told by RambaN? was a lack of faith, and for which his offsrping would be exiled to Egypt.
I assume that you're referring to Yaakov Avinu negotiating his salary with Lavan.
ReplyDeleteI don't see anything wrong, from a Torah perspective, with negotiating a salary package with your employer. It's the same as a seller trying to negotiate a better price for the something that he owns. However in this case, it's the potential employee’s services which are being negotiated for, and the employee can try to get the best price for them.
I'm referring to Bereishit 28: 20
ReplyDeleteJacob then made a vow, saying, “If God remains with me, protecting me on this journey that I am making, and giving me bread to eat and clothing to wear,
21
and I return safe to my father’s house
.... Hashem shall be my God.
That is pretty astonishing "negotiation". He didn't do it to just accept Hashem as his G-d.
Are you able to read the commentaries there?
ReplyDeleteRashi, Ramban, Ibn Ezra, Sforno, Netziv (Ha'amek Davar)
Rashi simply expands on the plai meaning; ramban mollifies the meaning to souond less bargaining; Ibn Ezra only comments ont eh 2nd verse, and there is discussing a separate Holy subject; Sfrono is eexpanding on the plain meaning, ie that Yaakov was negotiating all the problems that life incurs, so he was bargaining.
ReplyDeleteYou should try, it is enlightenting.
There are those like the Kli Yakar who says he was asking for spiritual protection - OK, but he is still bargaining, although at a higher level.