Maimonides and Method Acting
It was a typical “night seder” in Yeshiva, the last period of a long day. I stood with one foot on the floor and the other on the footrest of my shtender, rocking back and forth as my elbows pressed down on my gemara and my hands held up my head. On my shtender lay tractate Gittin and our subject of study was the oft-quoted passage of Maimonides in the Mishne Torah on the topic of “Koifen oisoi ad sheyoimar roitzeh ani.”
The Talmudic quandary is over how to solicit a writ of divorce from a man unwilling to give one. The man cannot be made to do so against his will, but a court may find it necessary to compel him. The Talmud provides the solution: the court may beat him “until he declares ‘I am willing.’” About which Maimonides explains that within each to Jew there is an inherent desire to behave according to God’s will; he may just not allow himself to do that which he himself desires. Therefore, the court can compel him to realize his own desire, and ergo, the get, hence, will be valid.
When people repeat this in yeshiva, it is usually followed by tilting the head backward, as if this logic is an inspirational homerun. It is used for forced divorces, for forced sacrifices, hell, I don’t know why they don’t just use it at Bar Mitzvahs and we would all be done with it. And when they say it, all people say is “The Rambam” and everybody starts swaying back and forth, folding their eyebrows into a concave line.
Maimonides disappointed me this time. How could he simplify something so complex? Can one be made to want something? Amongst us rebels in Yeshiva, Maimonides was supposed to be one of “our guys,” the über-rationalist. Whenever he would be mentioned, we would think, “If only they knew.” But what was he saying? Do we not know our own desires? Do I know if I want to be in Yeshiva? Do I know if I don’t want to? No beating could sort this out. My partner noticed that my mind was no longer on the subject, but I couldn’t help it; my mind was spiraling down a pathway I generally avoided.
I went to get my hat and jacket to prepare for the evening services. The noises in my head were still screaming. They were louder than the room full of Litvaks screaming Shema; the hissing was louder than the Chassidim murmuring Boruch Sheim.
“You shall love the Lord,” I recited, “Love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might.” That’s an interesting passage, I thought, since at any one point in my life I had only offered God one of those. At times I loved him with my heart, I couldn’t explain what I liked about him, but I liked him; it was an emotional attachment. When that failed I loved him with my soul; the emotional part might have escaped me, but I achieved a level of theological sophistication that made me fond of him. But now all I had left for him was my “might;” my heart didn’t love him, my soul didn’t recognize him, but I was still his in action and behavior. The fact that I was still sitting on the Yeshiva bench and leaning on its shtenders must’ve counted for something. I was like the man beaten by the court to say, “I am willing.” I functioned like one who is willing. I sat there swaying to the words of the Shema, even while my mind was dizzyingly displaced. Is that what Maimonides calls having desire, doing that which you don’t believe you want?
Two years passed, and I was no longer forced to sit on a Yeshiva bench or lean over a shtender. I was taking a playwriting class at school. My professor was a student of Lee Strasberg, the famous proponent of method acting, whereby an actor embodies his or her character mentally as much as physically. My professor was a method actor, when he spoke his eyebrows moved as much as his lips and his hands always pointed to some reality only he was able to see.
Across from me sat Andy. Her play was about a priest who solved crossword puzzles while listening to people’s confessions. Andy was sweet and tomboyish with just enough of a feminine touch to save her. Next to her sat Beth. Beth was a maternal kind, she always dressed warm and cuddly and would give you a beaming smile when you presented your work. She was the kind that would refer to a group of guys as “boys,” as in “See you, boys,” and “Take care, boys.” Not surprisingly, her play was about a helpless guy in a coma surrounded by the women in his life. The rest of the plays were mostly about relationships and jealousy. More precisely, they were about jealousy of other relationships, you know, college stuff. My play was about a guy who struggles whether to introduce his terminally ill daughter to faith and the afterlife, even though he doesn’t believe in any of it. My play had no romance, only confusion and defiance.
My professor began to talk about writing. “In theater,” he said, “we only know what your character says and does. The character’s personality must be concretized through action and speech. I won’t know that a character is a ghost unless someone tells me he’s a ghost or he acts ghost-like.” When he spoke he looked at the wall as if there was some kind of stage there. A method actor always calls on his own personal memories to vitalize his or her character. Yet, every actor needs to hear and see his character. What defines the character are his actions and words, not the playwright’s idea of him. The problem with most of our plays, my professor explained, was that we didn’t give our protagonists sufficient words and behaviors to define their personalities. Even a great method actor can only tell his role by the words he hears and the actions he does
I left the class thinking about the disconnect between what I think and what I do. Why can’t I be like Andy or Beth? Why can’t I just be the college kid, why must my mind hammer with questions no one else can feel? I want to be just a college kid, and at the same time I would never want to be something else than what I am now. I want to be so many things and I haven’t even sorted them out. I should have approached Andy and told her I liked her play, she would have liked that. Maybe I should have said something to Beth. Beth is sweet and so is Andy, but in a different kind of way. Which one should I have approached? I asked myself. I didn’t know the answer. I did the only thing I knew to do, go to the library.
I opened my book and bent over it pressing my elbows to the pages. I thought back to that passage in the Shema, “With all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might.” It’s so rare that we want something with all three of those. With my heart, my emotional being, I wanted to be a college kid; with my soul, my intellectual inclination, I wanted to be anything but; and my might, my behavior, was just a safe compromise. With my heart I would have liked to approach Andy, my soul preferred Beth, but my might did nothing, my might was too scared.
God is the inverse of the real world. With God, loving with your might is easy; you just do what you have to do, it’s your heart and soul that struggle to comply. With God, your heart and soul can never seem to align themselves with the minutia of the clearly defined ways you behave. In the real world, on the other hand, your heart and soul run wild, so many things to want and lust for. It is actually doing it that is so difficult. Maybe that’s why so many people live between those two worlds, their hearts and souls exploring the mundane, while with their actions they serve God. Maybe that’s why we love ideologies so much, they help us with the most difficult parts of our identity. They tell us what to do.
Maimonides was right. It doesn’t matter what we really want. It’s either you do it or you don’t. It’s possible that the guy beaten by the court to give a get really wanted to give one; it is also possible that he really didn’t. The character in my play might really long for the comforts of faith, or he might not. It doesn’t matter. What matters is if we act on it, if we say we want that which we pine for, and if we actively pursue it. No method acting can make a character if your character doesn’t say who he is, or behaves as she does. The disconnect between our thoughts and actions is enormous. Our desires are too multiple, varied and contradictory, the only unifying part of ourselves is that which we choose to act on, and that is the most difficult choice of all.
From the corner of my eye I saw Andy walk in. She waved, I waved back. She lingered for a second to see if I’ll come over, I remained still and she moved along. I looked down at my feet, I noticed I was leaning over my book in the exact same position that I would lean over that shtender back in Yeshiva. Pressing down on the book, my hands touching the place where my side curls used to be. I was standing the same way I used to stand back in that Yeshiva hall.
Printable Version
Yonah
If your mind is so beautiful, if it can elicit such beautiful comparisons, conclusions and extrapolations, thus “Farentfering a Rambam” especially such a mind boggling one, understanding the intricacies, the depth and breath of his genius mind, I say you should’ve stayed in yeshiva, the second Ruguchover Gaon might have emerged! What will this little planet benefit from *another* playwright..
Like this comment?
3
Wow, just wow! You never fail to amaze me. So many rich themes to expound on and they are all weaved together artfully. Amazing stuff, keep it up!
Don’t want to get to Talmudic and didactic in this thread. It should really be about the themes that you wrote about, but here is a little nugget. I’ll just mention it in passing, if you get it, good. If not it’s also good.
“Koifin oisi ad sheyomar…” perfectly fits with the Rambam’s radical rationalistic approach to Judaism and the law. The whole “deep down, in every Jewish heart lies a will to serve his creator”, is the Ashkenazi, pious and austere interpretation of the concept. The enlightened Sefardi interpretation is similar to the concept of “Tli Vezuvin haveh zevineh” found in Bava Basra. In short: when the person gets beaten up he can consciously and willingly conform to what he previously failed to agree to. At the price of physical beatings he would rather give the divorce or bring the sacrifice, which is suffice for the requisition of “daat” (mindfulness)required for these acts.
Again I don’t want to hijack your thread, it should really be about your piece, Just a footnote.
Like this comment?
1
it taka is a shver Ramabam
Like this comment?
1
That’s acting. But in a novel, your caracters can think as much as they want, and express it, and act in contradiction to their thoughts…
Like this comment?
1
Yona D,
Your posts never disappoint.
You can take the bucher out of yeshive, but….
RandC,
With the knowledge that I might be biting into something to intricate for me to grasp, please explain your comment, since it is messing with my very neatly compartmentalized view of certain psych/social constructs.
“deep down, in every Jewish heart lies a will to serve his creator”, is the Ashkenazi, pious and austere interpretation of the concept. The enlightened Sefardi interpretation…..
And here I was under the impression that we, Ashkenazim, are the more rational, sophisticated, logical and objective clan
Like this comment?
2
@Insider, that’s exactly the same argument one of my magidei shiur made before I left, and I’ll answer you what I answered him. Maybe your right that the world doesn’t need another playwright, but I’m not doing it for the world, I’m doing it for myself. Thanks for the compliment though.
@R&C, my mind isn’t in the right place at the moment to process your point, I do remember the Tlia V’zuvin argument, I’ll have to get back to it later. But till then, please, hijack away.
@FG, thanks for pointing it out. I wasn’t making a point about writing in general.
And thanks TA and HT.
Like this comment?
1
H.T. You, racist, segragationalist,seperatist, elitist, unegalitarian Jew. How dare you say that one ethnicity is more enlightned, especially when you make this claim about your own background, than the other J.K.
I wasn’t referring to the communities, I was referring to the intricate ways the Ashkenazi and Sefardi rishonim related to Judaism and its values.
I have what to say on the subject. I don’t have the time now. I will get back to you soon.
Like this comment?
1
Yonahdab, Spectacular!
R&C forgive the tone of my comment, but picture your self in a Yeshiva. Here goes:
“You are wrong with this Rambam and you misunderstand the whole problem which requires the Rambam’s peshat.
With your simplistic “Sephardi” toireh, any גט מעושה בישראל or בעובדי כוכבים would be kosher, since “At the price of physical beatings he would rather give the divorce”. Seeing that that is not the case, there has to be a distinction between something that is mandated by God’s law and something that is not, hence the Rambam.
It is not an interpretation, it is a Befeirusher Rambam.
שאין אומרין אנוס אלא למי שנלחץ ונדחק לעשות דבר שאינו מחוייב מן התורה לעשותו כגון מי שהוכה עד שמכר או נתן אבל מי שתקפו יצרו הרע לבטל מצוה או לעשות עבירה והוכה עד שעשה דבר שחייב לעשותו או עד שנתרחק מדבר שאסור לעשותו אין זה אנוס ממנו אלא הוא אנס עצמו בדעתו הרעה. לפיכך זה שאינו רוצה לגרש מאחר שהוא רוצה להיות מישראל רוצה הוא לעשות כל המצות ולהתרחק מן העבירות ויצרו הוא שתקפו וכיון שהוכה עד שתשש יצרו ואמר רוצה אני כבר גרש לרצונו.”
Like this comment?
1
What a nice and intricate pilpul, Yonah!
This deep-down-a-Jew-wants-to-be-good crap is very much interpretation. The keyword here is, in Pen’s quote translated, “because he *wants* to be Jewish.” What this means is, there is a general encompassing willingness that supersedes this particular unwillingness. Because the subject declares his willingness to obey all Torah laws, then he legally wills to do what he claims he doesn’t. And R&C is not correct. What’s required is not *daat* consciousness, but *ratzon* willingness.
Judaism, as contrasted with Christianity, is all about actions. The passage in Shma, you should love J your God with all your heart, you soul, and your might, has concrete halachaic meaning, i.e. one has to give up all possessions or life in certain circumstances. The commandment to love is a topic of discussion, since one cannot normally be instructed on emotions. Again, this comes to show an action is expected here and not merely talk to instill love. Some modern Biblical scholars believe love here is being used in a different context; a legal context rather than an emotional. The verb love was used in ancient treaties in the sense of allegiance, i.e. an admonition against worshipping another ruler / deity.
Like this comment?
1
Brilliant, Yonahdeb!
I love the way you find parallels in your past and current life and weave them together.
Brilliant.
Like this comment?
1
i think that this articles tells me, that its true although yonahdeb claims its only the action that counts, the whole essence of the article illistrates, that it his heart who is talking. otherwise why go out of the way with yeshivishe shtiklech torah, to justify what the rambam wrote. just because the rambam was a smart man, does not mean everything he says makes sense. to think that, is being as stupid as the torah community which is to fragile to admit any mistakes in regards to gedolim. besides whoever reads rambam can see many examples thar wherever he couldnt find a good reason for a torah thought, he becomes just as irreasonable as the rest of them. believe you me if that wasnt the case he would never survive all these years.
Like this comment?
1
i think that this articles tells me, although yonahdeb claims its only the action that counts, the whole essence of the article illistrates, that its his heart who is talking. meaning he cant get rid of the guilt, of dropping his belief, and still needs the rambam to hold his hand. otherwise why go out of the way with yeshivishe shtiklech torah, to justify, what the rambam wrote. just because the rambam was a smart man, does not mean everything he says makes sense. to think that, is being as stupid as the torah community, which is to fragile to admit any mistakes in regards to gedolim. besides, whoever reads rambam can see many examples thar wherever he couldnt find a good reason for a torah thought, he becomes just as irreasonable as the rest of them. believe you me if that wasnt the case he would never survive all these years.
Like this comment?
1
Pen: “With your simplistic “Sephardi” toireh, any גט מעושה בישראל or בעובדי כוכבים would be kosher, since “At the price of physical beatings he would rather give the divorce”.
The way you preempted your response was very un-yeshivish. Take off the silk gloves. Everything short of name calling is permitted in torah warfare (milchamtuh shel toireh). You are right, I misremembered. The Rambam does take that position regarding daat, but you would have to agree with me that it’s out of character. The Rambam usually goes to great lengths to adopt the rational and logical approach on the subject matter, sometimes even to the extreme.
We recently had a discussion about messianism and the conflicting chazal legends about the perceived futuristic event. Although there are countless homilies and midrashic legends as to the supernatural, cataclysmic, apocalyptical and utopian properties of the event, the Rambam sticks to a staunchly rationalistic approach of “oilum ke’minhugoy no’heg”; that the only difference between exilic times and messianic times is political autonomy.
Now to the shtikel toireh: I’ll try my best at relating the lomdos in English. Lomdos, as you know, is best explicated in Yiddish sprinkled in with some English words. Certain catchphrase concepts don’t lend themselves to be transported and stated in English. Like: Gavreh, Cheftzeh, Simen, Sibeh, Chalois, etc. It’s also quite impossible to be involved in Torah discourse without being able to use hand gestures. As a rule it’s almost impossible for a Jew to discuss the most simplest of matters without any hand gestures, understandably, it’s tenfold more difficult to discuss Torah in this manner. You will have to mobilize the full extent of your imagination and vividly visualize all my virtual gestures. Given the extreme restrictions of language and motion I’ll try my best to state my position on the matter at hand.
Betzem, the whole thing is a gemureh in Bava Basreh page 48. I’ll quote the passage and then I’ll explain to the best of my abilities.
אמר רב הונא תליוהו וזבין זביניה זביני מ”ט כל דמזבין איניש אי לאו דאניס לא הוה מזבין ואפילו הכי זביניה זביני ודילמא שאני אונסא דנפשיה מאונסא דאחריני אלא כדתניא(ויקרא א) יקריב אותו מלמד שכופין אותו יכול בעל כרחו תלמוד לומר לרצונו הא כיצד כופין אותו עד שיאמר רוצה אני ודלמא שאני התם דניחא ליה דתיהוי ליה כפרה ואלא מסיפא וכן אתה אומר בגיטי נשים כופין אותו עד שיאמר רוצה אני ודלמא שאני התם דמצוה לשמוע דברי חכמים אלא סברא הוא אגב אונסיה גמר ומקנה מותיב רב יהודה גט המעושה בישראל כשר {ובגוים} פסול {ובגוים} חובטין אותו ואומרין לו עשה מה שישראל אומר לך ואמאי התם נמי נימא אגב אונסיה גמר ומגרש הא איתמר עלה אמר רב משרשיא דבר תורה אפילו {בגוים} כשר ומה טעם אמרו {בגוים} פסול כדי שלא תהא כל אחת ואחת הולכת ותולה עצמה ביד {גוי} ומפקעת עצמה מיד בעלה
Rav Huna proclaimed if you place someone in an uncompromising position and you force him to sell one of his possessions its considered a viable transaction, because, just like when someone sells stuff because he is pressed for money the transaction is considered valid, even though one might say that had he not been in an unfortunate situation (due to his need for liquidity) he would have not sold his possessions, nevertheless we see that the deal is considered a deal, in the same mode if someone is forced through means of physical violence to sell a possession its considered valid.
The gemureh asks: Maybe there is a difference when a person sells something due to his internally perceived disadvantaged state as opposed to a disadvantageous state that was imposed upon him? In essence the question is from where R’H extrapolated this ruling. The gemureh then attempts to say that R’H might have extrapolated his ruling from Kurben (sacrifice). Just as we see by kurben, where daat is vital, that it could be brought forcefully with the procedure of “Koifin ad sheyomar…Im willing”, because we understand that once the owner is in a disadvantaged situation ( due to his physical distress) and he chooses to alleviate the stress through agreeing to bring the sacrifice, that is considered enough daat for the action, and its considered a viable sacrifice, the same should be true in R’H’s ruling. The gemureh disqualifies this comparison with an extraneous retort (its not crucial to our discussion)
The gemureh then attempts the same method of comparison with a different halakhah. The ruling by get (writ of divorce) is that there needs to be daat ha’megaresh (mindfulness or agreeableness of the divorcer to divorce) There are certain instances where the Jewish court forces a husband to grant a get to his spouse. The gemureh contends that R’H might have extrapolated his ruling from this halakhah. But the gemureh backtracks and disputes the apparent comparison with another extraneous retort.
Then the gemureh finally states that R’H ruling has no previous halakhah that its based upon. It’s a “s’vureh”; common sense. If a person is in a situation where delivering something, whether possessions, a sacrifice, a writ of divorce, will save him from the situation he is in, it can be considered that he did it out of his own good will.
The gemureh continues to ask from a different source that seems to contradict this ruling. The law is that a contrived get through methods of violence or terror, if perpetrated by Jews, the get is considered kosher, if the violence was done by gentiles the get is not kosher. If we are to accept the s’vureh of R’H why then is it un-kosher if the get was contrived by gentiles? The gemureh answers that indeed it should be kosher even if it was contrived by gentiles, only the sages didn’t want that every unhappy wife should hire mercenaries to beat up her husband and obtain a get in that fashion, so they ruled that if gentiles are the ones that forced the get its un-kosher.
So, in essence you’re right dear Pen every forced get is kosher in strict accordance to R’H logic. The exception to the rule is if the get was forced by a gentile, for the reason given.
Missy:
In Talmudic jargon “daat” doesn’t mean a bare state of consciousness; to have daat doesn’t imply that the person in question had awareness. It means something very close to conscious agreeableness which is not so dissimilar to willingness. Similarly, “Daat makneh” which is required for every legal transfer of estates or chattels, is also understood to mean a conscious state of awareness in addition to a willingness to participate in the financial transfer.
Like this comment?
1
the meforshei hashas ask, that the gemora you quoted is a stira to the rambam. the reason given by the rambam, is only valid by a get. and r.h. sevureh is shayich everywhere!!??? therefore the answer given in the yeshivas, by the nesivos and explained by reb itzehleh in his sefer zecher yitzchok, is as follows. according to the rambam one of the “ikar dinim” of “get” is, that it needs to be done “meritzono” and r.h. din is only that if you were forced, it is considired “haskomeh” which is enough for the “kinyan” to have a chalois, but it does not reach the level of “rotzoin” which is needed to give a get. thats why the rambam gives his own reason. “oib azoi hudre kushye lidichtei”?
Like this comment?
1
HT, I’ll try to be as short as possible given that what I alluded to is a huge discussion within itself that involves many aspects and subthemes.
There is a definitive split and schism between the Sefardi and Ashkenazi approach to Judaism that developed in the Middle Ages, which had profound reverberations on the way the two communities practiced and perceived Judaism. It all emanates from the decisive difference in the personality of the Rishonim, the leaders and masters of the perspective communities.
The Sefardic Rishonim were alongside their greatness in Torah also very well rounded in what we term “chuchmes chitzonit” (extraneous knowledge). Some of them were well versed in Philosophy. Some were poets and lyricists. Some were very learned in Jewish mysticism. They were sort of like the prototypes of the later renaissance men. They were all encompassing in many ways. Conversely the Ashkenazi Rishonim were only great in Torah. They were master Talmudists and they weren’t multi-intellectuals. This (and I’m being very abrasive and concise) has to do with the environment they presided in. The Ashkenazi Rishonim lived amongst Christians and were completely unassimilated with their surroundings due to the hatred that existed between the two religions. Whilst the Sefardi Rishonim were quite well established and intergraded in Spain, which at the time was ruled by the Muslims who had far better relations with the Jews. The Muslims and the Jews got along very well, as I’m sure you know. This period in history is, correctly and fondly termed the Golden Era of Spanish Jewry.
Because of their proficiency and acceptance of philosophy, to a great extent, the sefardi rishonim had a more lax view of Judaism. They had a philosophical and rational approach in the amount of devotion a man is supposed to exhibit towards his creator. On the other hand the Ashkenazi Rishonim were fervently religious and fiercely zealous pertaining to these matters.
For instance (I don’t have the sources at hand, but if you want I will look them up for you) everybody knows that the Jewish person is dictated to give up his life if he is prompted to deny God. The Rambam (a Sefardi Rishon) is amazingly lenient with this law. Basically, according to the Rambam, as long as the person still believes in his heart he is permitted to say the most venomous apostasies in an effort to save his life. Conversely the Ashkenazi Rishonim are extremely stringent in matters of “das yehudis” (the core Jewish laws). This split in ruling can be seen as a product of the influence philosophy had on the Sefardi Rishonim. They didn’t give much credence to the outside action of the man, or in this instance what they termed to be “stam devurim” (void verbiage) they ruled that as long as his heart is with God everything is cool. This is a modern concept. This is only one example. The differences between the two rishonim are striking in almost every conflict of opinion. The Sefardi Rishonim usually take what we would term the more modern and enlightened approach, and the Ashkenazi rishonim usually take the more restrictive, orthodox, and primal approach.
A prime example where these differences played out on the stage of history is the Spanish inquisition and the subsequent expulsion of the Jews from Spain. Many historians have made the point that the Spanish Jews didn’t exhibit the same loyalty to Judaism and God during the era of the expulsion that the Ashkenazi Jews exhibited during the trying times of the crusades. The Spanish Jews, given the choice to flee the country or convert to Christianity, converted en masse. Astonishingly there are almost no records of conversion by Ashkenazi Jews at the times of the crusades. Hundreds of thousands perished at the sword rather than convert to a foreign faith! There was even a character known as “rav hashoichet es hayeludim” (the rabbi who slaughtered the infants) who slaughtered 400 (I might be off with the number, but I’m pretty sure that its 400) babies in an effort to save them from conversion. This form of devotion was unheard of amongst Sefardi Jews.
That is what I meant with “every man has an ingrained desire to serve his master” as being somewhat characteristic of the Ashkenazi pious and austere approach to Judaism. But as Pen pointed out, I was wrong, it happens to be the Rambam’s concept. It seems to me that this concept is counter characteristic to the Sefardi approach, it would seem to be the Ashkenazi approach, but as of now I eat crow.
Like this comment?
1
R&C, utter shtusim. A: Name calling is completely a-OK, B: The Gemoroh in Gittun says that דרב משרשי’ בדותא היא and as toisfes explains that the Gemoroh you mention in Chezkas Habatim only brings that obsolete argument lesvoras hamakshe.
Your sephardi svoreh is also hopeless since you disrupt toisfefs’ teretz on the difference between teliyah veyahiv and teliyah vezavin.
Lemaiseh according to all, as per the Gemoroh in gittun a גט מעושה בעובדי כוכבים שלא כדין אפילו ריח גט אפילו ריח גט אין בו. with the emphasis on שלא כדין. The Rambam’s pehsat is mandated as per my first comment.
Like this comment?
1
Aahhhh this is getting exciting. We have a koifer a lamden who says Briske’ toiyreh…. Back to Yeshivah. I will have to throw myself into the sugyya. I though I’ll be able to do away with you with some simple argumnets, but I see I’m amongst Talmidey Chachumim. You wanna do it the real way, hell yeah, I’m game!!
I will need to look up the gemureh in Gittin. I need a page number. And where is the toisfes?
Like this comment?
1
R and C, do you work for a living? How do you have all this free time? Are you telling me that if I stop davening and making brachos I will also have so much more free time? I didn’t realize how much time I am losing every day!
Like this comment?
1
:גיטין פו and Toisfes is at “telioh ve’zavin”.
Like this comment?
1
SO guys when is yeshivas unpious opening?
Like this comment?
1
Thanks for the mareh mukoim Pen. I’m on it.
Kaf, lets not get personal, but if you have to know, I’m a kolel yingerman; I have loads of time.
What makes you think that I don’t daven or make bruches. I am a permanent member of Shoimer Shabbos, you can always find me in the one before last minyan, which conveniently doesn’t exist.
Jeff it’s already open, but like every unsuccessful small Yeshivah there are only a “mispar metzumtzam” of slots still open, so sign up as soon as you can.
Like this comment?
1
R&C – While the shakla ve-tarya on this thread prolifically quotes the medieval commentaries’ halachic discourses with chapter & verse as appropriate for kolel fellows, it is deficient in its citation of their agadaic comments. The most common source for the “rav” who ruled for sacraficing the children – Daas Zekainim L’Baalei Hatosfos – 1) vehemently attacks the enticement to butchery inherent in that ruling and 2) claims that the danger passed by that community thus rendering that supposed – read on on this point – event an act of needless brutality ! Even Orthodox scholars like Sid Leiman (in his tape series ) attack the historocity of such tales and polemics – including the popular Tisha Be’av laments that mention the travails of the crusades and the Ten Martyrs – and classify them as devotional liturgy meant to bring out the proper spirit of the day in the devotional public. Marcus Lehman in his “historical” novel ‘The Family Aguilar’ also engages in a similar pedagoguical effort calculated to inspire nineteenth century youth to join up with the faithful. While the numbers in the Iberian experience weigh in with the un-faithful, the claimed numbers in the saga of the German martyrs in the crusades are few indeed. This does not in any way diminish the tragedy & significance of their experience !
Like this comment?
1
Re the heilige Chasam Sofer’s vort, that רוב דוחקים אמת. There is a few different ways of presenting this, so I will try my best.
I think, that when you have a vast body of any complex system, such as science or law, since it is not a simple system, you will always have many different questions that will arise in the course of studying it. And there will be questions of various different types. There might be statements and rules which at first seem incoherent, and there will be seeming contradictions. The reason for that, among other possible reasons, is מקוצר המשיג ועומק המושג.
Another reason is that it is a statistic truth, and I will explain.
When people relate the miracles that happened during WWII, for example that A was among 100 people and only he was saved, I laugh. Because as we all know,if it is not a miracle that “someone” survived Auschwitz, then it isn’t a miracle that that “someone” happens to be A, or whoever else for that matter. It might seem amazing from A’s perspective, but it isn’t amazing at all.
Same here. When you have a history of a few thousand years, among the millions of things that happened, there will be thousands of happenings which do not make sense, for whatever reason, either because it seems far fetched that it happened, or because the storyteller left out many details, (and there might be valid reasons for leaving out details, especially if you believe that the Torah is not meant to be a storybook).
Now, all of the above is in no way proof that the Torah is true, of course, but it can definitely mitigate many questions, and add another angle to the discussion.
I truly believe that that is what the Chasam Sofer meant when he said rov dochkim emmess. That is not to be misconstrued to mean that any lukshin torah is emmess, but is in the sense that האמת יורה דרכו which dochak is likely to be true.
R and C, did that clarify my earlier statement sufficiently?
Like this comment?
2
R&C:
“The law is that a contrived get through methods of violence or terror, if perpetrated by Jews, the get is considered kosher, if the violence was done by gentiles the get is not kosher. … The sages didn’t want that every unhappy wife should hire mercenaries to beat up her husband and obtain a get in that fashion, so they ruled that if gentiles are the ones that forced the get its un-kosher.”
This is in direct contradiction to a b’feirush Sopranos episode (Season 1, Ep. 3) in which a Chasid requests Tony’s assistance in “convincing” his son-in-law to grant his daughter a divorce. It is obvious that Tony held by Rav Huna’s svora of ‘talyuhu v’zavin zvinei zvini.’ Ayin shom. V’tzarich iyun gadol.
As a footnote, one might argue that Tony ‘hut nisht gekent lernen,’ and therefore it isn’t a very strong קשיא. But if you remember the episode, the son-in-law taunts Tony that all the nations tried to exterminate the Jews but weren’t successful. And the Jews held out mightily against the supremely powerful Romans, even committing mass suicide at Masada. “And now look around: the Jews are still here. And where are the Romans?” To which Tony responded: “You’re looking right at them.”
Such a ‘chap’ indicates a ‘gemoro kop’, which shows Tony must’ve been a charif u’baki b’shas uposkim, and shouldn’t be dismissed. V’kal le’huvin. V’doik.
Like this comment?
2
Hhahah, Nice H.R. you made me laugh.
Let me one up you. Since Hesh (the Jew) advised Tony to threaten the son in law with finishing off his circumcision, which ultimately was the threat that made the son in law give the divorce, one may argue that the coercion stems from a Jewish source and hence should be considered a Jewish coercion, which is perfectly fine in accordance with halakhah, and not a Roman one.
Like this comment?
1
R and C ; I am not familiar with the Rambam you quoted above, that as long as one does not deny the existence of God in his heart he does not need to give up his life, and if that is in fact the Rambam’s view, then there really is no circumstance in which a person would be obligated to die rather than commit the sin, at least in regard to this one of the shalosh chamuros, because he can always sin just externally. I’d like to know where that Rambam is, so “zai azoi git” and please find it. Also, is the Rambam only in regard to denying God’s existence which is only a dibbur, or even by idolatry, which is a maiseh?
Like this comment?
1
Thanks, Chana.
Like this comment?
1
RandC,
Thanks for indulging me with your lengthy response; much appreciated. And since we are on the subject and I happen to be quit the dilettante, how would you explain/analize the FSIQ score discrepency between Sefardic (lower) and Ashkenazic (higher) Jews today?
Like this comment?
1
Hoezen, RandC’s comment answers your question, I believe. RandC is saying that the reason the Ashkenazi rishonim were less educated than the sephardi ones in secular studies is because of the relationship between jews and christians during that period as opposed to the situation in the muslim countries. Nothing to do with IQ.
Like this comment?
1
Sorry, Hoezen, I just realized that you’re question had nothing to do with his earlier comment. I should have known better!
Like this comment?
1
HT
“Thanks for indulging me with your lengthy response; much appreciated. “
It’s my honor and pleasure. Yeah, and this all while I’m trying to be short and concise, Imagine if I was actually trying to be lengthy…..(insert Akdumis hymn)”If all the seas were ink, the sky was parchment; the trees were quills” תא.”It wouldn’t suffice to contain the vast knowledge that resides within the boundaries of my great cerebrum” תא
“How would you explain/analize the FSIQ score discrepancy between Sephardic (lower) and Ashkenazi (higher) Jews today?”
It’s a good question. I didn’t know that to be a fact, although in my tribal Ashkenazi heart I always had that suspicion. How about this for a hypothesis to consider? It somewhat binds in to what we were discussing above.
It’s a well known fact that throughout the length of the Diaspora, generally speaking, the Sephardim had it much better than the Ashkenazim. They didn’t share equal rights or citizen status with their Muslim neighbors; they had to contend with the perils of Dhimmitude, but in broad terms they were pretty much equal to their contra-religionists. They were allowed into most professions, widespread persecution and pogroms was a rarity, and in general they were quite well integrated in their native cultures. Conversely the Ashkenazi Jews suffered greatly at the hands of their Christian contemporaries throughout the history of the Diaspora which came to a culmination with the Holocaust.
One of the characteristics of a suppressed people is fervent adherence and an unbending thrive for academic supremacy. There are many reasons for this phenomenon. One of the most prominent ones is that , since the conventional channels to gain significance and notoriety are unavailable or unattainable to the suppressed person, he will indulge in the only channel that is unobstructed to him, which is academics. The limitations that exist on the financial, economic, and social outlet didn’t exist on academics. You can’t prevent a man from studying.
Many sociologists contribute the main reason for Jews becoming so influential in America to the fact that they were a downtrodden people. They were outsiders when they came here, and their only way to “make it” in American society was through academic excellence. Once the Jews became established the trend shifts. They now view themselves as an integral part of this nation and they don’t have that unbending drive to be acclimated into the fabric of the nation they had when they first stepped off the ships a century and a half ago. As evident by the fact, that not too long ago the most sought after students (In colleges and Universities across America) were Jewish, surprisingly enough today students from Far Eastern backgrounds are far more attractive to college admission committees.
In accordance with this theory it’s quite understandable why the Ashkenazim by far outdid the Sephardim in the study of Torah. It’s no secret that we have a much richer tradition of torah study than them. If you walk up to any bookcase and look at the seforim- the Ashkenazi authors outnumber the Sephardic authors by a count of (and I’m not exaggerating) 50-1. This all lends to the fact that they had it much easier in their lands of the Diaspora and fervent studying didn’t hold the high esteem on the pyramid of values it did in the Ashkenazi communities.
This could be a possible explanation for the discrepancy in the FSIQ between Ashkenazi and Sephardic individuals. It’s the centuries of intellectual excellence that we sought, that is showing up on the test.
What are your thoughts?
Like this comment?
1
R&C, interesting theory, and feasible too.
But that begs the question – if all it takes is segregation, and suppression for a people to want to rise above, then why haven’t the black people emerged as the most educated minority?
Aren’t they officially still the most discriminated against?
Like this comment?
1
Ahh, very good question. There are so many answers to that. I’m afraid to say what I want to say because I don’t wanna be labeled by the ethics police as a racist, which I’m not. You probably already know what I’m referring to, so I’d rather not say it.
Second- inherent for the hypothesis to work-there needs to be a collective thrust by the underprivileged to rise above their disadvantaged social status. Many theorists claim that the African American mindset is perfectly comfortable and has no desire to evolve and change their social status. However perverse that may sound, they seem to be quite comfortable in their underclass status. Sort of, they relish the affection and attention, and they cherish the pity and notoriety they get from their current status.
Like this comment?
1
@Pen, Kaf and Koifer.
I didn’t forget about our “chaverusashaft”. I don’t have much time to study during the week. I will research the matter on Shabbos and hopefully have a comprehensive response.
Like this comment?
1
Tzippi – compared to the Jews, Blacks r far from a minority. There r numerous Blacks in medicine & law who can hold up to the most “sophisticated” Hasidics – especially to the wretched ones whose Yidishe kep did not shield them from the cluches of the law. Who knows what time will bring if the Hasidim continue to emulate the uncivilised among the blacks by killing their own brothers instead of rising above their uneducated, obscurantist situation & mindset ? R&;C – R the Beis Yosef, Abarbanel, Maimonides, Nachmonides, Chovas Halvavos, Ramchal,Yosef & Eliyahu, etc. sephardic or ashkenazic &; why r all those learned ashkenazim – including our unpious brethen – still struggling to deal with their words ?
Like this comment?
1
Mendy, the Bais Yosef and Ramchal are not considered Rishonim. The Ramchal was Italian. If these questions were supposed to be a rhetorical dispute, I didn’t get it. If you have a gripe with something I said before or you want to dispute something, please state it clearly.
Like this comment?
1
Tzipi, I’ll leave it up to you to handle the first half of Mendy’s comment. You don’t need my help, you’re capable enough. Common rip him a new one, as I know you can.
Like this comment?
1
R & C – “Ashkenazi authors outnumber Sephardic authors by a count of 50-1″”The Bais Yosef and the Ramchal are not considered Rishonim”"The Ramchal was Italian” – Please do not forget that most Rishonim aside from Rashi & the most of the Tosafists were Sephardic in origin. So were the Italians. And while the Bais Yosef & Ramchal were not Rishonim, they r still considered Sephardic.
Like this comment?
1
R & C – Thanks for defering to Tzipi to rip me apart ! I’m sure she does not need a Hasidic yungerman to guide her in the use of her prolific capabilities or to open up the horizons of her mind.
Like this comment?
1
Mendy, I don’t ever have intentions of tearing anyone apart, just the comments – when warranted.
I don’t recall seeing your comment in question, and I can’t seem to find it. Did you recognize the argument’s invalidity, and removed it before any ‘rippings’ occurred?
Like this comment?
1
I still see the comment with the note that it is awaiting “moderation”. It basically points out that compared to Jews blacks r far from a minority ! It also tries to bring out the wretchednes of Hasidim whose “sophistication” did not succeed to save them from the extended grip of the law knocking at the door of black lawyers whose brilliant minds & intimate experience have given the capabilities & compassion needed to effectively deal with such cases.
Like this comment?
1
I really enjoyed this brilliant piece and just want to comment on what I think the Rambam is saying.
Many times we are confronted with situations where we know what the right thing to do is but at the moment we *feel* like doing something else either because of laziness, anger, pride, or a myriad of other reasons. School children might not want to study for a test or do homework but they dont want to grow up illiterate or ignorant either. We might know we should apologize to a someone for wronging them but our pride won’t permit it, etc. etc.
So the Rambam is simply saying that someone who considers himself a Jew who observes the Torah wants to do what is says but something is holding him back so we just need to “help” him out a little.
Like this comment?
1
Mendy:
“Please do not forget that most Rishonim aside from Rashi & the most of the Tosafists were Sephardic in origin. So were the Italians. And while the Bais Yosef & Ramchal were not Rishonim, they r still considered Sephardic”
You’re confusing two of my comments; you merged and conjoined them and now you’re attacking me? In all actuality the fallacy of your attack on me is very similar to the fallacy of your attack on Tzipi. I never said that the Ashkenazi Rishonim were greater than the Sephardic Rishonim. I also don’t know where you get your stats from, but how do you know that there were more Sephardic Rishonim than Ashkenazi Rishonim? There were supposedly hundreds of Ba’aley Toisfes. You also misread or spitefully construed my words in regards to the lack of prolific Torah study by Sephardi Jews. First of all I wasn’t referring to the times of the Rishonim; if it wasn’t clear from my comment, I’m stating it now. I’m comparing the torah study that was going in Europe from the late 17th century onward to the Torah study that was going on in about the same time frame in the Sephardic countries. There is no doubt in my mind that you can’t compare the quality and quantity of Achronim that originate from European countries to those of Sephardic countries. But that was not the focal point of my hypothesis anyway. I didn’t intend to point out that Ashkenazim had greater torah scholars. My point was that Torah study amongst the masses wasn’t as widespread and prolific in the Sephardic countries as it was in the Ashkenazi countries. I used books and authors as an illustration that should cast a light on the discrepancy between the two communities in regards to Torah study. You seemed to have made the same mistake when you claimed that there are good African American doctors and lawyers, or whatever. We are not talking about the elite, the select few that made it; we were talking about the community as a whole, about the vast masses that are still very much at the pit of society.
Like this comment?
1
R & C – your comment at 8:12 reminds me of the Rebbi that tried to break up a fight between two students. When he asked one of them how it came about the answer was ” Rebbi, it all started when HE hit ME back !” R & C, I am not “attacking” you or Tzippi! I and others are dignifying your learned posts which was not clear enough – your very own words – for us humble minds to grasp so easily with a comment ! And please remember that supposedly is no proof – Tosafos even quotes Sephardic Rishonim when necesary to make a point !
Like this comment?
1
Mendy
I didnt intend to proove anything. I only used “supposedly” because unlike you Im not sure beyond a shred of doubt that most Rishonim were Ashkenazi. I would be curious to know from where you got that “most” Rishonim were Sephardic.
Toisfes does quoute Sephardic Rishonim sometimes. I’m also sure that you are aware that Toisfes is not a single author. Its a collection of many authors
Like this comment?
1
RandC:I didn’t forget about our “chaverusashaft”.
I didn’t know you were into your chavrusa’s shaft, and unless you’re a female, in which case I would love to be your chavrusa, I’m not into that sort of stuff.
(Just trying to steer the conversation towards more interesting topics…)
Like this comment?
1
RandC, I have too much to say on this topic.
For starters though, I think you are confusing academic achievement with cognitive potential and skill. IQ is “supposed” to be more innate, (how much of it is, is a different story). Though there is of course a strong correlation between cognitive and academic achievement, the schools you mentioned that are running after far easterns, are doing so based on SAT and GRE scores and not Wechslers and Stanford Binets.
“One of the most prominent ones is that , since the conventional channels to gain significance and notoriety are unavailable or unattainable to the suppressed person, he will indulge in the only channel that is unobstructed to him, which is academics. The limitations that exist on the financial, economic, and social outlet didn’t exist on academics. You can’t prevent a man from studying.”
” Kach he darko shell torah pas vmelech tochel..”
Now that’s one way to spin it. But I can argue that typically, people who are under dire financial and emotional stress, can not afford to focus on intellectual pursuits, academic achievement, or scholarly endeavors.
There’s a pretty simple reason why the “Top Bocher” in yeshiva demands a large naden.
like I said, I have many thoughts on this topic, but at the risk of being called a kollel yingermann like someone I know…
Like this comment?
1
“like I said, I have many thoughts on this topic, but at the risk of being called a kollel yingermann like someone I know…”
We would call you a kollel wife…wouldn’t the kollel experience be so much more colorful if we would have some vablech there studying with us?
Like this comment?
1
H.T.
You’re right about both of your points. My hypothesis is based on the assumption that academic proficiency internalizes and enhances the hard wired organic make up of the brain. I know this is a huge bally hued subject with psychologists, especially with evolutionary psychologists. I don’t have enough knowledge on the subject to really say anything decisively about it, but I know that this theory exists, so I used it as an assumption in my hypothesis.
You are totally right about your second point too. Actually it’s a well known fact that advances in academics and scholarly achievement almost never happens in turbulent times, whether political, social, economical etc. Some attribute the great advances the Greeks made in all fields of knowledge to the relative stable period that preceded and endured during the epoch of the seeming explosion of knowledge. Also, if you look back at the greats (in all fields) of antiquity you will find that almost all of them were either from noble families or from very rich families. The reason is simple. The poor man of antiquity didn’t have the financial means to provide an education for his son. The children of the poor people joined their parents in the effort to survive. They joined in their parent’s vocation, and by the time they got married they had their own family to provide for. Education was just not a reality for the lower class people. The upper class people who were well off financially could afford for their kids to get an education. That’s why in ancient times the learned people, as a rule, were almost always from the upper echelons of society. It’s a product of modern times that education is seen as vital for every person regardless of their financial state. Having said that, with the Jews and Torah study it’s a little different.
Every Jew is required and obligated to learn and know the whole Torah. According to some it’s the most important and most estimable mitzvah in the hierarchical value system applied to mitzvoth. Henceforth, unlike in the secular world of old, torah study was never seen as the sole lot of the rich upper class. It’s the lot and obligation of the entire nation to be torah scholars. The Torah isn’t the possession of the upper class, it belongs to the whole nation and every person must have a connection with the torah. It is therefore not surprising that we see throughout history many great torah scholars who originated from vastly underprivileged backgrounds. In the ancient world scholarly achievement, because of the circumstances, became associated with the nobility and the upper class, but in Judaism because of the peculiar command that doesn’t differentiate between classes, torah study was never seen as something that belongs or is characteristic of higher society.
In any case, the above is not fundamental to refute your argument. In essence I can agree with you that academic achievement and scholarly endeavors are unobtainable to the poor person. But we are looking at society as a whole. My hypothesis states that a downtrodden people that have no means to gain prominence through the conventional available channels will look for some other way to achieve greatness. So, I agree that the poorest and most unfortunate sector of that society can’t participate in the upward academic thrust, but the middle and upper class of the society (who have a measure of financial and emotional stability) can and surely will join and accommodate in the effort of the society to untangle and deliver itself from its unfortunate plight.
Like this comment?
1
Kaf, nu? Genig mit die prustkiet! Zy nisht azoi prust!
And kollel vaiblach would ruin the whole kollel experience. Look at you, every time there is a somewhat serious schoalrly disscussion you seem to posses the need to angle it towards levity. How much studying do you think you would get to do were HT youre chaverusah? I dont think much. I am staunchly opposed to coed kollelim.
Like this comment?
1
RandC, your last piece is a beautiful piece, very true, and nicely presented.
Re coed kolellim:
In my humble opinion, having women on the kollel benches alongside yungerleit would have many benefits. A good example is that it would be alot easier to demonstrate what the gemara is referring to in many difficult sugyos, biah sheloh kedarkoh, what exactly is meant by העראה, נשיקת אבר, and many other concepts which are hard to grasp. Especially in kabalistic studies, wouldn’t it be great if we can actually show the yesod reaching down until the chozeh? Or the different ways that the partzufim are mezaveg? I think it would greatly enhance my understanding if I would be able to actually see it in 3D.
Like this comment?
2
Thanks for the compliment
In all seriousness why, why? How old are you? Dont you think its a little childish?
We have all heard these jokes a million times. I am not a pure soul by no stretch of the imagination and my ears are not immaculate, I can stand a dirty joke, but I think this is a little overdone and uncalled for.
Like this comment?
1
Well, RandC, it definitely is childish, and if you would know me in “real life” you would know that I am very immature (it depends a lot in how you define immature, but in any case, I am who am, and I am not planning to change that).
I was thinking what the purpose of writing these stupid comments are. Here is one possibility:
I am trying to relate to people here on a more personal level, and it is through these comments that I am trying to “make conversation”. I do not feel the connection as much in academic debates as in regular banter, of course.
Maybe I am here for the wrong reasons, but I am here for emotional reasons, to find like minded individual who I can relate to, as much as I am here for intellectual reasons.
I do not think that HT or one of the others gals here will come calling after one of these comments, (even though I am always hoping for the possibility…) but I am desperate for friendship! Isn’t that kinda sad?
git shabbos
Like this comment?
1
I feel you man; I’m your friend.
Like this comment?
1
It’s good to be amongst friends!
Like this comment?
1