▪ A Foxman: How to turn around Jewish education investments
▪ Community struggling to meet the needs of Jewish identity surveys’ ‘others’
▪ Washington’s Letter Is Star of Show
▪ France’s Jewish Problem
▪ Olim students face scholarship cuts
▪ Hasidic Jews in Heavy Dress Bear Up in Summer
▪ R H Billet: Facing reality and dealing with the Internet
▪ Rabbi Meir Shapiro and the Daf Yomi Legacy
▪ Yeshivat Maaleh Gilboa journal: VeZot LeYehuda Vol.2
▪ R M Rosensweig: Absolute Emunah as a Test and Prerequisite of National Leadership
▪ Wary of draft, haredim sign up for national service
▪ SALT Friday
▪ The Truth about Religious Liberty
▪ Deportation Dilemmas
▪ Rav HaKolel, A Biography Of Rabbi Yaakov Yosef
▪ Haredi Draft Proposal Offers Few Sticks, Many Carrots
▪ Last Ulpana Residents Expelled
▪ The Marijuana Rabbi
▪ Pr M Shapiro: The Future of Israeli Haredi Society
▪ Poverty in the Orthodox World
▪ Stupid Shabbat
▪ As Britain’s chief rabbi, Lord Sacks is proving a very hard act to follow
▪ Israel is swamped with singles
▪ Conservative rabbis file police complaint against Amar for incitement
▪ SALT Thursday
▪ Klezmer is Finished
▪ Alcohol And Drugs In The Jewish Community: The Problems Few Can See
▪ R Goldin: RCA Complexities
▪ R Telushkin: What The Rebbe Taught
▪ The OU And UJA: Building On Study’s Findings
▪ Reform congregations in Hungary turn to court for recognition
▪ More Jews Opt for Cremation
▪ Jewish foundation creates ‘Jewish Nobel Prize’
▪ Brooklyn DA trumped-up hate crime charges
▪ Conservatives file complaint against Rabbi Amar
▪ Bris Ban Raises Specter of German Hate
▪ R Shafran: Korach@ blogspot.com
▪ SALT Wednesday
▪ Ulpana Neighborhood: Pictures of Quiet Eviction
▪ Nearly one in four Brooklyn residents are Jews, new study finds
▪ Under Pressure From Ultra-Orthodox, MDA Sets Up In-House Rabbinical Panel
▪ Not Your Grandmother’s Grandmothers
▪ Award-winning TV report prompts upsurge in Israeli live organ donations
▪ Bronx tow-truck driver delivers baby
▪ On Writing Gadol Biographies
▪ Israel’s Female Freedom Riders Take On Bus Lines Where Only Men Sit in the Front
▪ SALT Tuesday
▪ Slovak Coin Honors Rabbinical Scholar Chatam Sofer
▪ The Economics of Torah Scholarship in Medieval Jewish Thought and Practice
▪ The Halakhic Spring – Jews Are Doin’ It For Themselves
▪ Beyond Gee-Whiz Figures in Population Study
▪ For Ex-Orthodox, More Than a Game
▪ Menorah on Arch of Titus in Roman Forum Was Rich Yellow
▪ J’lem: 5,000 protest plans to draft haredim
▪ Tel Aviv’s religious renaissance
▪ Social protests turn violent in Tel Aviv
▪ SALT Monday
▪ Prior news & links posts
Rules: link
R’ gil – does your hashkafa determines or influences what is good scholarship based on its conclusions? I
Ruvie: To me, the term “good scholarship” signifies whether something meets official academic standards. I’m less interested in that than whether it is true. Yes, my hashkafah influences what I consider true. Although that is based more on its starting point — underlying assumptions — than its conclusions.
Nachum: Great, Gil. So long as you do it for fields apart from history. Like halakhah.
Of course!
R’ gil – I would have thought consistent methodology and thorough research without any obvious biases to dismiss things would be of paramount importance whether you felt something is plausible ( or more likely) or true – whether it met academic standards or not.
Having no bias is also a bias–toward only provable assertions. There is plenty in life, particularly in history, that cannot be proven.
on the other hand, what can be really proven at all in life? sorry, but at least trying not to be biased seems the only at to go for a rationalist – to be intellectually honest – in most circumstances
I agree but only after laying down your starting assumptions, which in my case includes treating Chazal as a reliable source.
Gil — It seems to me you undermine your positoon when you revert to platitudes. You are not a literal fundamentalist and I’m quite sure there are examples of Chazal’s teachings that you do not accept as literal truth despite that others may.
So, what is the process by which you are moved from your starting position; and, what are the rules of engagement.
I’m not suggesting you answer it here on the last dregs of last week’s news; but, sometime it would be edifying to get to the next level of the discussion.
IH: You are correct that I am not a literal fundamentalist but there is a huge middle ground between that and Ruvie’s rejection of all Talmudic history.
R’ gil – please do not mistake my opinion as a rejection of all tamudic history. I am suspect only when there are valid reasons: inherent contradictions and inconsistencies through rabbinic literature plus other markers that my show up. As chazal has said, what happened, happened – showing little concern for accuracy that we today take for granted or demand.
Ftr, I am just your local backbencher in shul.
Nachum Lamm wrote in part in response to my comment:
““As far as Divine Transmission of TSBP, see Avos 1:1,and the commentaries in the Mossad HaRav Kook edition.”
Avot 1:1 says nothing of “Divine Transmission.” To the contrary, it says *Moshe* transmitted to Yehoshua, etc”
Obviusly, you did not see the Mfarshim that I referred to. Kindly do so if you wish to continue the discussion.
Nachum Lamm wrote in part in response to my comment:
““As far as Divine Transmission of TSBP, see Avos 1:1,and the commentaries in the Mossad HaRav Kook edition.”
Avot 1:1 says nothing of “Divine Transmission.” To the contrary, it says *Moshe* transmitted to Yehoshua, etc”
Nachum-did you look at the Mfarshim thereat?
Obviusly, you did not see the Mfarshim that I referred to. Kindly do so if you wish to continue the discussion.
Moshe Shoshan wrote:
“You speak in an idiom that was invented by R. Chaim Volohzoner and his descendants, reject all who do not accept this frame work. On what basis do you do this?”
I see no basis to accept “arguments” by anyone whose views re Chazal are rooted in their own sensibilities, sense of morality and POV, as opposed to revering Chazal as great personae whose POVs are as relevant today as they were during their lifetimes. I saw Footnotes and both the father and son struck me as extraordinarily reminescent of RYBS’s description of Maskilim who would study Gemara with a lit cigar on Shabbos. Like it or not Torah Lishmah should never be confused with academic Talmud. May HaShem always enable us to make Havdalah and keep the boundaries as distinct as possible.
Nachum-prove to me that Midrash Pleiah was an invented term of the last century in response to RSL’s works.
The Ritva was known as one of the Gdolei Rishonim. MHK’s editions of Ritva ( even Yevamos which has far too many footnotes), Rashba , etc ensured that we learn from the best text possible. I could care less what Lakewood does with the publisher’s information-the bottom line is that these works are used throughout the Torah world.
I know that the Meiri is accepted in the Torah world, but it was not always so, and RHS stated that RYBS neither was enamored with the Meiri and viewed it as a crutch for anyone who could make a leining on a Rishon.
The Kinos refer to the loss of commentaries on Nazir and Nedarim ( See Page 427, Kinos Mesoras HaRav and Page 435), and it is well known that these two Masectos have a Lashon Mshuneh Meod and Lashon Mshuneh.If manuscripts on Nazir and Nedarim which never been heard of or had been secreted away in venues such as the Vatican and not viewed as part of the Mesorah, I strongly doubt that they would be accepted as part of the corpus of Torah on those Masectos.
Thought no one would notice, huh? Mossad Harav Kook’s Pirkei Avot is huge. I have it in front of me. What specific perush, pray, in unilaterally defining the terms of the debate, would you like me to check? I would think hamotzi mechavero applies here.
Your cavalier attitude toward rishonim you don’t “like” is very troubling. The rest of your posts are missing my point completely.