- This topic has 27 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 1 month ago by .
-
Posts
-
Whose team are you on?
Whose team? They are both heretics, why would I be on either team?
Like the maharsha points out, when an apikores quotes the torah you can be sure he is only talking nonesense and has no idea what the torah means.
Who’d wanna drink with a sassoon anyway?
although i havent seen this explanation anywhere i dont think its unreasonable to conclude that the gemara quoting sasson and simcha as heretics was a typo. i say this because there is nothing heretical in what they say and the very next story is about a heretic with the same name. i think its not unreasonable to conclude that the heretic is only in story two and the identification of these men as heretics in story one is a typo. again, this is not a pshat i have seen anywhere – just personal reflections.
Besalel,
Wow, that is remarkable. And yet the Gr”a did feel that was the case. I think I am in good company being uncomfortable accepting your suggestion.
nisht: but, see, the Avnei Nezer who explains that the same sasson in story one as the same sason in story two. this will disprove a portion of my theory (that the first story does not include heretics) but verify a portion of my theory (that there is a typo is the recollection of the story). in any event, neither the marsha or the gra understand the two stories to be talking about the same sasson.
haleivi: it does not trouble me greatly to believe that the gmara wasnt precise in its recollection of a story that does not perform a haluchaic function. i understand that there are some (many) who disagree. i, personally, would need much more “of a reason” (to use your words) to change a girsa which implicates haluchu.
while the sasson may have been a different person, the maharsha identifies both as heretics. on what basis are you changing the girsa in the gemara?
haleivi: i also agree with you that i am not saying a pshat.
From Kollel Iyun Hadaf’s Insights to the Daf (dafyomi.co.il):
The SHEM MI’SHMUEL (Sukos 5672) explains that heretics, who do not acknowledge that Olam ha’Ba exists, believe that the purpose of life is to achieve joy and happiness. The two heretics mentioned in the Gemara disputed which type of joy is greater — the type known as “Simchah,” which refers to a continual, constantly-increasing feeling of happiness, or “Sason,” which refers to sudden, spontaneous joy, the type one feels when stimulated by a surprise. (The VILNA GA’ON says that “Simchah” is an inner joy, while “Sason” is an outward expression of joy. See YA’IR OR, “Gil.”) Each heretic tried to prove that the other form of joy is dispensable.
When Sason debated with Rebbi Avahu, he said that in the World to Come, Rebbi Avahu will fill up water for him, as it says, “u’She’avtem Mayim b’Sason,” which the heretic interpreted to mean, “You will fill up water for Sason.” The heretic asserted that even in the World to Come man has no more noble purpose than the attainment of joy.
Rebbi Avahu responded that the attainment of happiness is not the ultimate purpose in life. Rather, joy is a means to an end; it is a vehicle to help a person serve Hash-m. “U’She’avtem Mayim b’Sason” means that Sason, joy, will help a person draw Torah (which is compared to water) and attain Ru’ach ha’Kodesh (see Tosfos 50b, DH Chad). Joy enables a person to fulfill the ultimate purpose of life — to serve Hash-m and achieve closeness to Him through learning Torah and doing Mitzvos.
I am Simcha’s agent and I ask that you refrain from making any comments on this topic until we have our press conference. Until then good day. I said good day.
Haleivi: I believe the purpose of both story one and story two is to be humorous. We have enough instances throughout shas where the purpose is to be humorous or entertaining that I am ok seeing the toast and not the Jesus. Of course there are those that see the Jesus and I am not there to argue with them and tell them I’m right and you’re wrong. I’m just saying I see toast. Of course not all aggaditeh are meant that way but many are.
halievi: if i recall correctly the whole sigyeh there in eruvin was about how important it is to be extremely precise with your words so that people understand you correctly. so the gemuruh brought a rayeh from rabbi avahu and demonstrated preciseness of language. but we know, lemayseh, that over the years, typos have indeed creeped into our shas.
haleivi: to support your point, the tiferes yisroel explains a mishna which speaks out against sichas yeludim, as speaking out against humor which is “light headed babble” and that good humor would be one which you can learn something from it.
on the other hand, we have some stories that really do not come to teach any apparent lesson. for example, a gemoro in shabbis which relates a story of a mother in law pulling the ultimate punking of her daughter in law by getting the daughter in law to light herself on fire. seems hard to find a lesson there. or a gemoro in bava kamma which says chanan bija who couldnt find someone to make change for an old zuz in order to pay someone half a zuz which he owed as a penalty to someone he hit so he fixes the problem by hitting the victim a second time in order to pay him a full zuz. lesson? or the story in sota where the gemara says ever since rebbe died there are no anuvim left in the world and rav yosef says “what about me?” looks like a joke for the purpose of a joke. there are other examples.
maybe its a cultural thing. i think if you look at real sfardishe baalei shiyur like rabbi yosef, ztl, there is humor spread out throughout the shiyurim. it plays a big role. seems to me that culturally, that part of the world had humor as a very regular part of life. conversely, rabbi yisroel salant, listed 13 important values in life and did not include humor as one of them. the gaon, who came from lita also refused to see idle humor in shas (and for example, explains rav yosef’s statement to be talking about someone named ‘anna’ and not that rav yosef was trying to be funny. and explains sasson and simcha to be teaching a deeper lesson.)
or maybe there are some that are like this (lesson teaching jokes) and some are like that (just jokes) and some of those that i fail to see a lesson in its because i havent delved into them enough. or maybe all of them have lessons. i am open to the idea that my theory is wrong and that i just need more convincing. i dont pretend that i am always right.
well, start with the chiddushei aggados of the maharsha. he explains this gemara and its lessons.
apushita: its not that i havent seen explanations is that the explanations dont always seem the most plausible. i see toast.
halievi: i am sure you know the meiri on zugos in the end of psuchim. if the gemuru can insert things that they believe are false in order to make the talmud more “user friendly” isnt it less repulsive to believe that they inserted humor in order to make it more user friendly?
Haleivi is doing a fine, although altogether too polite, job. But I’m bored, so I’ll chime in.
1. I’ve lost count on how many times you’ve switched between saying that mistakes in girsos happen, and that they weren’t careful (in the first place) in recording such stories. Are you sure you have a worked-out shita here, or are you just that desperate to give a modern, different, rationalistic approach to every Chazal possible
2. Putting aside the absurdness of your comparison, and of the general mehalchim of Rambam or Meiri, that’s not what he says there.
a)He admits that there actually is an effect due to the belief in them, as the Gemara says about one who is makpid.
b)The gemara isn’t saying something false, its saying that its a safe night (which is true), for the purpose of reassuring those who think there’s a problem, while it may in reality be an UNNECESSARY reason.
3. Sichas Talmidei Chachamim trichim limud. Just because something is said to serve as a mili d’bidichusa does not mean there isn’t what to learn from it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.