To All Yeshiva Haters
- This topic has 68 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 11 months ago by ☕ DaasYochid ☕.
June 28, 2015 8:24 pm at 8:24 pm #1089325
DY: He made a mistake. He admitted such to me years later when I explained the Gemara to him.
And that line in the Gemara is irrelevant. That’s discussing Shitas R’ Meir. The Chachamim aren’t Choshesh for the Miut and therefore holds that only those that are Vadai Ne’evad are Assur.June 28, 2015 8:42 pm at 8:42 pm #1089326
It’s not clear in the gemara whether the Chachamim require a vaday or just more than a miut, but even if you’re right that they require a vaday, the whole gemara is discussing which factors make us assume a vaday without actually knowing, but you’re assuming it’s a known a”z, which is not the way the sugya goes.June 28, 2015 10:28 pm at 10:28 pm #1089327
Also, in the hemshech of the gemara, there are some forms about which they changed their opinion on what the symbolism was, and there’s even a teiku on one. If these statues were known a”z, why the emphasis in the sugya on what they symbolize? They were either ne’evad, or not.June 28, 2015 10:56 pm at 10:56 pm #1089328bigkhunaParticipant
from the tittle I thought this was about hate not about hats.June 28, 2015 11:51 pm at 11:51 pm #1089329
DY: I’m assuming the Mishnah is telling us which Tzlamim are Ne’evad, as opposed to those that were just there to look nice (e.g. Aphrodite). The Braisa is telling us that there were certain things that the early Tannaim thought weren’t Ne’evad (either because they actually weren’t or because the Tannaim didn’t view the service of all of these “lesser” gods as actual Avodah Zarah) and then the “Hosifu Aleihem” discovered/decided that these were also Avodah Zarahs.June 29, 2015 1:20 am at 1:20 am #1089330
Bigkhuna, it was.
Sam, or, choice 3), that they became aware that they were a”z and not ornamental.
The point remains that they weren’t known a”z, and the machlokes (with its various qualifications) isn’t whether atlas is an a”z, but if a statue withe a sphere/bird/stick etc. is halachically assumed to be.June 29, 2015 1:37 am at 1:37 am #1089331
DY: I intentionally left off choice 3 because I thought you would feel (and I feel that way myself) that it is not appropriate to imply that the original Mishnah was unaware of the Metzius.
And I think your reading of the Mishnah is what R’ Meir was assuming. Once we get to the Chachamim, the Mishnah is just telling the Metzius.June 29, 2015 2:04 am at 2:04 am #1089332
What does ?????? ???? mean?
What is the ?????? ????? ????”??
What are the ????? of ?????
Was ?”? mistaken?June 29, 2015 4:01 am at 4:01 am #1089333
DY: Well, it’s not Pshat but I would be most comfortable if MeIkara Savar was referring to the Ovdei AKU”M. I agree the most simple is that Chazal were in error of the OA”Zs’ intentions at first and then corrected themselves, but that feels wrong, doesn’t it? So I dunno. I would think my second option is the best-that Chazal knew these idols were worshiped but didn’t think what they did constituted worship because they didn’t view them as deities, just a statue representing Listim or something like that. And then they realized that they weren’t just viewing these idols as representing Listim but that they were actually gods.
RSB”G presumably holds something else entirely. Namely that if they went to the extent to be so precise in this Pesel as to have it hold something, it’s because it’s meaningful to them and therefore presumably Ne’evad. Which makes sense that the Gemara asks what if he’s holding something very not respectful.
I was assuming like Rashi and the other Rishonim, yes. My Pshat has a bit of trouble with Rabbeinu Tam. I’m not saying he was mistaken (though I haven’t thought it all out; it could be that that’s the only possible outcome), but he is a minority opinion in the Rishonim.June 29, 2015 12:51 pm at 12:51 pm #1089334
It doesn’t feel wrong if that’s what they tell us. And they weren’t really wrong; the oa”z didn’t use symbolism correctly, and the whole sugya is about assumptions, so they made a fair assumption which turned out to not bear out in metziyus (which they weren’t claiming to actually know, anyhow). Plus, you did the same thing; end result: wrong metziyus.
So RSB”G is also about assumptions, and so is tzoah, and that’s my point in the sugya: it’s not about what they knew to be a”z, it about rules to determine issur based on assumptions.
And there’s no reason to make the machlokes Rishonim about that; that’s the pashtus hasugya according to all.June 29, 2015 1:45 pm at 1:45 pm #1089335
FWIW, Artscroll says it was “the Rabbis” who originally thought it meant listim. Mesivta Gemara explains this way as well. As you admitted, it is by far the pashtus (you didn’t admit the “by far” part).
Also of note is that it also says ?????? ????, which means they changed their minds based on sevara, not necessarily new information.June 29, 2015 2:24 pm at 2:24 pm #1089336
DY: To your last comment, again, that just doesn’t make sense. Why are we making Sevaras about what they worship or don’t? Just ask them.
R’ Meir and RSHB”G are about assumptions. The Chachamim disagree because they’re not worried about assumptions, they’re worried about Metzius. And Rabbeinu Tam clearly disagreed with Rashi and others as to which Tzad the line in the Gemara is talking about (unless you’re talking a different Rabbeinu Tam).June 29, 2015 3:13 pm at 3:13 pm #1089337
That’s what we call a kashya oif a maaseh. Probably, there’s no ne’emanus.
You just made the gemara very uneven for no reason (bringing atlas into the gemara is not a reason), and completely against the pashtus (there’s that word again, being used correctly now) of the sugya.
The mishnah, according to you, should have just said, “?????? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ????”.June 29, 2015 5:29 pm at 5:29 pm #1089338
DY: No, because not everyone knows what Atlas is. They’re telling people who may come along later, and won’t recognize idols by name, what forms constitute something that was usually Ne’evad.June 29, 2015 6:24 pm at 6:24 pm #1089339
Pretty vague description for an a”z yadua. The gemara could have named and described it.
BTW, R”T I’m referring to:
??? ??’ ????? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ????? ??”? ?? ???? ???? ?????’ ????? ???? ??????? ?? ????? ???????? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???
IIRC, there are rayos from other Rishonim as well (Ramba”n, Ri”d?), but no time to look now.
But it’s the whole sugya, really.June 29, 2015 6:52 pm at 6:52 pm #1089340BelieveYouMeParticipant
Who is a Yeshiva Hater? Who hates Yeshiva so much as to make a whole thread about it? Could you possibly mean Yeshiva Hatter? (That also doesn’t make much sense to me.) If so, please Moderator. change the spelling in the title of this thread.June 29, 2015 7:04 pm at 7:04 pm #1089341
DY: Meh, it’s Assur to name it.
Right, and that Rabbeinu Tam argues on Rashi, the other Deiah in Tosfos, and I thought the Ramban as well (and I think the Rambam too).June 29, 2015 8:29 pm at 8:29 pm #1089342
So hint that it’s a specific a”z.
Yes, it’s a machlokes, but you’re making it a whole different, larger one.
I don’t mean that the others agree with R”T. Let’s save it until I look them up.June 30, 2015 3:14 pm at 3:14 pm #1089343
???”? argues with ??”?, and learns that ?????? is even according to the ?????. He quotes the ??”? and ???”? as well.
This doesn’t work according to you.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.