« Knotted to HaShem by Chaim Gershon | Main | Otzar Hachochma in Monsey »

June 26, 2011

Comments

anony

sorry but you don't get away with this so easy - the choice to use one methodology or another is arbitrary, the methodology is not clear or self evident, it is an apologetic to justify arbitrary disputes, but it justifies nothing, the only way out is to explain why one method, different interpretation, over another is not arbitrary and you don't do that at all. hearing hints is subjective, why doesn't everyone agree on the hints? answer - arbitrary decision that his way knows better what God wants. not spiritual at all, just arbitrary

avakesh

To fully understand this post entitled "More on R. Ishmael and R. Akiva" requires background that was not presented. Such are the limitations of the blog format. To say of teachers of this stature that they spoke arbitrarily does not do justice to their stature and the quality of their students throughout the ages. More fitting is humility. It is far more proper to sit at their feet and "drink with thirst their words".

Here is the background - two approaches:

1. These two Tannaim are continuing the two approaches to interpertation that were found in Judaim from the beginning: The Aaronic one, based on intuition/Holy Spirit in the Temple setting, and the Mosaic one based purely on intellect. That is why R. Ishmael "heard" the interpetation in the text. See here
http://www.avakesh.com/2010/07/what-good-are-the-rabbis.html

See also
and
http://www.avakesh.com/2008/05/principles-and.html

2.The difference in approach arose out ot a different understanding of how oral tradition should be connected to the Written text.

On R. Hoffman's approach http://www.avakesh.com/2008/06/dispute-for-the-sake-of-heaven-r-ishmael-and-r-akiva.html

micha

See my effort. Teaser: Derashah could be understood in 2 ways: Either as applied to the semantics, the meaning of the clauses of the verses, or as applied to the syntax — that particular words have coded meaning.

R’ Yishma’el’s school believed the former. “The Torah is written in human idiom”. Therefore, derashos apply to the meaning of clauses, not individual word choice — if it’s normal idiom or metaphoric description. This also lead R’ Yishmael to view derashah as a means of getting what the Torah is telling us, such as “shomei’ah ani” (I hear).

R’ Aqiva learned “mounds of halakhos from the tags and serrifs on the letters”. He understood derashah to be about the text itself. ...

The two series of medrashei halakhah are:
R’ Aqiva’s school R’ Yishma’el’s school

However, I think it was found that R' Aqiva actually is quoted using qelal uperat (rather than ribui umi'ut) more often than R' Yishma'el is! And for his part, R' Yishmael is cited using a ribui umi'ut.

I therefore think the difference has more to do with different theories about how derashos work in terms of overarching theory that actually had less relationship to pragmatically which specific derashos were valid.

micha

Err! Tags didn't work in comment. Anyway, the post is at http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/09/midrashei-halakhah.shtml

anony

i am so confused. i choose to be a democrat or a republican. that is arbitrary. same with choosing a mode of interpretation. just one opinion or another. i like vanilla, you like chocolate. different theories, not! just he says, he says. am i missing something?

StanleyRebekah

I propose not to wait until you get enough amount of money to order all you need! You should just get the mortgage loans or just short term loan and feel free

The comments to this entry are closed.