The Ramban (Parshas Bechukosai) quotes a machlokes Tanaim regarding whether the bracha of “v’hishbati chaya ra’ah min ha’aretz” means wild animals will disappear completely (R’ Yehudah’s opinion) or that wild animals will become domesticated (R’ Shimon). Just an aside, my wife noted that expending so much money to save wild endangered species seems a waste according to R’ Yehudah, as these animals will become extinct anyway. Be that as it may…
A few weeks ago we visited this machlokes in the context of eichus vs. kamus. The Rogatchover explains that R’ Yehudah holds “v’hishbati” means a quantitative elimination, l’shitaso of his understanding of the mitzvah of “tashbisu” as demanding that chameitz be burned. R’ Shimon interprets “v’hishbati” as including even a qualitative change. Nafka minah: if chameitz is bateil in a ta’aroves, does that fulfill the mitzvah of tashbisu? The same quantity of chameitz exists, but the mixture does not have the qualitative halachic nature of chameitz.
The Meshech Chochma connects this machlokes to a different debate. The gemara (Brachos 35) has a machlokes how to interpret the contradictory pesukim of “v’asafta deganecha” and “lo yamush”. R’ Yishmael’s approach is to compromise – plant in the planting season, plow in the plowing season, harvest in the harvest season, the rest of the time devote to learning. R’ Shimon bar Yochai’s approach is either/or – if the Jewish people serve G-d properly, then they will be blessed with the ability to learn all day and their work will be done by others; if the Jewish people are lax in observance, then they will be forced to spend time toiling in the field.
Hashgacha pratis works to the degree we trust in Hashem and are aware of His presence. R’ Shimon (stam R’ Shimon in the Mishna is Rashb”i) l’shitaso holds that for some (at least), it is possible to attain the goal of complete and constant immersion in Torah, meriting in turn constant and complete protection of hashgacha pratis. Wild animals need not be eliminated, as hashgacha affords protection from harm -- these animals are no different than domesticated animals. R’ Yehudah, however, like R’ Yishmael, holds that complete dedication to Torah is impossible. Man must break from his learning to plant, plow, and engage in the normal mundane activities of life. If wild animals remained, they would pose a danger during these periods of mundane activity when there is no protection of hashgacha. Therefore, the only way to guarantee bracha is to eliminate them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
During a Google search, I recently encountered another kamus vs eichus. I wish I remembered where.
ReplyDeleteIm rishonim kevnei adam, anu kachamorim
No matter how many chamorim you lump together, they will never add up to a ben adam. The implication is that we're not merely lesser than the earlier generations, we're different in kind.
-micha
nice one...
ReplyDeleteBut is it real? Is an acharon different than a rishon be'eikhus? If so, how can there be people who their talmidim believed defied the classification (e.g. the Vilna Gaon, the SA haRav)?
ReplyDeleteDoesn't "Rav tanna hu upalig" imply that the difference is grayer than that?
-micha
kamus vs. eichus describes the nature of the difference. the fact that the difference may be grey is a different story.
ReplyDeletethe problem of people who defied classification is only if you use historical epochs as your guide. that's not necessarily the best way to do it. As my bible professor in YU once said, "rashi's garbage man was not a rishonim just because he lived in the 11th century". by the same token, the gr"a might very well be a rishon even though he post-dated many achronim.
the labels serve very little purpose anyway.
kamus vs. eichus describes the nature of the difference. the fact that the difference may be grey is a different story.
ReplyDeletethe problem of people who defied classification is only if you use historical epochs as your guide. that's not necessarily the best way to do it. As my bible professor in YU once said, "rashi's garbage man was not a rishonim just because he lived in the 11th century". by the same token, the gr"a might very well be a rishon even though he post-dated many achronim.
the labels serve very little purpose anyway.
I think Rav Moshe writes that the GRA is to be treated as an achron, in apparent reference toR' Chaim Voliziner having said that the GRA was 'Maybe like the Rosh'.The reason for it would probably be similar to what the Rambam writes in his Hakadamah to Misneh Torah.We can't argue on the Gemorah due to our lack of capibilty of forming a consensues like they did.Similarly since the GRA could not speak or correspond with the rishonim altough he might of been worthy of arguing with them since he couldn't do so and hear thier point of view he isn't counted as one of them.
ReplyDeleteA related question would be.What is the 'geder' of'botlah daatoy?When would one be required to defer to one who knows more then him?Although we find it deference by Poskim frequently, the Shach in Klloley Horah says 'Countless times the halach is like the koton against the gadol'.Perhaps the line would be; any time there is an 'Anan Shadey' the gadol would win in a halachic conversation he must be deferred to.
i don't have it in front of me now but i think if you look in the 4th perek of sanhedrin the Rosh has a long discussion basically saying that anyone can argue on previous doros provided the proof is good enough. The catch is that unless you are someone like the gr"a or sha'agas arye (who seems to have no problem taking on rishonim), why would you think your proof is better than what the rishonim had on their side?
ReplyDelete