For those of you who are intrigued by this sort of thing - the 7 year cycle of the study of the Talmud ended and began again on Robbie's birthday (ie 2 March 2005.)
A
I made this post to it this morning.
>
> Beth mentioned she tries to wrap her mind around the gemara's flow of
> consicousness.
I remember when I was still living in Israel, I was going to a specific yeshiva (whose name will not be mentioned). At that point I was also trying to understand the best way of meeting the talmud.
It appeared to me, at the time, that the talmud was an ongoing conversation about a subject which was never directly mentioned; filled by an incredible assumption of knowledge.
It also seemed to me that to join in to the conversation, meant adding to it - not only trying to understand it. This was one of the resting pillars of the chevruta system. Perhaps this group could also be viewed as such an addition?
It also appeared to me that upon memorisation ( I memorised a page or two of kishdushin ) that were various of levels of association that only become apparent when a piece of text is held in the imagination itself. But that, of course, may have only been my imagination.
But in any event, I discovered an incredible enveloping effect; that made me understand why, in my only particular interpretation, people refer to the "sea of talmud" - as, in a sense, I felt as if I had taken a few steps into the sea and... although I had only got my feet a little wet... the sound of the waves had already drowned out all other worldly sounds.
... then tells us twice in two different ways that it
> is important to "connect Geula to Tefila".
I am of the understanding that Tefila replaced the Temple sacrifices; and, that Geula is in essence, that lack of that Temple. Thus Tefila is the scar of exile, or in Deriddean terms, a "supplement." [Footnote 1]
When viewed in this way, Tefila is ultimately the sign of Geula. (At many different levels of metaphor and actualisation. ) Right?
> So we actually are learning something about tefilla from the melachim
> here (the paragons of tefilla from a certain perspective).
I am sure that once upon a time, I was told by a lamdan, that somewhere in the talmud, the rabbis' conclude that the names of the angels come from Babylon. By this, I was led to believe, that many of our people's "superstitions", or (If I wish to be more sensitive to people's "sacred cows" ) - "symbols by which through homilect/agadah certain principles are expounded" - such as heaven and hell; a dualism between messiah/G-d and devil/yucky guy; and, Tammuz (month names/Babylonian gods) - can be traced. The rabbis' of blessed memory when thus pointing out a historiucal understanding of how certain ideas came into Judaism, whilst using these ideas to explain concepts which are were not necessarily etymologically and religiously linked to these names. A prefiguration if you will, similar to how Christianity attempts to prefigure images in the Tanach to re-explain the Tanach to fit into its quite different religious mythologies.
I however, cannot provide a source for this assertion of mine - and perhaps the lamdan in question was incorrect.
Shabbat Shalom.
-- ilAn
Footnote 1: 'The French word *supplement* means both addition and replacement. The supplement both extends and replaces.', from Derrida for Beginners by Jeff Collins and Bill Maybin, Icon Books, 1996, p34.
As an aside to this footnote; interesting enough we pray for the end of geulah and the restoration of the Temple. But tefila's religious importance lies in its replacement of the Temple and the existence of Geula. Thus in a way tefila opposes itself i.e. we pray for the end of prayer. *ouch*
4 comments:
First of all I have to object to being characterized as "a modern orthodox friend". I am none of those. I really don't approve of modern orthodox as an appellation or as identity. And I am certainly not a friend of Ilan's whom I have never met.
I am a chihuahua, and it is my group.
Okay the group is actually managed by my owner's husband who is a friend of the blogger, but otherwise shares my opinions of modern orthodoxy. Also would not like to have my owner herself see him called modern orthodox because that could get him into trouble.
Also the blogger here should have linked the group or at least the thread so people could see the responses of other group memebers to his post.
I wonder what he thinks he's getting away with here. If I could reach him I would bite him.
Okie dokie.
Here are the responses.
(In sequence...)
> ... then tells us twice in two different ways that it
>> is important to "connect Geula to Tefila".
>
...
>
> I am of the understanding that Tefila replaced the Temple sacrifices;
> and, that Geula is in essence, that lack of that Temple. Thus Tefila
> is the scar of exile, or in Deriddean terms, a "supplement." [Footnote
> 1]
>
> When viewed in this way, Tefila is the ultimately the sign of Geula.
> (At many different levels of metaphor and actualisation. ) Right?
I think you are thinking here about Galut, which is the opposite of
Geula. Still, I think you are probably on the right track for a
metaphorical reading of this. I have always understood this passage to
be a double entendre, where geula (redemption) is immediately followed
by praise.
Reading the gemara on this occasion I was struck by its juxtaposition
with the discussion of the angels, and I realized as I described that
it was also teaching us something about the technique of prayer.
>
>> So we actually are learning something about tefilla from the melachim
>> here (the paragons of tefilla from a certain perspective).
>
> I am sure that once upon a time, I was told by a lamdan, that
> somewhere in the talmud, the rabbis' conclude that the names of the
> angels come from Babylon. By this, I was led to believe, that many of
> our people's "superstitions", or (If I wish to be more sensitive to
> people's "sacred cows" ) - "symbols by which through homilect/agadah
> certain principles are expounded" - such as heaven and hell; a
> dualism between messiah/G-d and devil/yucky guy; and, Tammuz (month
> names/Babylonian gods) - can be traced. The rabbis' of blessed memory
> when thus pointing out a historiucal understanding of how certain
> ideas came into Judaism, whilst using these ideas to explain concepts
> which are were not necessarily etymologically and religiously linked
> to these names. A prefiguration if you will, similar to how
> Christianity attempts to prefigure images in the Tanach to re-explain
> the Tanach to fit into its quite different religious mythologies.
I believe the source to which you refer indicates that the names of the
angels were brought back from Assyria, but yes from the Babylonial
exile. I think you are also on the right track here in suggestion that
much of traditional Jewish doctrine was interpolated subsequent to the
revelation of Sinai. When I was taught this concept however I was given
to understand that it was a part of how the Torah and its traditions
evolved to accommodate contemporary needs without changing in its
foundations or fundamental assumptions. The bedrock, if you will,
always remains unaltered.
I think you are mistaken when you suggest prefiguration. The presence
of "angels" (and not in the Christian sense at all) is explicit in the
Nevi'im and certainly ascribed to numerous passages in the Chumash. The
only questions as far as historical origins and legitimacy of the
concept have to do with descriptions, functionality and , yes, names.
Explanation of the prophetic passages concerning angels figures
prominently in the sifrei hechalot, some of the oldest works of Jewish
mysticism composed in the times of the Mishna. By the time our gemara
was codified, and for that matter by the time prayer was canonized
Israel had already returned from Babylonian exile so the discussion
seems somewhat moot. For all that, wherever angels are encountered they
are seen as perfect emissaries of the divine (too perfect, in fact) and
generally in a context where they are engaged in or seeking to return
to the praise of God, which is their primary function. Many of the
prophetic passages dealing with angels are the origins of some of the
most sacred elements of our liturgy. So while we have learned that Am
Yisrael was much more worthy than the angels of receipt of the Torah,
we also know that the prayers of beings of free will are infinitely
more desirable to God than the prayers of the angels, the prayers of
the angels are always more "suitable" more well crafted, because prayer
is virtually all they concern themselves with. Thus, while again
understanding that the prayers of Israel are more "desirable" we can
certainly improve upon the technique of our prayer by studying the
technique of the angels.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dafyomigroup/
> I believe the source to which you refer indicates that the names of the
> angels were brought back from Assyria, but yes from the Babylonial
> exile. I think you are also on the right track here in suggestion that
> much of traditional Jewish doctrine was interpolated subsequent to the
> revelation of Sinai. When I was taught this concept however I was given
> to understand that it was a part of how the Torah and its traditions
> evolved to accommodate contemporary needs without changing in its
> foundations or fundamental assumptions. The bedrock, if you will,
> always remains unaltered.
Somehow this assertion of yours brings to my
mind the opening chapter of the "Guide to the
Perplexed"; where is there is a quite a discussion
about some of the superstitions that had come to
be seen as an unalterable bedrock.
It also brings to mind the fact that so many of our
sacred texts are arguments - often without resolution;
and furthermore that upon inspection many of the different
mystical and theological beliefs proposed at different
periods are mutually exclusive.
I remember being told, and again unfortunately I can
not quote my source, (so this may be incorrect) that
the Rambam compared the Torah scroll to a great tapestry
in the heavens; and that each word is a hook upon which
we can hang our grand human theories. In this way our many
different (600 000) understanding of the Torah may be poured
into the words.
Thus the bedrock seems to have always already been there?
[footnote 1]
And of course, in the most profound sense, it was...
But, as per normal, I probably got the short end of the stick here...
...
-- ilAn
[Footnote 1] being projected there by the greatest celebratory show on earth...
Post a Comment