JHI1300LanNotesFinal1-1

JHI1300LanNotesFinal1-1 - JHI 1300 Medieval Jewish History...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: JHI 1300 Medieval Jewish History Rabbi Landman Spring 2000 Notes from Midterm until Final by Daniyel Hoffman N = Navi Nev = nevua 3/22/00 Rambam I. Rambam's History A-Beginning of Controversy -1-not a debate over Rambam himself -a-both attackers & defenders praised his learning & piety -b-all acknowledged him as outstanding scholar -2-attack on something written in Mishneh Torah & Moreh Nevuchim -a-most of defenders & attackers never read MN B-many issues disputed: -1-reason & philo vs. faith & tradition/mesorah/m'pi hash'mu'a -a-Rambam said that reason & philo should be applied to Torah, and all mitzvos based on reason -b-even the 12 chukim, which are G'zayras HaKasuv/HaMelech, gives reasons -2-what may be taught and not taught -a-allows teaching of philo, science -3-interp. anthropomorphism in Tanach -4-what constitutes belief in Tichiyas HaMaysim -a-Payrush Lmishnayos -b-Perek Cheleck -c-Hil' Teshuva 8:8 -5-allegorical interp. of Tanach -a-m'shalim-removing inherent importance -b-held that things that are illogical = allegorical (i.e. Atudim atudim by Ya'akov and sheep) -6-legitimacy of Yad's format -a-lacks sources -7-Is one bound to follow est. hierarchy of communal p'skay halacha or can one follow one's own intellect? -a-Rambam held that intellect most important--rej. Geonim -b-e.g. Chanuka lighting 2 aspects of Shabbos: Tzura HaMelacha Chiddush R' Yehuda-holds by act alone-Chayav R' Shimon-holds by intent-Patur 3/22/00 C-Rambam himself -1-Jewish rationalism strong b/c of him -a-his philo very clear -b-accomplished many things, through which ppl. accepted him as authoritative -2-birth -a-born 14 Nissan, Shabbos 1135 CE on 1pm in Cordova, Spain Downloaded from: www.yumesorah.com JHI1300LanNotesFinal1.pdf Page 1 of 17 JHI 1300 Medieval Jewish History Rabbi Landman Spring 2000 Notes from Midterm until Final by Daniyel Hoffman -b-father, Maimon, = a gadol -3-b4 age 13, home city fell to Almohades (Arabs) -a-motto was "The Koran or the Sword" -b-gave ppl. 3 choices: death, Koran, or exile -4-family moved to Fez, North Africa (later fell to Moslems too) -a-some ppl. believe he ostensibly converted and wore Turban, insignia of conversion -5-1165 left for E"Y -a-Crusades then in E"Y -b-after a month of stormy passage on ship, arrived in Acco -c-went to Y"m, Chevron, but had to move to Cairo -6-Cairo -a-brother = jeweler -b-father died -c-brother died in ship 1170, Rambam gave -b-become doctor for al Fadhil, grand vizier of sultan -e-become pro-bono physician for Jewish community -7-died -a-December 1204 II-Writings in General: A-earliest ones from his youth B-Milos HaHegiyon-Vocabulary of Logic -1-abt. logical theory, physical and metaphysical phenomenon -2-abt. J philo C-Ma'amar Ha-Ibur -1-abt. Chodesh, Ibur Shana -2-nec. for understanding J philo D-Payrush HaMishnayos -1-began at age 23 -2-very few meforshim to mishna -a-wrote 1st complete payrush on Mishnayos -b-considered mishna = self-sufficient unit, separate from Gemara -c-can learn mishnayos alone -d-they overlap at times -e-need to understand mishna alone -3-digresses to discuss theology & philo -a-renders medrashim reasonable, rational -4-rational enterprise of Torah SheBa'al Peh -5-addresses question: how can there be diversity of opinion in a system that claims to ste mfrom Har Sinai? -a-2 components in B'Chsav, Min Hatorah Halachos -b-halacha l'mosheh m'sinai-absolute & never subject to dispute -i-mach' can occur if something is considered L'Moshe MiSinai -ii-however, once its L'Moshe, no dispute abt. it -c-interpretations -i-using 13 Middos of R' Yishmael, et. al. -ii-after interpretations accepted by Rabbim, followed -iii-can have machlokes -6-Olam HaBa -a-rej. Materialistic interp. of O"HB -b-ID's OHB as immortality of soul -c-defines J as following 13 Ikarim (Ani Ma'amins) -d-3 divisions -i-G-d, unity, prohibition of A"Z -ii-divine origin of Torah, not changing Downloaded from: www.yumesorah.com JHI1300LanNotesFinal1.pdf Page 2 of 17 JHI 1300 Medieval Jewish History Rabbi Landman Spring 2000 Notes from Midterm until Final by Daniyel Hoffman -iii-s'char v'onesh, omniscience, Mashiach, Tichiyas HaMaysim -e-every J needs to believe these things 3/27/00 E-Sh'moneh P'rakim-part of Payrush L'Mishnayos -1-abt. Sh'vil HaZahav, Golden Mean -a-virtues are in middle bet. 2 extremes -i-i.e. stingy vs. extravagant: mean = generosity in moderation -ii-cowardice vs. recklessness: mean = courage -2-defines virtues based on psychological make up of each individual -a-each person has unique Mean -i-if a person = reckless, must reverse self entirely to be cowardly, and eventually will work out and regain balance in middle -3-Last Perek: Absolute Belief in Free Will -a-rejects all views that undermine Free Will -b-Astrology = A"Z -c-rej. Divine Predestination -d-man chooses how to act, G-d chooses not to interfere F-Shu"T: Iggeres HaSh'mad/Kiddush HASHEM -1-written bet. 1161-2 -2-deals w/forced conversions -3-Rambams's reaction to P'sak given in Yemen, who was totally insensitive to plight of Jews under Almohed Muslim rule -a-Yemenites became `Marranos' by being overtly Muslim & covertly Jewish -b-Yemeni rav put them in chayrem, made them feel worse -4-brought aggados to prove his point, that ok to overtly convert to Islam -a-knowingly wrote this in contradiction of other p'sak -b-R' Eliezer, who was captured -i-apparently believed to idol -ii-said Ne'eman Alay HaDayan -iii-meant Judge, HASHEM, knew he didn't bow to idol -iv-judge thought R' Eliezer meant him, and dismissed the case against him -c-tried to allow Yemeni's to feel Jewish so would eventually return fully after harsh Muslim rule passed G-Shu"T: Iggeres Teyman -1-in response to Sh'ayla from Jews there -a-persecuted from 1165 onwards -b-mishumad preached to them to convert -2-sections -a-writes abt. history of persecution of Jews -b-anomosity towards Jews by Muslims & Xians -c-absolute unity between Tanach & TSBP -3-explains how J should cope with persecutions -a-some J are turned away -b-supplies comfort to them -c-punishment of J for sins IS NOT REJECTION by HKBH -i-that was Xian & Muslim thought J-Sefer HaMitzvos -1-613 mitzvos; many Rishonim disagree as to which mitzvos comprise 613 -2-has 14 guiding principles in choosing mitzvos -a-both provocative & insightful -3-rule: all mitzvos gotten through 13 Middos (R' Yishmael) are not inc. in 613 -a-have D'oraisa level, but not actual mitvos Downloaded from: www.yumesorah.com JHI1300LanNotesFinal1.pdf Page 3 of 17 JHI 1300 Medieval Jewish History Rabbi Landman Spring 2000 Notes from Midterm until Final by Daniyel Hoffman -4-9th principle: classifications -a-must acknowledge unity of G-d -b-must be actions to attest to this (karbonos) -c-need mitzvos between people-V'ahavta -d-need t'filla -5-rules = all inclusive, repudiation of narrow legalism as description of Judaism -a-used 14 principles, also had 14 sections of Mishna Torah -b-wrote principles to guide Yad HaChazaka, to ensure order & comprehensiveness, style -6-originality of Sefer HaMitzvos -a-used objective way to select mitzvos -7-sometimes didn't hold to own style from Sefer HaMitzvos in Mishna Torah H-Mishna Torah (1178) -1-5 factors used therein: -a-language-Mishnaic Hebrew -i-ppl. learned mishnayos already, so this would make it easy to learn -ii-uses Gemara, translates it into Hebrew, which tells reader how he understood p'shat Gem -b-classification-uses own system, not Mishna's -i-pedagogical-ii-logical-starts w/general categories & principles of topic, defines terms -c-most concise form-eliminates debate & conflicting cases -i-even when undocumented, ends up w/halacha -ii-says its not a payrush, but does act like it -d-scope & historical surveys (i.e. Hil' Chanukah) -i-no matter where applicable, need to study history -ii-includes all mitzvos, even T'luyos B'Aretz -e-merging halacha w/philo-wanted to create unity bet. practice & concept, practical and theoretical -i-gave rational reasons for every mitzvah, even 12 chukim -ii-nothing in Torah = unreasonable III-Moreh Nevuchim (1190) A-General -1-orig. in Arabic, later trans. By Yehuda Ibn Tibin -2-not for everybody--said its for person w/talent for understanding philo -3-covers fundamental concepts of metaphysics & ethics -a-G-d, universe, man, creation -4-fully aware of dangers & shortcomings of philo -a-philo will always be suspect by the masses b/c separatist -5-warns that guide attempts to communicates to diff. readers on diff. levels -a-problem: who's his audience? -6-laws of Torah -a-should be known & practiced through revelation -b-then need to apply reason to them -c-need to accept tradition and then apply reason 3/29/00 B-elimination of doubts of the Perplexed -1-Philo did this by examining Biblical phrases as metaphors & allegories -2-not all interpretations literal--some are not like mashmaus at all -a-e.g. Ya'akov & sheep & sticks -b-said these were in dreams -3-uses Aristotelian Homonyms-words w/2 meanings -a-e.g. `dog' is a type of mammal and a constellation (Dog Star); have nothing in common aside from name Downloaded from: www.yumesorah.com JHI1300LanNotesFinal1.pdf Page 4 of 17 JHI 1300 Medieval Jewish History Rabbi Landman Spring 2000 Notes from Midterm until Final by Daniyel Hoffman -b-e.g. knowledge of man, knowledge of G-d; have nothing in common except the word -c-things have qualitative differences (references) even when are quantitatively the same (title) -4-conclusion: man cannot give positive attributes to G-d, only can ascribe negative qualities -i-e.g. can't say that G-d is has knowledge, b/c we don't know what Divine Knowledge is; can only say that He is does not lack knowledge E-opposed to anything that would indicate that G-d is not incorporeal (has a body) -1-all anthropomorphisms are interpretive as homonyms -2-1st part of Moreh devoted to defining terms in Tanach that are homonyms -3-homonyms = prerequisite to his own philo F-Theology/Metaphysics -1-says it's a Mitzvah to discuss -2-Sh'mos 32--Harayni Nah Es Kivodecha.... -a-if want to find Favor in HASHEM's eyes, need to try to learn abt. Him -3-sciences have to be studied -4-must know limitations of reason -a-Chagiga Perek 2-Kol HaMistakel B'Arba D'varim, Raui Lo K'ilu Lo Nivrah: Mah L'Ma'ala, Mah L'Matta, Mah L'fim, uMah L'Achor -b-doesn't mean Chazal said not to use reason; means not abusing reason, and rejecting truth that Reason has limitation -5-Torah given in Metaphor for that reason--so all could understand it -6-beginners should be given the right views, even if can't prove them -a-if capable of learning proofs later, should G-Aristotelian Principles -1-based on Aristotle's Principle of Motion -2-motion needs a mover; matter cannot move itself -3-but this mover needs a mover; no prime-mover -4-prime mover-something that moves other things but is not moved itself H-Moreh Nevuchim: proofs of G-d's existence acc. to Rambam: 4 possibilities of Prime Mover -1-Body that is External to World -a-not possible -b-b/c if it is a body, it too must be moved -2-Internal Power divisible by divisions of world, which moves infinitely -a-within world w/same qualities and properties as the world -b-but can move the world -c-impossible b/c world is finite, and something w/in it cannot move infinitely -3-Internal Indivisible Power -a-impossible b/c soul that moves its body is itself in motion but its motion is an accident of the body -b-accident = not by itself important w/o body -c-body needs soul to move, soul needs body to move -4-Separate Incorporeal Substance -a-only possible G-d -b-has no comparison to world -c-can move other things but can move itself; not subject to any other power I-3 Views of the Origin of World -1-ex nihilo-Yesh MayAyin-time didn't exist b4 world & created time w/world -a-time is a measure of motion & motion cannot be with out moving things -2-Platonic view-world is subject to creation & decay -a-therefore it must have been created in time -b-but G-d didn't create it ex nihilo -c-G-d cannot create impossibilities Downloaded from: www.yumesorah.com JHI1300LanNotesFinal1.pdf Page 5 of 17 JHI 1300 Medieval Jewish History Rabbi Landman Spring 2000 Notes from Midterm until Final by Daniyel Hoffman -d-G-d uses eternal matter that is co-eternal with Him -e-matter created with G-d -3-Aristotle's Basic Premise-time & motion are external -a-matter doesn't decay but takes on new forms -b-matter has taken on new forms 4/3/00 -4-Aristotle's 1st Proof for an Eternal World -a-motion is not subject beginning or end (exception = friction) -b-everything that's created after a state of non-existence requires motion to move it from non-existence to existence -c-hence motion has to precede the world and is eternal -5-Aristotle's 2nd Proof for an Eternal World -a-if the world was brought into existence by G-d, then G-d was a potential-creator before it was created -b-after G-d created, he became a actual-creator-in-reality -c-impossible for there to be a change in G-d, which is why the world is eternal and coexists with G-d -6-Aristotle's 3rd Proof for an Eternal World -a-a force acts at a particular time, and does not act at another time -i-b/c good reason to act at one time and not a good reason to act another time -ii-there are forces prevent it from acting at another time -iii-there are forces that encourage it to act now -b-but with G-d, there are no forces that can act upon Him, so there is no impetus to act at any specific point in time -c-since G-d is eternally acting, then the world has always existed -7-Ramabam's Response to Aristotle -a-basic flaw in Aristotle: assumes that the world as a whole was created and appeared as it does now -i-then could prove like Aristotle -b-however, when G-d created world, none of these laws existed -i-created essential matter from nothing -ii-then made it the basis of all generation and destruction -iii-from essential matter, G-d shaped world -iv-formation of shapes (Yitzira) determines physical laws, not creation (B'riya) of matter itself -c-Aristotle's Potential/Actual requiring a force is not true within material that may be active, whether or not results of actions are visible -i-action = homonym -ii-action with regards to the world requires force -iii-action with regards to G-d does not require force -d-Aristotle's Time Bound Force Theory, force being subject to outside forces -i-a human builds or does not build for many reasons -ii-when reasons for not building leave, he builds -iii-if G-d does not act always, the nature of Ratzon HASHEM acts or does not act depending on the Will -iv-Will, Knowledge, Power of G-d is the same thing as His Essence -e-concludes that Creation is possible -f-Theory of Creation vs. Eternity of the World -i-difference = impersonal & mechanical law, vs. an intelligent personality acting with Will -ii-world has a purpose and design in addition to laws -iii-laws have no applicability to Upper Spheres -g-Aristotle can't find a good reason that heavens move from east to west -i-laws don't nec. find reasons for specific phenomenon -ii-Aristotle himself admits he doesn't understand East-West phenomenon -iii-Rambam explains G-d chose it to be this way Downloaded from: www.yumesorah.com JHI1300LanNotesFinal1.pdf Page 6 of 17 JHI 1300 Medieval Jewish History Rabbi Landman 4/5/00 Spring 2000 Notes from Midterm until Final by Daniyel Hoffman -h-vs. Aristotle's Mechanical Theory -i-does away with t'filla, t'shuva, Free Will, nevua, Bechirat BN"Y -ii-he therefore chose Creation from logical probabilities -iii-reason 1-less logical reasonable problems w/Creation, so chose it -iv-reason 2-allows for Torah, and Torah tells us there was Creation -i-vs. Arist: Rambam said world does not co-exist w/G-d (not Dual Theory of Existence) -i-Arist. Says World necessarily exists w/G-d from eternal activity of G-d -says will & existence of G-d eternal -ii-Rambam-Did G-d fashion world according to His will or is He bound by its eternal laws? -G-d separate from World, so can choose to create or not create; used own Will to decide to create, not bound by its laws J-3 Opinions of Nevua -1-most people say-anyone can be chosen by G-d who inspires him with Divine Spirit -a-Nevua has no pre-requisites except that HKBH chooses Navi -2-philos-Nevua requires natural aptitude (creativity), hard word, study -a-Nevua automatically comes to such a person who does these things -b-work of individual causes Nevua by developing himself fully -3-Judaism-exactly same as philos but G-d can prevent prophecy is He doesn't want to give it -a-Nevua not automatic -b-end result: G-d's choice to give it to person who exerts himself K-Dreams & Nevua -1-dreams produce nev. visions -a-differ in degree but not in kind; both are degrees of creativity -2-nevua depends on perfection of: reason, mind, morals -3-Mareh-state of agitation during Navi's waking day (seer = Ro'eh) -a-Daniyel 10:8-lacked str. when saw vision -b-similar to Chalom b/c senses cease to function -c-experiences things as if was asleep L-11 Levels of nev. beyond mareh -1-lowest stage-Ruach HASHEM-desire for person to save a community or person -a-Dovid & Moshe had this at time of maturity -2-then Ruach HaKodesh-speaks words of praise/warning while fully conscious -a-Tehillim, Mishlay, Shir, Iyov, Divray HaYamim & all Kesuvim -b-Dovid, Shlomo, Daniyel, Bilam in this category -3-1st grade of real nev: sees picture in dream, and within dream, explanation given -i-most of Zecharya this types -4-N hears speech, but sees no speaker -i-Shmuel's career started this way -5-man speaks to N in a dream -6-angel speaks with N in a dream -i-most N this way -7-HKBH speaks to N in a dream -i-Yishayahu-says heard Kol HASHEM -8-awake, sees vision & sees pictures like Avraham saw as Bris Bein HaB'sarim -9-awake, hears word in vision -i-B'rayshis-Vayhi d'var HASHEM aylav -10-awake, man speaks to N in a vision -i-vision deeper than dream -11-angel speaks to N in a vision -i-Avraham at Akaydas Yitzchak -12-Moshe Rabbaynu -i-HKBH speaking to Moshe in vision -ii-too much for a vision Downloaded from: www.yumesorah.com JHI1300LanNotesFinal1.pdf Page 7 of 17 JHI 1300 Medieval Jewish History Rabbi Landman Spring 2000 Notes from Midterm until Final by Daniyel Hoffman K-More on Nev -1-all details of actions, travels in visions did not actually happen -a-were part of vision -i-Hosha y'a marrying a Zonah -b-appears in dream or vision -2-Moshe was only one to give Torah to Am Yisrael -a-Ayn avi Rashay....gets death is adds or subtracts -b-Kol HaMosif Goraya--death -3-distinctions of Moshe & other nev -a-others all saw it in vision/dream, never when awake -b-others could not initiate nevua -c-Peh el Pehdirect conversation -d-others experienced physical trauma to Moshe -4-Avos D'Rabbi Nassan-Lo nitna Torah ele m'pi Moshe L-Free Will -1-foolish astrologers think man's destiny determined by stars at birth -a-wrong b/c of reason -b-wrong b/c of tradition -i-man controls actions, nobody else responsible for mitzvos & avayros -ii-if pre-destined-no point of putting forth personal effort -2-Paroh's Heart -a-curtailment of Paroh's free wiil b/c abused own free will to treat BNY poorly -b-b/c abused the privalige, forfeited it -3-Free Will & HKBH -a-HKBH's Knowledge = homonym -b-His knowledge so diff. from ours that we don't understand it -c-HKBH lacks attributes--they come from His Essence, and are all One Whole -d-just like can't understand knowledge, we can't understand Essence M-Evil -1-G-d does not create evil -a-allows for absence of good -b-just -2-3 types of evil -a-inflicted by nature -b-inflicted by man on his fellow -c-inflicted by man upon himself through over indulgence, bad habits N-Providence -1-Epicuris-apikorus from this Greek word-everything result of accident -a-refuted by Arist. -2-Arist-some governed by providence and others by accident -a-tied to theory of World -b-Heavens = permanent so have special providence -c-in general, providence deals with species--only Hashgacha K'lallis -i-Chazal-animals have Hashgacha K'lallis -d-natural destruction-tree falling & killing ppl. accidental--??? -3-Ashariya-Moslem Philo's -a-all is done via will of G-d, both in nature and with man -b-no such thing as the possible -c-something is either necessary and will happen, or not necessary and will not happen -d-reward & punishment = random -4-Mutazila-Moslem Philo's -a-man excercizes free will -b-good deeds are valid -c-G-d doesn't do evil, all `evil' that befalls man is for his own good -i-orig. from Iyov Downloaded from: www.yumesorah.com JHI1300LanNotesFinal1.pdf Page 8 of 17 JHI 1300 Medieval Jewish History Rabbi Landman Spring 2000 Notes from Midterm until Final by Daniyel Hoffman -d-good done here rewarded in next world -e-leads to problem bet. knowledge of G-d and this world--? -5-Torah -a-reward & punishment done by -b-Yisurim Shel Ahava-ill fortunes not b/c of sins, but to increase s'char -c-no support for this in Tanach -6-Rambam -a-Hashgacha P'ratis enjoyed by man only -i-like Chazal-animals have Hashgacha K'lallis -b-when Chazal tell us that Tzar Ba'alay Chayyim not b/c huring animal but b/c hurts us and makes us cruel -i-like asking reason not given to animals -c-Hashgacha related to reason -i-amount based on own character & achievements -ii-navi, chassid, ignorant all have diff. levels of Hashgacha 4/10/00 IV. Mammonidean Controversy A-beginning-b4 1170's -1-Zecharya ben Berachel, Av B"D of Yeshivas Gaon Ya'akov in Baghdad, went to Aleppo representing Gaon Shmuel b. Eli (ruled 1164-1198) -a-went to collect funds for yeshiva -b-then went to Tzur and Damascus -c-atk'd Ramabm vehemently, esp. Payrush HaMishnayos, both in writing & orally -2-Rambam's Talmud Yosef. B. Yehuda ibn Achnin, lived in Aleppo reacted vs. ZbB B-ZbB's Points of Contention vs. Rambam -1-P"M-Sanhedrin 1:3 & Yad Hil' Sanhedrin 4:13 -a-Roshay Galuyos in Bavel are in place of kings -i-rule over BNY everywhere & judge them, whether or not BNY accept them -ii-b/c Lo Yasur Sharvit Mihuda--Chazal said R"G instead of Melech -b-not in terms of halacha, but in terms of rule, sided with RG -2-P"M Avos 4:5-Fixed for themselves monetary & communal demands, caused ppl. to think in foolishness -a-caused ppl. to think its appropriate to support scholars who learn -i-all this is wrong! -b-no makor for this in Shas--no Tanayim or Amorayim did this personally or for yeshivos -3-ZbB looked at collecting funds as contributing to legal fees -a-told J they must pay Gaonim for s'micha (& dayanus) & financial matters -4-local J opposition vs. GshbE & collections: 2 possible reasons -a-religious principle point of view--used Ramabm's points -b-were too stingy C-GshBE's Actions -1-P'saychya b. Ya'akov from Ratisbon, German Jewish traveler-1170's -a-tells that GshBE tried to exercise temporal rights of king -b-in entire area of Paras, Maddai, Bavel, have no judges not appointed by GShBE -2-Simcha Asaf-Hebrew U-GshBE claims right held by J only in E"Y-to give s'micha -a-gave it to ZbB, to remove power from RG -3-RG David b. Yehuda acquiesed to Gaonim -a-still needed goyish gov't to appoint leaders -b-J who lived under non-Arab rule & accepted RG would be accused of treason, dualloyalty -4-GShBE-said RG not allowed to be like melech--Shmuel HaNavi said that BNY don't need king Downloaded from: www.yumesorah.com JHI1300LanNotesFinal1.pdf Page 9 of 17 JHI 1300 Medieval Jewish History Rabbi Landman Spring 2000 Notes from Midterm until Final by Daniyel Hoffman -a-J need Torah, not leadership by appointee of Arab gov't D-Results-GShbE lost -1-yeshiva lost $$ -b-wanted control over judicial system to gain rights to more $ given to gaon -i-could collect various fines & funds -c-J didn't accept this, wanted to control their own courts -2-Rambam sent letter to, talmud Yosef. B. Yehuda, in Shila addition of Iggros Rambam -a-Ibn Achnin wanted to teach Halachos (Rif) & Mishneh Torah -i-challenged GShbE -b-says that GShbE has no right to claim these powers -i-J caused this b/c anxious to hear things from yeshiva or to gain honorific title from it -ii-said RShbE not emes, wouldn't realize truth; corrupt -c-said ZbB--`pessi m'od'--foolish man who studied sources hard and thinks he's the greatest of his time having attained ultimate level -i-he's really nothing special -3-1195-RG Shmuel b. Assul died -a-GShBE tried to prevent new RG -b-Dovid b ____1195-1240 elected RG -c-Ramabm invited ppl. to Fustad (where he lived), and stood in silence in respect for the letter abt. the RG investiture -d-GshBE realized that can't simply fight RG, needed to fight Rambam E-GShBE vs. Rambam -1-realized fighting him not easy -a-b/c so famous and respected -b-Rambam had no position, nor sought one -i-b/c this, had great reputation -2-ergo tried to attack scholarly reputation of Rambam by attacking his books F-One Issue many gedolim had with Rambam -1-P'sak Hil' Shabbos 1:6-7, 8:2, 20:7 -a-1:6-7-rules like R' Yehuda vs. R' Shimon abt. Milacha She-ayna Tzaricha L'gufa -i-has ma'asa but lacks chiddush -b-GShBE had kabbala from Geonim & Rishonim that rule like Rava quoting R' Shimon, Patur -2-Rambam (Blau ed. T'shuva 464)-Rava held like R' Yose like R' Shimon; not halacha b/c Rambam holds like stam mishna -a-Shabbos 40b-Ravina, greatest basrai says that hold like R' Yehuda -b-R' Hai Gaon and others made mistake G-Points of contention-Case 1 -1-R' Avraham HaKohen of Damascus-submitted sh'ayla (Blau's edition 308)-about travel on broad rivers like the Nile, Chidekel, Euphrates & Shabbos -a-Rambam equates them to ocean travels, and says mutar to travel on them on Shabbos -b-deep & can't see from bank to bank; just like ocean -c-these t'chumim, over 10 amos, are d'rabbanan -2-T'shuva 309-GShBE writes `gentlemanly' t'shuva vs. the Rambam -a-quotes gem. Eruvin that t'chumim are MinHaTorah, and must forbid travel -b-response 310-concedes no point-says Lo Ta'aseh 321 & Gem. Shabbos say t'chumim are d'oraisa, but on rivers its d'rabbanan -3-shows that actual battle was abt. trying to diminish kavod for Rambam H-Points of contention-Case 2 -1-denied origin of Bris Milah = Avraham Avinu -a-actually Rambam Milah 1:1 says that mitzvah repeated after Matan Torah -i-quotes Gem. Chullin -2-said poskined this way against Moslems I-Points of contention-Case 3 Downloaded from: www.yumesorah.com JHI1300LanNotesFinal1.pdf Page 10 of 17 JHI 1300 Medieval Jewish History Rabbi Landman Spring 2000 Notes from Midterm until Final by Daniyel Hoffman -1-either `erroneously or negligently' permitted women to stay at home during niddus -a-Rambam permits housewife obligations, except certain things -2-said based this vs. Moslems "[A wife] doesn't have to go around looking like a dog to avoid enticing her husband during Niddah" 4/12/00 J-Points of contention-Case 4 -1-said Rambam said a Shatz becomes Ba'al Keri, doesn't have to tovel -a-really Rambam said that a minhag to tovel -2-said Muslims makpid on t'vila, and Rambam wasn't b/c they were J-Points of contention-Case 5 -1-Rambam denied physical Tichiyas HaMaysim, and many gedolim argued -2-Rambam wrote Iggeres Tichiyas HaMaysim vs. this contention K-GShBE's Goals -1-wanted to get Muslims against Rambam as well, do degrade his status -2-wanted to regain own power V. Controversy After Death of Rambam A-deaths -1-GShBE-died 1199 -2-Rambam-died 1204 B-Daniyel b. Sa'adya of Damascus compiled Q's and sent them to R' Avraham b. HaRambam -1-t'shuvos written in sefer Birkas Avraham C-Impact of Mishneh Torah -1-R' Yehuda HaLevi's Kuzari waited 50 years for translation -a-Moreh Nevuchim translated b4 completed -2-Rav Mayer b.Tadris HaLayvi of Abulafi-Yad Remah & Rash M'shantz read philo parts of Mishneh Torah, upset -a-rej. The MN on that basis w/o reading it D-Minhagim -1-in theory Jewish practices were uniform -a-really not -2-minhagim differed -a-Ramabm didn't distinguish bet. minhagim -b-R' Moshe HaKohen, Ramach of Lunel, wrote of diff. minhagim in Hasagos -3-communities of Europe -a-S'fardic Spanish -b-Tzarfati French -c-Ashkenazic German -d-Provencal Provence (South Fr.) VI.-Remach vs. Rambam A-Matbaya SheTavu Chachomim -a-Rambam-careful to keep Chazal's wording of b'rachos -i-said those who change it are in error, must repeat b'racha again in correct form -2-Ramach's rejections -a-shows exceptions -i-Ramach-permissive concerning litergical wording of b'rachos -ii-quotes Gemara, which says if say b'racha in Aramaic form, is yotzay b'racha -iii-quotes Gem, if person changes -b-shows various minhagim that differed -c-shows previous sages that said could change Downloaded from: www.yumesorah.com JHI1300LanNotesFinal1.pdf Page 11 of 17 JHI 1300 Medieval Jewish History Rabbi Landman Spring 2000 Notes from Midterm until Final by Daniyel Hoffman -3-Rambam: 7 Brachos -a-only recited at Chupah; lonely recite last b'racha at Birkas HaMazon -b- need panim chadashos for the full version, and the guests already heard it at chupah -4-Ramach on 7 Brachos -a-wrote, HaGaos, less severe than hasagos -b-we poskin say full b'rachos -5-Rambam-Hil Meuzah 5:4 -a-mutar to write on outside of scroll, in space bet. parshiyos, Sh-D-Y on outside -b-but ppl. who write Names of angels or Kedoshim (martyrs), don't have Olam HaBa -c-tipshim who write angels' names, twisted mitzvah into amulet for personal protection, and has no basis in Judaism -6-Ramach -a-quotes gem. San. As Onkelos saying to Romans that HKBH said Mezuza protects Am Yisrael -i-shows that precedence of earlier generations -b-minhag in BNY to do so VII.-Ra'avad vs. Rambam A-R' Avraham b. Dovid, Ra'avad of Posquirse -a-hasagos we have = 1/3 of what we have -b-made halachic arguments -c-probably thought of Rambam as halachist, not philo B-Yehuda Ibn Tibbin translated Moreh C-Rambam's Perspective on Torah -a-saw halacha as philo approach -b-reason vs. not reasonable things -c-Da'os 3:3-excessive fasting should not be done, b/c won't be able to understand chochmos [either science or Torah] while he fasts & is sick -i-fasting can hurt organs D-Ra'avad's Perspective on Torah -a-Torah = tradition & 4 amos of halacha -b-philo not main thrust E-Rambam A"Z 11:4-person who makes simanim, saying if X happens I'll do Y -a-cites Eliezer Eved Avraham -b-don't do this b/c similar to A"Z F-Ra'avad vs. A"Z 11:4-tzaddikim do this, and if heard him say this, would have burned his face with torches! G-on philo -1-person shouldn't start conversation if can finish it -a-Rambam did this, leaving his ideas to be accepted based on faith H-Disciple of Shiur Koma? NO! -1-some say Ra'avad followed this type of Kabbala -a-anthropomorphized HKBH -2-based on T'shuva 3:7-Rambam says ppl. who anthropomorphize HKBH are Minnim -a-Ra'avad-many simple minded ppl. & literal ppl. did this; don't write them off as Minim I-Method of Hasagos (`Gloss') -1-useful academic device -2-permited critical discussion of points of Rambam -3-was on sefer, that need Yad & need corrections for it -a-always in conjunction w/Yad and used w/it -4-wanted to regulate teachings to own students -5-refined specific halachic points, never thought Rambam would be basic J legal text -a-recognized great points of Yad, but thought parts of it error Downloaded from: www.yumesorah.com JHI1300LanNotesFinal1.pdf Page 12 of 17 JHI 1300 Medieval Jewish History Rabbi Landman Spring 2000 Notes from Midterm until Final by Daniyel Hoffman J-Did not start Anti-Maimonidian Controversy -1-GShBE, Remach, Ra'avad didn't start it, but helped set basis for it 5/1/00 VIII. Franco-German Jewry A-intro -1-until 12th Cent., centers of learning somewhat isolated in -a-corrspondence & travel bet. communities existed -2-12th Cent, cross-fertilization occurred -a-Tos. Style of study moved North (in France) & South -b-even Spanish schools -3-Tos. Style & concepts -a-global conception of non-contradictory Talmud -b-explaining diff. seemingly contradictory style -c-Chidushim -4-Rif & Ri Migash System-moved East/West -a-codification of p'sak halacha -b-understanding of learning methodology of Gemara -5-Riza in Lunel & Narbonne argued the value of each system -6-Rambam's Style -a-adhered to S'fardi learning style, but didn't reject Tos. -1-philo moved East/West with Arab/Hebrew translations -2-kabbala moved W/E -3-Yehuda Ibn Tibin translated these: -a-Chovos HaL'vavos, Kuzari (R' Yehuda HaLayvi), Emunos V'Day'os (RSG) -b- Sefer HaShorashim & Sefer HaLishna -4-Shmuel, YIT's son trans. Rambam -a-Ma'amar Tichiyas HaMaysim, Payrush to Avos, Payrush L'Mishnayos, MN B-materials migration C-Provonce, Torah-centered community -1-turned to philo & other secular studies -2-at first, served as recipient of other philo ideals from Spain etc. -3-later created own philo & humanistic culture -a-tried to harmonize Rambam's halacha & philo w/secular philo -4-until 12th cent. R'Gersh & disciples, Rashi et. al. from that area -5-other ppl. from Provonce: predominantly wrote chiddushim, Shu"T, Codes -a-______-Eshkol -b-R' Mushalam b. Ya'akov -c-R' Moshe b. Yosef -d-R' Yitzchak Abba Mori-Itur -e-R' Yonasan HaKohen-payrushim to Rif -f-R' Avraham b. Yarchi-Manhig -g-_______-HaSh'lama -6-these ppl. recognized as corporate group -a-i.e. Chochmay Provonce, Ziknay Narbonne, Chochmay Lunel -b-in S'fardi lands, only have Chochmay S'fard } no communal rabbinic -c-in Germany, only have Chochmay Ashkenaz } body like in France -7-can gain historical cultural activity from those sefer -a-also use non-halachic sources & material -b-use philo & philology (study of words), respected them -c-valued Rambam & S'fard in similar fashion, tried to use his style & combine w/Ashkenzi works -8-others Q'd Y nec. to replicate style -a-simply use orig. sefer!?! Downloaded from: www.yumesorah.com JHI1300LanNotesFinal1.pdf Page 13 of 17 JHI 1300 Medieval Jewish History Rabbi Landman Spring 2000 Notes from Midterm until Final by Daniyel Hoffman -b-don't need another Rambam -c-R' Yosef Ibn Kaspi-already have Talmudic-halachic s'farim, don't copy them or style; write on philo b/c no central source for it D-Provonce: Philosophy in Halacha -1-believed in Torah & Umnos -a-but had tutors for philo, b/c can't learn it alone -b-YIT, Avraham Ibn Ezra (?), ____, brought from Spain to spark learning of philo -2-philo concepts included in Talmudic studies by Provonce stages -a-Avumari of Lunel, who disagreed w/use of philo in Halacha, still became will versed in it from learning modern s'farim -b-goyim challenged Sage's usage of philo b/c engaged them in debate & Jews lost, so decided to learn it -c-many thought that philo helped in T'filla -3-Rationalists vs. Centrists (?????) -a-some described themselves as `centrist' -b-some ppl. used allegories to explain Torah concepts IX. Yonason HaKohen of Lunel A-personal history -1-competent in Limuday Torah, very frum, was convinced that Torah is truth -a-felt truth also exists in science & poetry -2-wrote to Ramban -a-secular learning essential to understanding Torah -3-no systematic philo sefer -4-wrote payrushim to many mesechtos -5-ascetic, always prepared for Mashiach (next predicted for 1216) -1-some quoted Moed Katan 28a abt. stars determining various facets of life & death, children, sustenance are not dependent on Z'chus, but on star -b-said determinism problem of punishment through these measures -2-up until now, many Chochomim agreed that stars had influence -a-Shabbos 156a-no mazal for BN"Y b/c we're above it from Avraham -3-Avraham Ibn Ezra, Avraham Ibn Chiyya-accepted astrology -4-Rambam rejected it as tantamount to A"Z -a-Ra'avad-divination only to act on advice from magician or astrologer, but allowed to act on personal premonitions -i-says astrology = Mutar, against Rambam -ii-Eliezer & Yonason didn't sin with it--they davenned -5-R' Moshe M'Koucy (S'MaG)-p'sok li p'sukayich-asking a child for pasuk-not divination -a-Kesef Misha-A"Z 11:5-if act upon that posuk, this is a form of Nevua B-correspondence w/Rambam-1st concern: astrology & halacha C-2nd Correspondence w/Rambam-answered 1199-had 24 Q's on Mishna Torah -1-are there connections to other famous 24's or was it an exact #? -a-similar to Hasagos HaRa'avad -b-may have collected 24 most common or difficult Q's on Yad 5/3/00 X-Sources abt. T'chiyas Maysim (TM) A-1-was affirmed in Chazal, but was not defined by them -2-Sanhedrin 10-Rambam-Payrush Mishnayos -a-man can't comprehend delights of Olam HaBa with logic b/c not experienced it -b-all Chazal state there are future rewards, but specifics not given -3-Sanhedren 31b-______-Ani maymis u'mchayeh -a-many felt this indicated TM--chronological posuk = siman to TM -b-Chazal-proof of ressurection Downloaded from: www.yumesorah.com JHI1300LanNotesFinal1.pdf Page 14 of 17 JHI 1300 Medieval Jewish History Rabbi Landman Spring 2000 Notes from Midterm until Final by Daniyel Hoffman -c-Philo-Jewish philosopher-B'rayshis 15:15, v'ata tovo el... -i-means will die and go to fathers?!!? Dead don't go anywhere -ii-ergo must mean TM -d-Rambam-Hil' Milachim-quotes Shmuel-Ayn bayn olam hazeh l'olam haba ele shibud malchiyos bilvad -i-seems to negate precept of TM -4-B"B 17a -a-Rava quotes Iyov 16:19-kolo anan vayalech...Sheol -b-some say this indicates Iyov denies TM -c-Koheles-d-Ben Sira-both ppl. die, not different than animal death -e-Daniyel 12:1-4, Yishayahu 26:19-might say there is TM, but its not of Torah origin -5-Rambam-intro to Mishna Sanhedrin 10, in s"k 13, also in Mishna Torah -a-states belief in physical resurrection, as a cardinal tenant of Judaism -b-in Payrush-spiritual resurrection -6-Mishna Torah 8:2-Olam Haba-lack bodies, just have souls, like M'lachay HaSharays -a-no physical activities then, b/c no body -i-no emotions, physical activities -b-B'rachos 17a-no physical stuff-but Tzaddikim sit with crowns on their heads, and enjoy Sh'china -i-says its clear from here that there is no physical activity, but metaphorical activity -ii-crowns = Yidiya improved -7-Ra'avad-brings proof that Tzaddikim will wear clothes during `asidim' -a-Gem Shabbos-tzaddikim wear white clothes, r'sha'im where black -i-will rise with sicknesses and then later be healed -b-therefore crowns could be actual physical crowns -c-must be physical resurrection 5/8/00 -8-Yad Remah-R' Meir Abulafiya-argues against bodiless Olam HaBa -a-gives 2 answers -i-one answer-Gem B'rachos only one Gemara--no other proof -ii-2nd answer-if Gem says not physical, why need mention lack of physical pleasures too? -iii-answer-2nd type of physical body that lacks physical needs & pleasures -b-no proof for this in Gemara -c-Rambam apparently disputes Providence & reward of BNY for dying `Al Kiddush Hashem -d-body deserves reward as well, and HKBH can do TM to bodies -e-2 way covenant bet. BNY & G-d -i-BNY needs to do mitzvos, G-d needs to reward for struggles during life -ii-body itself struggles in life, and it deserves reward -f-gave his own works to Yonasan HaKohen -9-Moreh Nevochim translated into Hebrew -a-many more issues brought up to argue abt. E-Yonasan HaKohen responded to Aharon of Lunel -1-spoke down to Yad Remah, called him arrogant F-Answers Defending Rambam -1-RSG-2 TM's -a-first = Mashiach, physical -b-second = Gem. B'rachos, abt. Olam HaBa -2-Kesef Mishneh-answers for Rambam-2 TM's -a-one during Mashiach, physical -b-second at Olam HaBa, spiritual Downloaded from: www.yumesorah.com JHI1300LanNotesFinal1.pdf Page 15 of 17 JHI 1300 Medieval Jewish History Rabbi Landman Spring 2000 Notes from Midterm until Final by Daniyel Hoffman -c-problem: he didn't have Ma'amar TM, which only mentions one TM G-R' Shayshes Benvinisti of Sara_____, 1131-1210 -1-MD, very wealthy physician to king -a-also philo -2-sent letter to Lunel -a-to rebut Remah's letter -3-dismissed Remah's halachic arguments -4-philo rational plausibility of TM = main concern -a-at Creation, HKBH gave us physical bodies & physical needs -b-bodies must be resurrected as Created, with physical needs -c-doesn't mean HKBH can't change properties of body -i-changes can occur in nature, but are only temporary -ii-Nissim time bound and not permanent -d-HKBH could make the changes, but since no precedent, so we shouldn't suppose that He will make changes until we see it -e-changing Creation implies flaw in original Creation -5-Nissim occur occasionally, and only to help BNY -a-nature itself doesn't change permanently or regularly -i-i.e. Yehoshua & Sun -b-TM in a non-physically dependent body = a basic permanent change -6-TM = intellectual joy gained from knowing HKBH better that b4 -a-resurrection doesn't take place at one point in time; happens daily -b-Chazal spoke abt. physical TM to convey complex concepts to laymen -7-asks K'sil-to which body does the soul return? -a-if original body, its been dead for many years, and decomposed -b-so must be a new body for the neshama; so then there is no resurrection of body itself -c-if new body, why should new body receive reward--hasn't done anything to deserve it -d-based on Plate, Arist. -8-all words of nevua = allegory -9-didn't defend Rambam so much as philo truth -a-also parve to -10-dismissed Ramah as simplistic -a-is Truth of Torah for elites or layman? -b-salvation of BNY = universal XI. Burning of Rambam & Talmud 1232 in Monte Pelilay in Provence A-burning of Talmud & Rambam's MN burned -1-orig. just Rambam, but goyim decided to add Talmud B-3 anti-Rambam scholars blamed for informing goyim -1-R' Soloman b. Avraham of Monte Pelilay & following students: -2-R' Dovid b. Shaul -3-R' Yonah b. Dovid Gerundi C-some scholars see these ppl. as alone in desire to burn it -1-they put books in cherem -2-prohibited study of science -3-put cherem on: a) studiers of Rambam b) studied too much aggada D-debate if could have been informants -1-total betrayal of another Jew -2-would never have been quoted again by other Rabbanim -3-R' Yonah's payrushim & philo widely used E-R' Yonah gained support for cherem from France, but not Provence -1-Provence Jews counter-banned those who prohibited learning Rambam & philo -a-may be why he's blamed for the burning F-R' Yonah worked in Toledo at high position -1-wrote mussar s'farim -2-known informers would not be tolerated in public Downloaded from: www.yumesorah.com JHI1300LanNotesFinal1.pdf Page 16 of 17 JHI 1300 Medieval Jewish History Rabbi Landman Spring 2000 Notes from Midterm until Final by Daniyel Hoffman -a-Smag quotes these people G-R' Yonah not mentioned by R' Avraham b. Rambam as opponent of him -1-some others were Talmudists following faulty tradition H-Ramban wrote to France abt. cherem -1-asked to rescind cherem vs. Rambam -a-Rambam was mikarev many lost Jews w/MN -b-Cherem drove away many Jews, so should be gotten rid of -c-Provence's cherem has boundaries--only in city with that B"D's authority -2-R' Yonah = Ramban's nephew -a-some said R' Yonah's mother = pilegesh -b-defended him vs. ad homonym attack even though rejected views I-Aftermath-Machlokes didn't stop with above 3 phases -1-1400's-Jews of Xian Spain saw Rambam as cause for apostesy -a-Derech Emuna defended rationalism as part of Judaism -b-science complements faith -2-R' Yechiel b. Shmuel of Piza-Minchas Kinaos-atk'd Rambam -a-his community, however, accepted rationalism -3-Rema vs. R' Shlomo Luria (Rashal) -a-Rema-Teshuva 687-defended rambam Downloaded from: www.yumesorah.com JHI1300LanNotesFinal1.pdf Page 17 of 17 ...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online