[Avodah] Ele ezkara

[Eli Turkel via Avodah]

In the piyut r ishmael cohen gadol held the head of rabban shimon be gamliel
Doesnt that make him tameh which is forbidden
My feeling is not to take a piyut too seriously
Any other answer since poskim take other piyuttim for halacha
Does it depend on the author of the piyut
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20141010/7f820ae1/attachment.htm>

[Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah]

R? ET:

In the piyut r ishmael cohen gadol held the head of rabban shimon be gamliel
Doesnt that make him tameh which is forbidden
My feeling is not to take a piyut too seriously
Any other answer since poskim take other piyuttim for halacha
Does it depend on the author of the piyut

--------------------------------------



If they were already in the same room, and R? Yishmael couldn?t leave (they were captives), then he was already Tamei in the Ohel, and didn?t have the ability to be poreish from the tumah.



KT,

MYG

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20141011/7cb9b4da/attachment.htm>

[Kenneth Miller via Avodah]

Post by Eli Turkel via Avodah
In the piyut r ishmael cohen gadol held the head of rabban shimon
be gamliel
Doesnt that make him tameh which is forbidden

That's only one of the many problems with that piyut. As ArtScroll (Ashkenaz machzor, pg 586) notes, "while all ten of these righteous men were murdered by the Romans, their executions did not take place simultaneously, as described here, nor could they have, since two of the ten did not even live in the same generation as the other eight."

Post by Eli Turkel via Avodah
My feeling is not to take a piyut too seriously

That's worded pretty harshly. I would phrase it more in terms of not taking the piyut as a literal historical record. Here's how ArtScroll puts it (same page): "The liturgical accounts of the martyrdom were not meant as historical records, but as dramatic accounts of the story, in order to evoke feelings of loss and repentance on the part of the congregation."

Similarly, I was struck this year by a comment made by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks (Chief Rabbi Emeritus of Britain) in his Yom Kippur Machzor (pg 845). He wrote that "Untaneh Tokef was long believed to have been written in the eleventh century by Rabbi Amnon of Mainz", although recent discoveries suggest it to be much older, perhaps even 500 years older. But instead of totally discrediting the popular story, Rabbi Sacks simply reframes it: "The story of Rabbi Amnon is less about the composition of the prayer than about its adoption by the Jewish communities of northern Europe."

For more discussion about Eileh Ezkarah, I suggest reviewing a thread we had seven years ago on this very point, titled "Fables and lies":
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=F#FABLES%20AND%20LIES

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
2014 Best Skin Tighteners
A Review List of The Top Performing Skin Tighteners In 2014
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/543a5c81935fe5c817063st02vuc

[Micha Berger via Avodah]

On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 02:31:17PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
: In the piyut r ishmael cohen gadol held the head of rabban shimon be gamliel
: Doesnt that make him tameh which is forbidden
: My feeling is not to take a piyut too seriously
: Any other answer since poskim take other piyuttim for halacha
: Does it depend on the author of the piyut

On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 10:47:35AM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote:
: That's only one of the many problems with that piyut. As ArtScroll
: (Ashkenaz machzor, pg 586) notes, "while all ten of these righteous
: men were murdered by the Romans, their executions did not take place
: simultaneously, as described here, nor could they have, since two of
: the ten did not even live in the same generation as the other eight."

This isn't exactly the same question as RET's. (And yes, we did take up
this latter topic far more than once.)

Say a piyut or qinah described a historical event accurately. Does that
mean we can deduce the halakhah from the qinah and the actions of the
people in it? We do not believe in infallible leadership; perhaps the
tensions of the moment and the lack of time to check sources led someone
great to make a non-halachic but still heroic choice? An error, but a
holy error (aveirah lishmah).

Conversely, say the story the piyut tells is mythical or has strong
mythical elements. Would the author want people repeating and emotionally
bonding to an example of contra-halachic behavior? Perhaps we should give
/more/ halachic credance to a mythical piyut or aggadeta, because the
author composing it could take the time to weed misleading conclusions
from his character's actions. And perhaps we should ask questions about
the depiction of R' Yishmael Kohein Gadol in Eileh Ezkera specifically
because we aren't asking about the historicaly RYKG but about the
paytan's choice of depiction, and the presumption that the author wouldn't
needlessly pin an aveirah on RYKG.

A story's historicity and its value as a halachic talking point need
not be related.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

[Eli Turkel via Avodah]

Post by Micha Berger via Avodah
This isn't exactly the same question as RET's. (And yes, we did take up
this latter topic far more than once.)
Say a piyut or qinah described a historical event accurately. Does that
mean we can deduce the halakhah from the qinah and the actions of the
people in it? We do not believe in infallible leadership; perhaps the
tensions of the moment...
Conversely, say the story the piyut tells is mythical or has strong
mythical elements. Would the author want people repeating and emotionally
bonding to an example of contra-halachic behavior? ...

I understand Micha's point but nevertheless have two questions

1) A number of gedolim learn from a Tisha Baav kinah that Tisha Baav
includes all tragedies and so one shouldn't have a separate day for the
holocaust. Besides other questions on the shita the question here is
about learning halachot from kinot or piyuttim

2) There are chronicles from the middel ages detailing the attacks of the
first crusades and how Jews martyred themselves to the point of killing
their own children. The halachic validity of such an approach is very
debateable. However, from the historical side many doubt the accuracy of
these chronicles and assume that they were written to memorialize earlier
generations (see Sanctifying the Name of G-d by Jeremy Cohen). So again
the same question arises can one learn halacha from chronicles that may
indeed not give the correct facts.

[Kenneth Miller via Avodah]

Post by Micha Berger via Avodah
Say a piyut or qinah described a historical event accurately.
Does that mean we can deduce the halakhah from the qinah and the
actions of the people in it? We do not believe in infallible
leadership; perhaps the tensions of the moment and the lack of
time to check sources led someone great to make a non-halachic
but still heroic choice? An error, but a holy error (aveirah
lishmah).

These same questions apply to *any* Maaseh Rav. I am often baffled by hearing that "So-and-so did such-and-such and therefore the halacha must be xyz." If they explain their actions, that can be a psak; without an explanation we're just guessing.

Post by Micha Berger via Avodah
Conversely, say the story the piyut tells is mythical or has
strong mythical elements. Would the author want people repeating
and emotionally bonding to an example of contra-halachic behavior?
Perhaps we should give /more/ halachic credance to a mythical
piyut or aggadeta, because the author composing it could take the
time to weed misleading conclusions from his character's actions.

You can ask an even stronger question: Suppose we know for a fact that the piyut was written specifically in order to teach Halacha L'Maaseh? How much halachic credence do we give there?

I would say that even in such a case, one must not blindly accept the psak of the payyetan, but must consider his reasoning and his authority in the light of other opinions and authorities. An example of this can be found in the Yotzer for Shabbos HaGadol, where ArtScroll writes (p 916), "Though it is authoritative, not all of its points are accepted by the Halachah."

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Map Your Flood Risk
Find Floodplan Maps, Facts, FAQs, Your Flood Risk Profile and More!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/543a8a1a671e9a1a1d06st03vuc

[Micha Berger via Avodah]

On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 02:02:17PM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote:
: You can ask an even stronger question: Suppose we know for a fact that
: the piyut was written specifically in order to teach Halacha L'Maaseh? How
: much halachic credence do we give there?

: I would say that even in such a case, one must not blindly accept the
: psak of the payyetan...

Why would it be any different than any other writing of a baal mesorah
of the paytan's era? And perhaps more authoritative -- one must also
consider the hundreds or thousands of rabbanim over centuries accepted
a piyut that was designed to be halachic into their liturgy.

Still, I was talking about learning halakhah from narrative, and focusing
on the narrative aspect of Eileh Ezkerah. Thus my contrast with maaseh
rav. I wasn't really thinking about the nature of piyut and thus neither
about non-story-telling piyutimm.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha