This is a fascinating amud. It begins discussing what could compel a husband to accuse his wife to be a Sota -- we get three opinions - a spirit of jealously, a spirit of foolishness, and just a spirit causes him to do it. The first two are clearly not positive characteristics, which may be negative commentary on the man who accuses his wife. In the third case, the Talmud asks what spirit is the teacher from the beit midrash of Rabbi Yishmael talking about? The rabbis of Rav Ashi's beit midrash say 'a spirit of impurity' - also a negative characteristics, but Rav Ashi himself says 'a spirit of purity.' First, it is interesting that Rav Ashi's students disagree with their teacher on this point. Which, frankly, is good to see, as this point drips of religious extremism to me. According to Rav Ashi, one is so vigilant about being 'pure,' that he ought to put his wife through this ordeal in his ultimate quest for purity.
This kicks of a nice piece of Talmud chronically a fundamental debate between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva as to whether positive mitzvot in the Torah (at least in these three cases) are permitted and therefore option or obligatory. The ramifications for this are substantial. If they are obligatory (as Rabbi Akiva holds), then one's free will is limited - as in the case of the sota. It is the difference of a husband suspecting his wife and choosing not to do anything about it or doing something about it. To Rabbi Akiva he must, to Rabbi Yishmael it is his choice. Is he concerned about the impurity of his wife, as Rav Ashi's students as concerned with, or is he concerned about purity in general, as Rav Ashi holds. It seems that Rav Ashi and Rabbi Akiva's opinions compel people not to act subjectively but objectively - with the emphasis on religious principles and not people. Though there are moments when we all have to make that decision, it ought to be a difficult decision, with the awareness that sort of disregard for context is the first step on the road to extremism.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Speaking of religious extremism...
The following is from thisisbabylon.net :
"A new disturbing word has apparently entered at least a few Yiddish speakers’ vernacular (in Israel): טאליבאניסט’ן (talibanisten — accent on the next-to-last syllable), “the Taliban”, to describe the new radical, violent charedi zealots who have no problems terrorizing and injuring and maiming women in the most audacious of places...
...A 14-year-old girl from Beitar Illite was taken to the Hadassah Ein Kerem Hospital in Jerusalem after an unknown person spilled acid on her face, legs and stomach, causing light burn wounds.
The act has been attributed to a representative of the so-called ‘modesty guard...'"
So much for acting objectively, with due regard for people in context. Where is Rabbi Yishmael when you need him??
I was actually struck by the fact that according to Micah's interpretation, the Akiva view requires people to act according to the rules and without full regard for context. Seems that we can find times where R. Yishmael is more concerned with the rules and order of things than the context for which they apply (the list of Middot we recite each morning came to mind as a contrast to this). While I am no expert in Torah Min HaShamayim, I wonder how this sugya fits in with the presentation of R. Akiva and R. Yishmael and their views on this matter as presented by R. Tucker.
Post a Comment