tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5576585332526677688.post3151904838414115374..comments2024-03-29T15:13:35.193+02:00Comments on Kotzk Blog: 375) New research on Maharal of PragueRabbi Gavin Michalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14410541880380752479noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5576585332526677688.post-15180467163904286552023-04-05T17:29:23.867+02:002023-04-05T17:29:23.867+02:00Theres a goldmine of information in the memoirs of...Theres a goldmine of information in the memoirs of the 6th lubavitcher rebbe, which seems to have been ignored or is unknown. <br />https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=15614&st=&pgnum=212<br />The Maharal went to the yeshivah of Rav Yaakov Polak at 12, then after R.Y.Pollak left, he travelled for 2 years, he studied with the Maharshal and Rema in the yeshivah of <br />Maharshals grandfather, also a student of R.Y.Pollak, called Rav Yitzchak Clover. After Maharshal left, he continued learning with Rema.<br />All in all he studied for 20 years before he married.<br /><br />It's also implies from the book, he liked the method of pilpul, just not the rubbish that people came up with on their own, as it says in nesiv hatorah and then claim it clarified the subject matter. <br /><br />Rav Yaakov pollak was probably the rav chaim brisk of his day or his son.<br /><br />There is much to criticise the limmud of people in yeshivas then as today.<br />Back then lefi the maharal, they didnt understand the basic texts with rashi and started with tosfos and being mechadesh their own chidddushim.<br />That's why he wrote gur aryeh on rashi.<br />He also said we should follow the mishna in ovos and start gemora at 15. <br />Rav Yaakov emden too didnt like when people gave their own interpretation of zohar. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />yosefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11920401113925355496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5576585332526677688.post-30807164542576705052022-04-03T13:03:59.199+02:002022-04-03T13:03:59.199+02:00"Another manuscript reveals that Maharal coul..."Another manuscript reveals that Maharal could be quite ruthless when it came to his “intellectual rivals”. Meir ben Eleazar Perels (1666-1739) documents a case where Maharal expelled a scholar, Yitzchak ben Yekutiel Katz-Kuskes who had encroached on his scholarly space by commenting on Maimonides’ Eight Chapters (Shemoneh Perakim, which is Rambam’s introduction to Mishnah Pirkei Avot). Until Maharal’s time, the study of Mishna had been neglected and he strove to have it reinstated as an important part of the study curriculum.[10] Apparently, Maharal got upset when another scholar entered his territory."<br /><br />What an uncharitable interpretation! Here is Sladek's translation of the original source:<br /><br />And from here he went to the community of Poznañ, which was a consequence of the argument which he had in the religious and scholarly matters with the luminary mhr”r Leva, of blessed memory. And later the saying ‘They fought over a book but finally love prevailed between them’ proved to be valid about them and the scholars negotiated peace between them and he could return to Pragueץ<br /><br />Here is the original:<br /><br />ובא לק' פוזנן מכאן ע"י מחלוקת שהי' לו לשם שמי' ובדברי תורה עם הגאון מהר"ר ליווא ז"ל. ואח"כ נתקיים את והב בסופה ופייסו רבנן אהדדי וחזר לפראג<br /><br />Here is how he <i>should</i> have translated (changes in bold):<br /><br />And from here he went to the community of Poznañ, which was a consequence of the argument which he had <b>for the sake of heaven in matters of Torah study</b> with the luminary mhr”r Leva, of blessed memory. And later the saying ‘<b>But</b> finally love prevailed between them’ proved to be valid about them and the scholars <b>appeased each other</b> and he <b>returned</b> to Prague.<br /><br />The document was heavily distorted. Each of these four incorrect or questionable translations are intended to make the Maharal look bad.<br /><br />1. לשם שמים does not mean "religious matters." It means "for the sake of heaven." The translator chose to hide the fact that the source quoted believes that the dispute was for the sake of heaven.<br />2. "They fought over a book" translates בספר מלחמות ה' - which does not appear in the original text; he only supposes that the author meant to hint at the unquoted part of the verse. But the source is only emphasizing את והב בסופה - that they made peace at the end of a dispute.<br />3. "The scholars negotiated peace between them" is wrong. The source says they "appeased each other," apparently implying that both sides admitted some fault.<br />4. "And he <i>could</i> return" is small but egregious. Sladek calls this section in the article "Expelling a Scholar from Prague." <i>But there is no indication that he was expelled at all.</i> All we know from the source is that he left and came back after making peace with the Maharal, not that the Maharal or anyone else expelled him.<br /><br />Finally, the conclusions from the distorted reading are no less problematic. Sladek thinks the so-called "fight over a book" just so happens to be related to the manuscript that contains this piece of biographical information (he actually appears to have authored at least two other books in manuscript listed on nli.org.il by כץ, יצחק בן יקותיאל). Because historians associate the Maharal with a revival of interest in the Mishnah (not untrue), he thinks that when someone comes along writing a commentary <i>based on</i> (not <i>on</i>) the Rambam's introduction to one tractate of the Mishnah - which the Maharal certainly seldom if ever refers to - then because there is a weak link to something that made some use of a Mishnah-related text then he must have "entered the proximity of the Maharal’s own mental space"?! The Maharal's mental space is not as tiny as he thinks.AWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01375857624833229195noreply@blogger.com