![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cellioDuring the Torah reading, when we got to the part about Chava telling the snake that not only was she not permitted to eat the fruit but she wasn't even permitted to touch it, I leaned over to him and said "this may be the oldest g'zeirah" (fence around the Torah), and he had to stifle a laugh. Oops. :-) (A fence around the Torah is when the rabbis rule that you can't take some otherwise-permitted action because it might lead you to a forbidden one. For example, on Shabbat you are not to handle matches; the actual forbidden act is kindling fire. That sort of thing. In this case, God told them not to eat but didn't say anything -- at least that got recorded -- about touching.)
Dani asked me where the tradition that the fruit is an apple comes from. I don't know; I do know that there are Jewish sources that argue for other fruits. (I've heard pomogranate and I think date.) Dani argues for chestnuts on the theory that Mark Twain can't be wrong.
The luncheon was very nice, and several people made a point of thanking Dani for coming (including my rabbi). I was able to steer us toward people he would enjoy talking with, and we lucked into a couple more at the table we sat down at, so I think it went well.
Last night we went to a gaming session. While this wasn't planned, the theme turned out to be robots. When we arrived there was a game of Ricochet Robot in progress, so we joined in. (It's adaptable that way.) I'm not fast enough with that kind of visual reasoning, it appears. Then we played a long game of Robo Rally. I started off doing poorly with navigation -- combination of bad cards and not wrapping my brain around some of the hazards on the board (conveyer belts, gears, pools of slime, that sort of thing). But I recovered and at one point was in the lead, though another player who had been close behind me managed to slip past and win. The last flag was in a really hard spot to reach, and he had a gadget that allowed him to tag it from nearby rather than having to land on it. It was a fun game, though not one I'd play often.
We had exactly seven people, so before we settled on Robo Rally someone proposed Diplomacy. I felt bad about vetoing it under near-optimal conditions (you want exactly seven people), but I really hate that style of game. Sorry, guys. I hope they'll find a seventh and play some other time, because Dani enjoys it and hasn't played in a long time.
(My objection to Diplomacy is all about the politics and not at all about the world conquest, by the way.)
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-26 07:13 pm (UTC)Yeah. There's a midrash that the snake actually used this to convince Eve that it was OK to eat the fruit by touching the tree and being OK.
Dani asked me where the tradition that the fruit is an apple comes from. I don't know; I do know that there are Jewish sources that argue for other fruits. (I've heard pomogranate and I think date.) Dani argues for chestnuts on the theory that Mark Twain can't be wrong.
According to the Plaut Pentateuch, the apple came by way of the latin translation. I forget the exact derivation, and don't have it here. The Etz Chayim adds "fig" as a possibility; my Rabbi says that the Fig is an obvious possiblity - after all, they immediately sew together fig leaves right after eating the fruit.
Diplomacy. I felt bad about vetoing it under near-optimal conditions (you want exactly seven people)
I've seen Diplomacy played with fewer players, but it isn't quite the same.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-26 08:48 pm (UTC)How does one reconcile that with support for a halachic system that includes many such fences? I mean, doesn't that mean that fences do harm because they lead people to either violate them or, by keeping them, add to the torah?
The Etz Chayim adds "fig" as a possibility
Figs make a lot of sense, yes. Whatever it is, you would expect it to be indigenous to the region.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-27 04:27 am (UTC)Well, that is a tension in the text. I'm not sure how the Rabbis explain this contradiction. It's possible it just isn't mentioned, which works because it's "just" midrash. A sexist response might be that fences made by women lead to violations, but I don't think that anyone actually says that - although one could (only slightly less obnoxiously) say that fences made by non-Rabbis are bad. Now that I think of it, I think the halachic party line is something like "Rabbinic fences are not an addition to Torah; they're Oral Torah, so it's OK." Nowadays (especially among some Orthodox groups) people seem to be keen on erecting new fences and not worrying about these counterweights. Which I think is a pity. In my opinion, Halacha is, has, and should be continually evolving - but the evolution shouldn't always be to a more restrictive practice.
"make a fence around the Torah" vs. "do not add to the Torah"
Date: 2003-10-27 07:24 am (UTC)While there is the line in Pirke Avot about making a fence around the Torah, there is also a Torah commandment of "bal tosif", forbidding people from adding commandments to the Torah itself. See here (http://www.rjconline.org/hib89.htm) and here (http://www.rjconline.org/hib90.htm) for some discussion of the parameters of this commandment.
--sethg
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-27 07:30 am (UTC)I find this notion kind of odd. It seems like God, supposedly omniscient/omnipotent/etc, ought not to have a vocabulary problem expressing what they wish the law to include. I can see why one might want to make a personal fence around the law as a means towards going beyond the minimal expectations for practice (as an act of virtue) or avoiding one's personal weaknesses or pitfalls (e.g. a frequent smoker might avoid carrying matches so they don't absent-mindedly light one)... but that has a different quality from expanding the scope of the law for everyone. Does God not say all of what they mean?