Timeline for 42 Levite Cities as Cities of Refuge
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 13, 2021 at 10:09 | comment | added | Solomon Light | Let us continue this discussion in chat. | |
| Jul 13, 2021 at 5:43 | comment | added | N.T. | How is a passuk in Divrei HaYamim and a Gemara "not a single source"? As for my answer being simple, the simpler the better usually. Your entire riddle is based on a pretty obvious logical fallacy (that not mentioning something explicitly means it is not true; on the contrary אין אומרים לא ראינו ראיה. Also, דברי תורה עניים במקום אחד ועשירים במקום אחר). And I definitely do have problems with overly lomdish yeshiveshe explanations when they are not grounded in a thorough understanding of the shakla v'tarya, or if they overlook obvious pshat answers. I won't mention names though. | |
| Jul 12, 2021 at 21:53 | comment | added | Solomon Light | I am open to the possibility that the mekoros to explain this little riddle are not in the collection of torah shebaal peh that came down to us, but I do not think that insisting that the simplistic answer is good or solves the problem because it is available is intellectually honest either. If this question does not appeal to you that does not both me either, but I do not feel that you are really engaging with what I asked. However, I do appreciate the time you've taken to try answering this (sincerely) | |
| Jul 12, 2021 at 21:50 | comment | added | Solomon Light | Good sir I am not here to discuss your problem with academia. I could not find a single source that mentioned or even indicated the 42 cities were a refuge in any capacity. Nor have you. R DR Elitzur has proposed a creative theory based on a source that does, and you are invited to not accept it. I hope you also don't love and accept every piece of yeshiveshe toireh and have reservations about certain roshei yeshiva or schools of thought more broadly. | |
| Jul 12, 2021 at 18:46 | comment | added | N.T. | This is a problem I have noted in the work of other academics, like Marc Shapiro. Instead of actually engaging with the sources on their own, they build entire theories based on "He didn't say it the way I would have said it" or "He didn't go out of his way to explain things specifically to me a thousand years later after I decided to use an entirely different framework of starting assumptions than he did." | |
| Jul 12, 2021 at 18:40 | comment | added | N.T. | The problem here is you see the other sources as saying "only six and no more", when they say no such thing. Clearly the other six are their own category, but they do not exclude the other 42. That is exactly the point made by Abaye in Makkos. | |
| Jul 12, 2021 at 11:13 | comment | added | Solomon Light | You are answering exactly what I said I didn't find compelling-- you certainly could make such a drasha, but given that it is taken as so obviously the case in the face of every single other source (except דה"י) bothers me. Even if you argue that the "behind the scenes tradition" of R Elitzur is too מחודש (it's definitely creative) it does explain why they'd think it was given. | |
| Jul 12, 2021 at 4:30 | history | answered | N.T. | CC BY-SA 4.0 |