Asking advice of Tzaddik (* What NOT to do)

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

I disagree with Rambam and this rabbi on several topics.

The revealed miracle is a change in the natural laws,

Be aware that the nature of miracles is a huge machloketh among the rishonim.  You are not going to simply disprove one side of that argument based on what you feel "has to be" (and of course quoting from the other point of view in that discussion).   I can easily cite Rambam's and ibn ezra's statements as "proof" that you are wrong.  See how that doesn't make sense to do that?

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

The Rambam did reject a book today referred to as "Kabbalah" if I'm not mistaken its "Pardes Rimonim". It has similar concepts and things as the zohar as well. About the Zohar, the Rambam did not reject it, because it wasn't written yett.

[muman613]

Be aware that the nature of miracles is a huge machloketh among the rishonim.  You are not going to simply disprove one side of that argument based on what you feel "has to be" (and of course quoting from the other point of view in that discussion).   I can easily cite Rambam's and ibn ezra's statements as "proof" that you are wrong.  See how that doesn't make sense to do that?

KWRBT,

You constantly seem to be trying to prove something here. I have brought both sides of the argument, and you are trying to 'prove me wrong'? This is the kind of behavior that I do not expect from a Jew. I have been completely honest with you, I have given you credit when you make good points, and I continue to treat you as an ally. But you seem to see me as a threat to your self esteem, as everything I say is a point for you to disprove.

You may get enjoyment out of this little game, but I think it is foolish.

I have brought Rambam when Rambam expresses the idea I am trying to convey, but unlike you and Tag, I don't consider Rambam to be the ONLY authority on Jewish law or thought. He is greatly respected, and as I point out, Chabad studies Rambam just like most other religious Jews. But one should really learn more than just Rambam.

You try to say that I am stating something wrong, yet you do not clearly say what it is you think is wrong with what I say. My defense of Jews who may be misunderstood is something for you to disrespect me for? I take very literally the concept of giving a Jew the benefit of the doubt, and not speaking derogatorily about Jews before non-Jews but it seems you scoff at these ideas. I take very dear the idea of Ahavat Yisrael and feel very sad that you have consistently seen me as an opponent, or someone to try to insult. It is sad that this seems to be the case, and it is fine with me, because this is another challenge in its own right.

If I could impart to you these concepts I would be satisfied. You do not need to agree with what I say, nor do you have to be happy with what I say, but you could attempt to communicate your feelings in a way which moves the discussion forward instead of concentrating on the disagreement.

Regarding the original topic I have clearly stated my position. I accept the Talmud, and a variety of lessons learned from the Talmud. I learn from many Rabbis, and attempt to reconcile any differences by accepting that each has its own truth. This is one lesson that the Talmud teaches, that there can be differences of opinion {look at Hillel and Shammai} and yet both can be true.

http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/hillel_and_shammai/

A heavenly voice declared: “The words of both schools are the words of the living God, but the law follows the rulings of the school of Hillel.”

So why does the law follow the rulings of the school of Hillel? The Talmud explains that the disciples of Hillel were gentle and modest, and studied both their own opinions and the opinions of the other school, and humbly mentioned the words of the other school before their own.

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

I have brought Rambam when Rambam expresses the idea I am trying to convey, but unlike you and Tag, I don't consider Rambam to be the ONLY authority on Jewish law or thought. He is greatly respected, and as I point out, Chabad studies Rambam just like most other religious Jews. But one should really learn more than just Rambam.

    neither of us never said we only accept the Rambam.

 And about Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel. Beit Hillel was accepted as the Halacha because it was established as such (I believe it was by majority, I could be mistaken).

[muman613]

    neither of us never said we only accept the Rambam.

 And about Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel. Beit Hillel was accepted as the Halacha because it was established as such (I believe it was by majority, I could be mistaken).

Ok, sometimes it seems to me that this is the case... I apologize if I misrepresented your position...

Read that Talmud portion, I think it is Eruvin 13b.... This is one case were a 'Bat Kol', or heavenly voice decided the Halacha... I will reproduce it here..

http://halakhah.com/pdf/moed/Eiruvin.pdf

   R. Abba stated in the name of Samuel: For three years there was a dispute between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel, the former asserting, ‘The halachah is in agreement with our views’ and the latter contending, ‘The halachah is in agreement with our views’. Then a bath kol 22 issued announcing, ‘[The utterances of] both 23 are the words of the living God, but the halachah is in agreement with the rulings of Beth Hillel’. Since, however, both are the words of the living God’ what was it that entitled Beth Hillel to have the halachah fixed in agreement with their rulings? Because they were kindly and modest, they studied their own rulings and those of Beth Shammai, 24 and were even so 25 [humble] as to mention the actions 26 of Beth Shammai before theirs, (as may be seen from27  what we have learnt: If a man had his head and the greater part of his body within the sukkah 28 but his table in the house, 29 Beth Shammai ruled [that the booth was] invalid but Beth Hillel ruled that it was valid. Said Beth Hillel to Beth Shammai, ‘Did it not so happen that the elders of Beth Shammai 30 and the elders of Beth Hillel went on a visit to R. Johanan b. Hahoranith and found him sitting with his head and greater part of his body within the sukkah while his table was in the house?’ Beth Shammai replied: From31 there proof [may be adduced for our view for] they indeed told him, ‘If you have always acted in this manner you have never fulfilled the commandment of sukkah’). This  32 teaches you that him who humbles himself, the Holy One, blessed be He, raises up, and him who exalts himself, the Holy One, blessed be He,  humbles; from him who seeks greatness, greatness flees, but him who flees from greatness, greatness follows; he who forces time 33 is forced back by time 34 but he who yields 35 to time 36 finds time standing at his side.37

PS: I also meant to say that I don't think KWRBT only reads or follows the Rambam... What I said was due to my own frustration due to a misunderstanding.

[muman613]

Just what is a 'Heavenly Voice'? This may help understand...

http://ohr.edu/364
Heavenly & Human Voices

If a "bat kol" is heard announcing that a certain man has died, says the mishna, we permit his wife to marry another man on the assumption that she is indeed a widow.

This "bat kol" is clearly a sound coming from a mysterious source unknown to us. We encountered such a sound earlier in this mesechta (Yevamot 14a), in which a "bat kol" was interpreted as a Heavenly declaration that we must rule according to Beit Hillel in their disputes with Beit Shammai. Is the "bat kol" in our mishna of the same nature?

Definitely not, says Tosefot Yom Tov in his commentary on Mishnayot. The "bat kol" heard in regard to Beit Hillel, and in the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages (Bava Metzia 59b), was the Divine communication which was occasionally received in the form of an echo of a Heavenly voice after prophecy came to an end. The "bat kol" in our mishna was the voice of a human whom we failed to locate after hearing his announcement.

As support for this approach, he cites Rambam in his commentary on the mishna, who writes that the "bat kol" is explained in the cases which follow in that mishna. One case is that of a person who stood atop a hill and identified himself, announced that he had been bitten by a snake and died. But when they reached the source of the voice the corpse they found was disfigured beyond recognition. In both cases the wife of the man identified by the voice as having died was permitted to remarry. Rambam is thus suggesting that the "bat kol" in the mishna is not the Heavenly voice we have encountered in the aforementioned disputes of the Sages, but rather the untraced human voice mentioned in the ensuing cases. It is interesting to note that the Shulchan Aruch (Even Haezer 17:10) refers to our case as hearing a "kol" -- a voice -- rather than a "bat kol." This seems to support the approach of the Tosefot Yom Tov.

Another support put forward by the Tosefot Yom Tov -- that we do not heed a "bat kol" in halachic matters -- is challenged by Rashash who points out that Tosefot (Yevamot 14a) states that this is only the view of Rabbi Yehoshua and not of the other Sages.

Yevamot 122a

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

Muman that is a great question (I had it recently) about the Bat Kol and why in this case it decided (seemingly) the Halacha yett with the story of the "oven like the snake" where it did not.
 Here is the answer.

http://www.dafyomi.co.il/bmetzia/insites/bm-dt-059.htm

59b----------------------------------------59b
2) TORAH IS NOT IN HEAVEN
QUESTION: The Gemara relates the incident of "Tanuro Shel Achna'i" and the miraculous ways in which Rebbi Eliezer attempted to convince the Chachamim that the Halachah was in accordance with his opinion. He miraculously uprooted a carob tree, had the waters of a river shift direction, and caused the walls of the study wall to lean inwards, and still the Chachamim did not change their mind. He then declared that Heaven should prove that he is correct, and a Bas Kol emanated and pronounced, "Why are you challenging Rebbi Eliezer, when the Halachah is like him?" Rebbi Yehoshua stood up and declared, "Lo ba'Shamayim Hi" -- "It (the Torah) is not in the heavens!" (Devarim 30:12).

TOSFOS (DH Lo ba'Shamayim) asks that the Chachamim had a different reaction to the Bas Kol which decided the question of whether the Halachah should follow the view of Beis Shamai or the view of Beis Hillel. The Gemara in Yevamos (14a) relates that when the Bas Kol declared that the Halachah should follow Beis Hillel, the Halachah indeed was established in accordance with the view of Beis Hillel. Why does the Gemara here say that the Halachah is not decided based on a Bas Kol?

The MAHARAM explains that Tosfos is not asking his question on the view of Rebbi Yehoshua, as the Gemara in Yevamos itself cites Rebbi Yehoshua who said there as well that we do not rely on a Bas Kol. The question of Tosfos is on the Gemara in Yevamos (and other places) which follows the view of Beis Hillel because of the Bas Kol. If the Gemara there follows the view of Beis Hillel because of the Bas Kol, why does the Gemara here not follow the view of Rebbi Eliezer because of the Bas Kol?

ANSWERS:
(a) TOSFOS answers that in this case, the Bas Kol contradicted the Torah's principle of "Acharei Rabim l'Hatos" -- "turn after the majority" (Shemos 23:2). In the case in Yevamos, the Halachah presumably followed the view of Beis Hillel, whose opinion was that of the majority. However, the fact that the students of Beis Shamai were sharper caused a doubt to arise about whom the Halachah should follow. The Bas Kol resolved the doubt when it proclaimed that even in this case the verse of "Acharei Rabim l'Hatos" applies.

(b) In another answer, Tosfos explains that the Bas Kol in the case in Yevamos was spontaneous, and therefore considered more "neutral." In contrast, the Bas Kol in the case of "Tanuro Shel Achna'i" was in response to Rebbi Eliezer's demand that "Min ha'Shamayim Yochichu," and therefore the Halachah does not follow its declaration. (Y. Montrose)

[muman613]

Tag,

Yes I learned that one also, about the attempt by Rabbi Eliezer to establish his decision about the Oven through the bat kol. Indeed Halacha is determined by the majority, I did not intend to suggest that is not the case. But it is an interesting demonstration about how both schools can be the way of Hashem, even while one is the Halacha today.

[muman613]

http://www.steinsaltz.org/learning.php?pg=Daf_Yomi&articleId=37

After quoting the baraita which suggests that a person can choose to follow either the position of Beit Shamai or of Beit Hillel (6b), the Gemara is disturbed by the fact that the selfsame baraita opens by stating that in arguments between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel, the opinion of Beit Hillel prevails. Several possible answers are suggested by the Gemara:

1) The section of the baraita that offers a choice in the matter was taught prior to the Bat Kol.

2) The baraita is presenting the position of Rabbi Yehoshua, who does not believe that one should pay attention to a Bat Kol

3) The baraita did not mean that one could choose to follow either Beit Shamai or Beit Hillel; rather it was using their argument as an archetype. When two Sages argue ? like Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel ? one cannot choose the leniencies or stringencies of both; one must choose to follow one or the other.

The "Bat Kol" (=heavenly voice) mentioned here refers to a Gemara later on in Eruvin (13b) that describes how Beit Hillel and Beit Shamai argued for three years, at which time a Bat Kol came out and declared that while both opinions are true, the halakhah follows Beit Hillel (Elu v'Elu divrei Elokim hayyim, v'halakhah K'Beit Hillel.)

The Ritva and Rabbi Nissim Gaon explain this difficult statement by referring to a Midrash that appears in the Jerusalem Talmud. According to the Midrash, when the Torah was given to Moshe on Mount Sinai, he was also given 49 ways to declare something pure and 49 ways to declare it impure, indicating that within the Torah itself there are levels of meaning that allow for the possibility of contradictory conclusions, leaving it to the leaders of the generations to choose the appropriate ruling for their time. According to this explanation, each position has its place in the Torah as it was given, so "both opinions are true."

The second suggestion made by the Gemara ? that the baraita is presenting the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua who does not believe that one should pay attention to a Bat Kol ? is a reference to the story told in Masechet Bava Metzia (59b), where all of the Sages disagreed with Rabbi Eliezer regarding the ritual purity of an oven that could be taken apart. Rabbi Eliezer brought a series of miraculous proofs to his position, culminating with a Bat Kol that declared the halakhah to be like Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Yehoshua's response was "Lo ba-Shamayim hee" (a reference to Devarim 30:12) ? halakhah is not decided by heaven, rather by human courts.

[muman613]

A little more on this topic, Beit Hillel vs Beit Shammai:


http://www.halachabrura.org/parsha-e.htm

Nitzavim

Deciding Halacha by Prophecy or Bat Kol
(based on Birur Halacha, Bava Metzia 59b)

When there was a dispute between R' Eliezer and the Sages (Bava Metzia 59b), and a Bat Kol from heaven declared that the Halacha is always as R' Eliezer says, R' Yehoshua brought the pasuk in our parsha "It is not in heaven", to show that a Bat Kol is not to be relied upon.

On the other hand, in Yevamot (14a) the gemara states that the rule that Halacha is like Bet Hillel against Bet Shammai is based on a Bat Kol.

Tosafot give two explanations to reconcile the sources: A) In the case of R' Eliezer it was clear that the Halacha was like the Sages since they were the majority, and a Bat Kol cannot overcome a clear Halachic rule; whereas in the case of Bet Hillel, it wasn't clear if Halacha is like Bet Hillel since they were the majority, or like Bet Shammai since they were more sagacious, and a Bat Kol is decisive where the halacha is unclear. B) In the case of R' Eliezer the Bat Kol came out only to honor him, after he requested "Let heaven prove me right", and not as a true decision, and therefore it is not to be reckoned with.

R' Nissim Gaon explained that in the case of R' Eliezer the Bat Kol was disregarded since it was worded generally: "Halacha is always like R' Eliezer", which could be construed to mean that Halacha is always like him except here. This can explain why the Bat Kol in the case of Bet Hillel is decisive: because it had exact wording.

The Rambam brings the pasuk "It is not in heaven", to show that a prophet cannot add or omit a mitzvah, nor interpret a mitzvah in a manner not delivered by Moshe Rabbenu. Ma'ase Rekach explains that the Rambam agrees with the first opinion in Tosafot, that where Halacha is unsettled, a Bat Kol or prophecy can be used to settle the halacha, since this does not contradict anything in the Torah. But Pri Chadash holds that in the Rambam's view, in no case can prophecy decide Halacha, and the reason for the rule that halacha is like Bet Hillel isn't because of the Bat Kol, rather because they were the majority, and the Bat Kol came only to honor them.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

KWRBT,

You constantly seem to be trying to prove something here. I have brought both sides of the argument, and you are trying to 'prove me wrong'? This is the kind of behavior that I do not expect from a Jew. I have been completely honest with you, I have given you credit when you make good points, and I continue to treat you as an ally. But you seem to see me as a threat to your self esteem, as everything I say is a point for you to disprove.

You may get enjoyment out of this little game, but I think it is foolish.

I have brought Rambam when Rambam expresses the idea I am trying to convey, but unlike you and Tag, I don't consider Rambam to be the ONLY authority on Jewish law or thought. He is greatly respected, and as I point out, Chabad studies Rambam just like most other religious Jews. But one should really learn more than just Rambam.

You try to say that I am stating something wrong, yet you do not clearly say what it is you think is wrong with what I say. My defense of Jews who may be misunderstood is something for you to disrespect me for? I take very literally the concept of giving a Jew the benefit of the doubt, and not speaking derogatorily about Jews before non-Jews but it seems you scoff at these ideas. I take very dear the idea of Ahavat Yisrael and feel very sad that you have consistently seen me as an opponent, or someone to try to insult. It is sad that this seems to be the case, and it is fine with me, because this is another challenge in its own right.

If I could impart to you these concepts I would be satisfied. You do not need to agree with what I say, nor do you have to be happy with what I say, but you could attempt to communicate your feelings in a way which moves the discussion forward instead of concentrating on the disagreement.

Regarding the original topic I have clearly stated my position. I accept the Talmud, and a variety of lessons learned from the Talmud. I learn from many Rabbis, and attempt to reconcile any differences by accepting that each has its own truth. This is one lesson that the Talmud teaches, that there can be differences of opinion {look at Hillel and Shammai} and yet both can be true.

Wut?

I seriously think you are reading things into my post which are not there.  My whole point was that I was not proving you wrong and there is no way to do so.  Note my use of quotation marks.

You stated something about the concept of miracles in a way as if its incontrovertible fact that they are as you describe them.  I'm merely pointing out that the nature of miracles in the Torah is a basic machloketh rishonim.  They all bring points to support their own views which are all plausible.  This is hashkafa, different opinions are valid, and bringing up hillel and shammai and deciding halacha lemaaseh in this context really has no bearing.   

And of course it goes without saying that your accusations (that I'm playing games, I'm snickering, and so on) are totally off base and inane.  Why do you bother with these personal attacks?

[muman613]

KWRBT,

I don't want to go on and on about this. I think we agree for the most part.

I'll accept that you really don't intend to do any of the things which I have perceived as being 'personal'. And please understand that I do not intend to say anything which is insulting to you.

I often post things which are not entirely on the topic. But I post them in the hopes of clarifying what I tried to say.

Anyway, thank you for this response, and lets move on..

[Ephraim Ben Noach]

 Soo do I, but people can very well twist these things for their own purposes. I have heard these "stories" from different groups as well all claiming that their version and their religion is true etc.

 My point is that not to follow someone blindly even if they have a great story (supposedly). We need to use our Sehel

Although I believe that Judaism is the most righteous path. Do you ever wonder if G-d shows himself through the persons own personal beliefs? This is one of my problems with Christianity, If a righteous Hindu doesn't know who Jesus is, is he going to hell? If a good righteous Buddhist, does not realize that G-d is one, is his soul cut off from the promise land?

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

Although I believe that Judaism is the most righteous path. Do you ever wonder if G-d shows himself through the persons own personal beliefs? This is one of my problems with Christianity, If a righteous Hindu doesn't know who Jesus is, is he going to hell? If a good righteous Buddhist, does not realize that G-d is one, is his soul cut off from the promise land?

   I dont know exactly. But the sages (Jewish sages) at least do show tolerance and even understanding towards even idolaters especially outside and far from the land of Israel. This is why they were allowed to come to the Holy Temple and even offer their sacrifice to G-D even though they also believed in other things and "gods".
   Also Eliezer is sent to get a wife for Yitzhak to (modern day Iraq) even though they were idolaters, yett it is told that their behavior was better and midot (ways/manners etc.) even though they were idol worshipers.  At the time better then the one's in Canaan.

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

  I'm no expert on this, but from what it seems- even though the Torah is extremely against idolatry and even many of the commandments and ways are to completely nullify such belief from the Jewish people (who were steeped in idolatry by being in Egypt under foreign rule which promoted it) their is a sense of tolerance and understanding by the Jewish sages that those born in certain cultures and locations do these things since they do not know any better and that is the society they live in- People are many times products of their society.