JTF.ORG Forum
Torah and Jewish Idea => Torah and Jewish Idea => Topic started by: Dan Ben Noah on June 05, 2012, 02:08:14 PM
-
Shalom
-
It would be wrong to only believe what Rambam wrote. He was just one sage among many great Jewish commentators on the Torah. I just cant believe that there are people who only believe things if Rambam wrote it.
-
There is no actual group out there that only believes what Rambam wrote. This rabbi is over-generalizing about people who adhere to the Mishneh Torah for practical halacha. This would be like stigmatizing people who adhere to the Shulchan Aruch as a group called "Karoists" who are on par with Karaites.
Oh... I didn't read the entire piece you linked to. You know what I think about Rabbi Ba-Chayim and I will not repeat it.
-
On Rambamism: A Word to the Wise
by Yair HaKohen
In order to better comprehend why some choose to follow the piskei halacha of Rambam to the exclusion of all other Rishonim (Torah scholars who lived during the period from approximately 1000-1500 according to the Christian calendar), it is necessary to grasp the psychological appeal of their approach.
It’s all about authenticity. It is not uncommon to hear well-intentioned Jews express the conviction that ‘standard Judaism’ is not the real McCoy, that it is somehow watered down, that centuries upon centuries of halachic decision making has led us away from the original intent of Hazal. Due to Rambam’s terse style and all-encompassing vision of the Tora as a system of instruction for both the Jewish nation as well as the Jewish individual, it is assumed that by returning to the halachic rulings of Rambam one is living a truer, more pristine version of Judaism.
This perception is essentially correct. HaRav David Bar-Hayim’s teachings are also rooted in this awareness. Rav Bar-Hayim points out, quoting Hazal (TB Haghigha 5b and TB Sanhedrin 24a), that it is the Galuth (Exile) itself which inevitably brought about this degeneration of Torah, and that today the process can and must be reversed.
The Rambamist approach, is therefore, at root, a positive phenomenon, in as much as it is motivated by a search for Emeth (Truth). Yes, it is true: the fact that a practice is widespread among Torah observant Jews is not in and of itself a reason to continue to do so, particularly when said practice contradicts the Torah (based on a Hacham’s clear understanding of the primary sources, viz. Mishna, Talmud Bavli and Yerushalmi, Tosefta, etc.). How could one take issue with an ideology which strives to serve HASHEM in the most authentic and correct manner possible?
However, as is frequently the case with those looking for a quick fix, Rambamists tend to oversimplify, often adopting extreme and unreasonable positions. We all recognise that regarding many issues in life, careful analysis is required before attempting to suggest a way forward. If this is true of more mundane matters, how much more so is this the case in the realm of Torah.
While the Mishne Torah is probably the best choice for the layman seeking a basic handbook, this is not the way of the Hacham. A Hacham must engage in in-depth study and analysis of the primary sources. Rambam himself stresses (Introduction to Mishne Torah, 24) that only opinions based on such study and analysis can be considered binding and authoritative. To refuse to consider other positions, despite well-reasoned and cogent argument, is not only irrational – it is indicative of an obsession, an obsession which belies Rambam’s express position regarding how Halacha is to be determined. Furthermore, it flies in the face of his fundamental belief in and love of Truth. This very point was emphasized by Rambam’s son, R. Avraham, regarding a point of Halacha on which he disagreed with his father: “This understanding is correct and unassailable….and had my father of blessed memory been made aware of it, he would have accepted it, as he himself often told us ‘Be always ready to accept the truth’. And on numerous occasions we observed how he would adopt the view of even the smallest of his students when the truth was made apparent to him…” (HaMaspiq l’Ov’dhe Hashem, p. 71).
Rambamists would do well to heed the message of HaRav Bar-Hayim. Our generation is in dire need of a well-reasoned Eretz Yisrael-based Halachic system in step with Tradition and reality, as well as the immense and historical task of reconstituting the Jewish nation and providing it with clarity of purpose and direction.
The fact that such an approach can only be based on the collective wisdom of all of Hachme Yisrael of all generations need hardly be stressed even for the layman, let alone for the scholar.
-
http://machonshilo.org/en/eng/list-audio-shiurim/41-audiohalakha/408-do-not-follow-only-the-rambam
Do Not Follow Only the Rambam
“Rambamists” follow only the Rambam. Hear the drawbacks of this approach. It is reminiscent of Karatism.
-
Anyway the Rambam, as great as he was made mistakes as well. He was human, in fact today I was dealing with a case of the Rambam contradicting himself in some major point of Torah though.
-
I read all that and listened to the audios before. But I still think that there is no purer halachic code out of the ones available today than the Mishneh Torah, and Rabbi Bar Hayim hasn't brought one into existence, has he? Also the way he was talking about "hasiba" reminded me of the way Conservative Jews think about changing halacha.
Halacha can change... This is why Halacha is the living Torah and sages of the day can argue pro or con to support their view. Obviously Halacha cannot contradict the simple meaning of the Torah but within a framework of ideas the Halacha can change... It is not carved in stone.
http://www.zootorah.com/controversy/Levi.pdf
http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/decide.html
III. Limited Role of Charisma/Inspiration
Halachic decision-making is not a matter of a Rabbi secluding himself in a room and getting a direct answer from G-d which he then communicates with ex cathedra authority. Indeed, based on the verse, "It [the Torah] is not in Heaven", the Talmud declares that prophecy and Divine inspiration cannot be taken into account in the resolution of halachic questions. All halachic resolution depends on a solid empirical grounding in the facts coupled with a reasoned application from the primary texts that Jewish law considers to be definitive, e.g. Talmud, Codes. Ad hoc decision-making that is not rooted in these texts is generally illegitimate.
.
.
.
VI. Halachic Reasoning: Combination of Inductive and Deductive Logic
Halachic reasoning, in common with all reasoning by analogy, involves a combination of inductive and deductive logic. First, relevant primary data - rulings in particular cases extracted from Talmud and Codes - have to be identified and collected. Second, through inductive reasoning, a hypothesis is formulated that explains the specific collection of rulings by reference to a more general principle. Third, through deductive reasoning, this principle can be utilized to apply to new situations that are not explicitly covered by the earlier rulings but can now be subsumed under the principle that is believed to explain those earlier rulings. Uncertainty, ambiguity, and disagreement among halachic scholars can arise at any stage of this three-stage process.
-
I read all that and listened to the audios before. But I still think that there is no purer halachic code out of the ones available today than the Mishneh Torah, and Rabbi Bar Hayim hasn't brought one into existence, has he? Also the way he was talking about "hasiba" reminded me of the way Conservative Jews think about changing halacha.
Almost no one does Hasiba today. It's a fact. All the people who think they are doing what they call "Hasiba" is not it at all. What do most do today? lean over (totally uncomfortably) and eat their Massa or drink the cups of wine and then go back to normal sitting out of relief.
Some (and these are few) actually do Hasiba correctly, but go again't the purpose of Hasiba to begin with. The reason for making Hasiba as stated in Chazal was for Jews on the night of the Seder to behave like freed men and children of THE King (HKBH). Soo the way of eating like royalty during that time was to do what is called Hasiba.
It is not changing Halacha like the conservative. The opposite, it is keeping Halacha and knowing reality and applying that custom (custom or statement of the Hachamim at that time) to today's reality and telling people to yes continue on this night of Pessah to eat like important noble men. And how do important people eat today? They do not eat reclining.
What about possibly changing the Halacha? Its not changing the Halacha at all. It is applying it properly today. Also it is not a Misswa Min Ha Torah but it is from the Rabbanim with the reason provided for, therefore with their reasoning known we apply their reasoning to how to eat on that night to how to eat this coming Pessah night as well. (Obviously only Talmidei Hachamim would and do tackle these issues and when this logic applies and when not, another example in Shaving during Hol Hamoed, which not only Rav Bar-Haim allows (when done correctly) but other Hachamim including Rav Moshe Feinstein ZTL, Rav Soloveichic and others as well)
-
You could use the same reasoning to say that we have advanced methods of telling time and fast communication now so we only need to observe Rosh HaShana and other holidays for only one day outside of Eretz Yisrael instead of two, because the original purpose for making two days is irrelevant now. Does Rabbi Bar Hayim allow this? I respect him, and these types of arguments would be good to submit on a resurrected Sanhedrin, but as far as practical halacha is concerned, I don't think he has anything better to offer than the Mishneh Torah.
I did think about that before and I did ask him this specific question and the answer is no, one must keep 2 days of Yom Tov outside of Israel. And yes, most likly when the Sanhedrin will be made again they would probably lift that decree (besides other reasons applying as well. For example- that in the Galut it takes 2ce as much then as in Israel to accomplish spiritually).
BUT their is 1 major difference between these examples. The 2 day Yom Tov was made by the Sanhedrin and Beit Din that did have power to rule (I beleive in the time of Hillel who had Smicha) the Hasiba or shaving for example was not with the reasons provided as well. That is the difference.
Also another example is killing lice on Shabbath. The opinion of R' Elizer is that killing lice is like killing a camel. The Hachamim disagree, BASED on the science and knowledge of their day that lice spontaniously generate. Therefore the Rav says that killing lice os forbidden on Shabbath (in agreement with R' Elizer + our knowledge over the other Hachamim) while some (for example R' Ovadia Yosef, and others) permit it today- their reasoning- just like yours, that is was made by the Hachamim and brought down in the Talmudh therefore it is allowed, although one can make a Humra and not do it him/her self. BUT this contradicts the Mesehet Horayot which specifically deals with situations where the Sanhedrin made a mistake and one knowledgeable NOT following it and if he did he is liable to bring a korban. (Its a whole discussion both Bavli and Yerushalmi)
-
See this response from Rav Bar-Hayim, read carefully (not on website, I put in _______, although probably not necessary and no it wasn't R' Ovadia Yosef, but someone else).
Spontaneous generation does not and never did exist. According to Wikipedia: "The theory was synthesized by Aristotle,[1] who compiled and expanded the work of prior natural philosophers and the various ancient explanations of the appearance of organisms; it held sway for two millennia. It is generally accepted to have been ultimately disproven in the 19th Century by the experiments of Louis Pasteur, expanding upon the experiments of other scientists before him (such as Francesco Redi who had performed similar experiments in the 17th century). Ultimately, it was succeeded by germ theory and cell theory." Therefore, any Halakhic opinion based on this false belief is rooted in error, an error which has nothing to do with the Tora. Halakha should be based on reality and reason, not fallacies. I am aware that someone like R. _________ may make an argument based on Halakhic stability, etc. I feel that this position cannot and will not stand up to criticism. Furthermore, it paints the Tora as something anachronistic and frozen, unable to deal with changing realities. This is a very serious matter indeed. I am aware that some people cannot conceive of any of the Hakhamim being mistaken about anything. This is a naive, if quaint, notion, rooted in a very particular type of philosophical outlook (hashqapha) which today is mainstream in the Haredi world an not uncommon in other parts of the Orthodox world.. It is not a Tora-based point of view; see Wayiqra 4:13 and Masekheth Horayoth.
The claim that spontaneous generation did indeed exist once upon a time but ceased to exist at some point is childish and untenable, and reflects poorly on those who express such a view. Even if this ludicrous suggestion were true, it would not justify killing a louse on Shabath today.
Some of Hazal believed in spontaneous generation. Based on this belief, and the assumption that only life created by univocal generation is considered to be truly alive, those Hakhamim ruled that killing a louse was mutar. We find, however, that other Hakhamim ruled that killing a louse on Shabath is "no different from killing a camel". R. Eliezer is recorded by the TB (Shabath 12a, 107b) as being of this view, as is Hizqiya by the TY (Shabath 1:3). Clearly they either did not believe this concept to be true, or, alternately, they felt that true or not, if something is plainly alive it may not be killed on Shabath.
The TB is no more binding than the TY, and vice versa. All of the Tora SheBa'al Pe has to be learned, analysed and understood correctly, as Rambam mentions in his introduction to MT. This requires many, many years of specialised study and training. That which appears to a true Hakham capable of the above to be the truth of the matter at hand is the Halakha. This does not preclude the possibility that two great Hakhamim will differ. The search for understanding and truth continues with their disciples, students and followers. This has always been darka shel Tora, the way of Tora study and practice.
Kol Tuv
DHY
-
I believe Rambam was one who believed in Spontaneous Generation...
http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/766411/Rabbi_Hershel_Schachter/When_Science_Contradicts_The_Talmud
http://www.kashrut.com/articles/WormsInFish/
Coming From the Flesh – Spontaneous Generation46
For years, scientists believed in spontaneous generation, which means that a female and male are not needed to reproduce, and creatures can grow from dirt and rot.47 Louis Pasteur finally disproved this theory in the late nineteenth century. The simple reading of the Gemarah that worms grow in the flesh of the fish would seem to indicate that Chazal held of spontaneous generation.48
However, there is an alternative way to explain the Gemarah.
We find a similar issue concerning lice.
The halacha is that lice may be killed on Shabbos,49 since they are not created from the mating of a male and female.50 Many explain that lice are spontaneously generated. This was the accepted theory for many years.
However, many explain the Gemarah that the reason why lice may be killed is they are so small and unrecognizable (unless they are on a shaft of black hair). Therefore, they are considered as nothing (see below), and viewed as a product of dirt. However, there is no proof from here that there is such as notion as spontaneous generation.51
-
I believe Rambam was one who believed in Spontaneous Generation...
Not only the Rambam but "For years, scientists believed in spontaneous generation,"
Soo Rambam used the information and scientific and in general knowledge of his day to make his decision on this matter (I presume permitting killing lice of Shabbat), we who know better should not do soo and use the opinion of R' Elizer who forbade such action on Shabbat.
-
That doesn't sound like a very convincing reason for those who do recline on Pesach to stop doing so. It seems to me to still be an agreeable tradition used to commemorate Pesach.
The shiur from what I remember was primarily addressed to those who think they are doing Haseba (the vast majority actually, except for a few Teimanim who actually do it), most in actuality are not. Then also addressing actually the correct way, of why we would not be obligated to do that as well. To move all our chairs and furniture and sit on the floor and do this. I don't remember exactly, but I don't remember the Rav specifically saying it is absolutly wrong. Just that it is absolutly not necessary and not the way of noble people today to eat this way. I don't understand why you and the writer of that site was soo offended by what the Rav said. This was actually said by a number of Torah leaders already in the past generations especially in Europe where people did not eat this way.
-
The chayas site was saying that this practice of reclining is not wrong, I would agree with that.
Also, regarding the killing of a louse on the Sabbath, here is what Rambam says:
A person who kills insects and worms that are conceived through male-female relations or fleas that come into being from the dust is liable as if he killed an animal or a beast. In contrast, a person is not liable for killing insects and worms that come into being from dung, rotten fruit, or the like - e.g., the worms found in meat or those found in legumes.
A person who checks his clothes for lice on the Sabbath may rub off the lice and discard them. It is is permitted to kill lice on the Sabbath, for they come into being from sweat.
Now the way I would interpret this is that since nothing comes into being from dung, rotten fruit, etc., then it is forbidden to kill anything (unless it is a dangerous animal with direct threat to one's life as is later discussed). Now if lice DID come from spontaneous generation, then it would be ok, but since they don't then they fall into the category of any other insect. You don't need a whole new psak halacha for a person to do this. I wouldn't compare this to hasiba which is a cultural issue.
Also, does Rabbi Bar Hayim actually have his own code that he has put together or does he just issue rulings on a limited number of issues?
It was addressing a shiur that the Rav made about Haseba and recling on Pessah. Its a whole shiur, they took a small part of the shiur and took it personally. What was explicitly stated as wrong was/is the practice of leaning to the right side thinking one is doing Hasebba which in actually one is not. And about actually doing Haseba the outcome was that one needs not do it.
- Lice. Yes. Its needed to explicilty say that its forbidden to do soo on Shabbat since their are some (and more then a handful I heard) who say you are allowed. And i'm almost sure some Rambamists and/or anyone who just reads and only relys on what is written in one work etc. would and can say soo as well. For example they wouldcopy/paste the Rambam and say ". It is is permitted to kill lice on the Sabbath" .
-
I respect the rationalism of Rabbi Bar Hayim, but apparently he is only re-inventing the wheel as far as practical halacha is concerned, and has some misconceptions about Mishneh Torah adherents.
http://www.chayas.com/slander.htm
Incorrect. He studeied with them and learned by their great Rav, Rabbi Qafeh zt"l.
What the "rambamists" (and apparently you) don't understand is that being an "adherent" of any one particular scholar and following his opinion blindly on every single issue is just as mistaken whether that scholar is Rambam or it is Rav Yosef Karo. The greatest poskim of yesteryear and currently living today simply never made "devotion" or "reliance" part of the halachic decision making.
For example, consider the Chazon Ish. He considered the mishne brura as just another source, no special weight. But you will see many inferior scholars today who "rely" on mishna brura and pasken straight out of that no matter what. (And even some not very good scholars or just plain ignorant nonrabbis will say things like "we hold by mishna brura" or " we -ashkenazim - pasken according to mishna brura"). Great poskim get away from this. If you ask me personally I certainly respect Rambamists more than a shulchan aruchist, but either way, neither of them should try to hold rabbinic scholars hostage to their historical scholar of choice.
Btw you say Rav Bar Hayim is wrong about the Rambamists, but you neglect the fact that he is not the only one who knows of them or considers them in that light. There are many who have the same view in this matter.
-
Rabbi Bar Hayim's audio was made in response to people who claimed he was a "Rambamist". He agrees with Rambam in most cases. But he over-generalized about what a "Rambamist" is, talking about a "group" that doesn't exist. Maybe individuals exist who only believe anything that Rambam wrote but they are not your average Mishneh Torah adherents. That would be like associating all Kahanists with people who plotted to blow up a girls' school. The chayas site had a problem with him saying this hasiba practice was antiquated and that people were stubborn and obstinate who still did it. There are a lot of technically antiquated practices that are still practiced though, like the 2-day holidays.
Also, this lice issue did not begin with Rambam but the Gemara. So some apparently still permit killing lice on Shabbat for other reasons, and this is not just Mishneh Torah adherents, but other people such as the Lubavitcher Rebbe who said that it's possible that spontaneous generation exists even if we can't observe it and the halacha shouldn't be changed. I don't believe that spontaneous generation exists, but I think that the proper thing for a rabbi to do would not be to change the halacha itself, but tell people not to kill anything on the Sabbath unless it poses a threat to your life, because nothing exists that meets the spontaneous generation criteria in the Mishneh Torah. So I would agree with the Lubavitcher Rebbe's method, but reach Rabbi Bar Hayim's conclusion--don't change the halacha but don't kill lice on Shabbat.
The Haseba and the Rambamist audio lectures are 2 different topics and different lectures.
No he didn't over generalize. A Rambamist is someone who only follows the Rambam (or thinks he is following the Rambam) with the exclusion of all else without taking into the insights and opinions of others.
Anyway did you yourself listen to his Haseba lecture?
Spontanious generation doesn't exist. What you said about the Lubavitcher R' opinion and your conclusion are 2 opposites. Either it exists or does not. Either its allowed or not. Their are those who allow it. Other's do not.
About "changing" its not technically changing its applying it correctly which only someone with great years ,experience and knowledge can do. Not the average person. And it would be people with the mindset that would be able to form the proper Sanhedrin as well. NOT those who just open the Mishna Torah, or Shulhan Aruch, Ben Ish Chai or Mishna Brura and just read without the proper overall knowledge, background, experience, secular, wordly and Torah knowledge. It would be okay for a regual person though to accept any one of these systems as their "Rav" soo to speak.
-
Dan you want one perversion of this type of thinking- and this is with those who only rely on the Shulahan Aruch. For example- "Land for Peace". It doesn't mention fighting for the land of Israel in the Shulhan Aruch, but it does in saving one's life, soo therefore automatically if their is a situation of either fighting for the land or risking a life, we go with "Land for Peace". Do you not see a problem with that reasoning?
-
Upon reading this now (just beginning so far), I can already see the response suffers from a "no true scotsman" fallacy. Rav Bar Hayim studied with these people for years. They were indeed serious scholars. And I have encountered some rambamists on facebook myself. They do exist and they shocked me w the things they said. One guy for instance slandered Rav Yakov Kamenetsky zt"l because he "dared" point out that some of Rambam's views on astronomy were subsequently proven wrong in modern times and therefore needn't be followed.
And something more well known. There is a more "scholarly" type Rambamist who wrote up a pamphlet saying the moon landing must have been staged because rambam said the moon is a sentient being. (Rav Yakov had asserted that the moon landing among other things proves that view false). This person wrote up a pamphlet attacking this point of view on the grounds that we must assume Rambam was correct. Btw , its an aristotelian view of the cosmos that the sun planets etc are sentient beings. Wonder if the author of that pamphlet even knows that.
I think the writer you cite is either in denial or not well aware of his compatriots
-
This would be like stigmatizing people who adhere to the Shulchan Aruch as a group called "Karoists"
But there are people like that! And they don't make any sense either. And when people insist one "has to follow shulchan aruch" they equally err. Of course one cannot go wrong following a psak of rambam or shulchan aruch, but to say that a rabbinic scholar can only just blindly follow one of them is just not true and puts unecessary limits on halacha.
who are on par with Karaites.
Well you added this part, but maybe it is worth consideration. A halachic code doesn't replace the Oral Torah which is governed by Talmud.
-
Here is another "Rambamist". This is also a form of Fundamentalism, similar to the NK. The NK made a whole ideology from something they interpreted (from a small line in Ketuvim) and made a whole ideology out of it. Ignoring virtually everything else on the issue. In fact even stepping on the Torah, Jews and Judaism from that twisted fundamentalist world view.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEyrcqg0Th4&feature=g-all-c
-
Oh... I didn't read the entire piece you linked to. You know what I think about Rabbi Ba-Chayim and I will not repeat it.
Lol what kind of comment is this?
-
Lol what kind of comment is this?
He is saying he wants to attack Rav Bar-Haim to get back at him apparently for being offended by something he said, but doesn't know what to say yett soo...
-
I read all that and listened to the audios before. But I still think that there is no purer halachic code out of the ones available today than the Mishneh Torah, and Rabbi Bar Hayim hasn't brought one into existence, has he? Also the way he was talking about "hasiba" reminded me of the way Conservative Jews think about changing halacha.
No matter how "pure" or relatively pure a given code is, a posek is not obligated to follow some "code" ! Read the Rambam's own words about how we arrive at psak halacha for example. Because he describes this process. The posek has to consider all the sources and is bound to the talmud bavli, yerushalmi, sifre sifra, mechilta etc to arrive at a decision.
-
Also the way he was talking about "hasiba" reminded me of the way Conservative Jews think about changing halacha.
WHAT?! There is no connection to conservative judaism. It is slander to associate someone with that fraud without basis. I really have no clue what you're talking about.
It is known how people reclined to eat in those days. They did so on couches. Literally lying down. It was called the roman "triclinium" how roman citizens reclined while eating. Only luxurious style eating for citizens, not the peons that served them their meals.
It is fact that chazal refer to this when they tell us to recline like kings at the seder table and it is also fact that almost NO ONE does this today, and the whole leaning on a side elbow while chomping matzah and sitting in a chair is not really fulfilling reclining. And Rabbi Bar Hayim when he speaks of this brings sources from tosfos and others who note that they do not recline anymore and don't have that style of eating since people dine in chairs in france for instance.
There are many who are ignorant of these facts but that doesn't make them any less true.
As to getting people to change what they do, there is no reason for there to be a "movement" based around what people do or don't do (allwithin halacha) at their seder table! Knowledge is power, and knowing the reality of Jewish law enables a Jew like me to run his seder as he sees fit, to be in line with what chazal prescribe. In fact, I know a guy that knows a guy, who because of these facts, sets up couches and does true reclining at his seder! To that I would say its unnecessary because the whole point is to eat in a luxurious way and that style is not common and not culturally associated with luxury, but God bless him, its definitely more correct reclining than when we lean our elbow over.
-
He is saying he wants to attack Rav Bar-Haim to get back at him apparently for being offended by something he said, but doesn't know what to say yett soo...
Tag! Come on!
-
He did not study with "them", and Rabbi Qafah is not the leader of this nonexistent "group", he was the leader of the Dor Daim. These people do not accept only what Rambam wrote simply because it is from Rambam. They are dedicated to preserving Teimani Maimonidean tradition from influence of later innovations like mysticism. It is not mistaken to adhere to the Rambam's Mishneh Torah just as it is not mistaken to adhere to the Shulchan Aruch. People who do this don't deserve to be stigmatized. Scholars have more liberties than the average Jew. If Rabbi Bar Hayim can produce something better than the Mishneh Torah, let him try. I have yet to hear of any code he has produced that is better for the general populace than the Mishneh Torah.
There may be some misunderstanding here. Rav bar hayim's issue is not with an average Jew who uses mishne torah as a guide for practical halacha! Rav bar hayim's issue is with "maimonidean scholars" (ie rabbis, who are rambamists) that religiously follow rambam on everything no matter how forced the position. There are rabbis like this, they do exist.
Rav bar hayim himself says he in the vast majority of cases sides with Rambam in halacha! And I highly doubt he would discourage any student or average Jew from using that guide if they needed a halacha!
-
I believe Rambam was one who believed in Spontaneous Generation...
Talmudic sages accepted the veracity of spontaneous generation. It was commonly believed/accepted premise in those days... untilscience advanced and realized its not correct. Chazal in many cases followed the science of their day as we would expect scholars today to do for example with regards to saving a life- many rabbis are not medical experts but will trust the premises of modern medicine about certain life threatening situations.
-
He is saying he wants to attack Rav Bar-Haim to get back at him apparently for being offended by something he said, but doesn't know what to say yett soo...
I will not read what this Rabbi writes because my opinion of him is not very high. Virtually everything you have ever brought here to JTF written by this Rabbi contains attacks on other streams of Judaism. This leads me to the conclusion that this Rabbi has a shtick, one where he believes he knows the 'TRUE JUDAISM' and everyone else doesn't know what they are talking about. His approach is too caustic to me and I find it hard to believe much which he writes due to his constant attack on other beliefs in Judaism.
I will wait till a Rabbi I respect addresses these issues.... I originally didn't want to say this because it is a form of Lashon Hora... But I have said it, and it is how I feel, and I recommend that Jews who do outreach to other Jews not really spend much time listening to this Rabbi.
But you are entitled to listen to any Rabbi you like... I just don't think this guy is going to go too far with his diatribes against other streams of Jewish belief.
-
I originally didn't want to say this because it is a form of Lashon Hora... But I have said it, and it is how I feel, and I recommend that Jews who do outreach to other Jews not really spend much time listening to this Rabbi.
You said it before. You did attack him before without any logical explanation. If their was a point he made thasat you didn't agree with, fine. Prove it wrong (at least try), but to say he is this or that and one shouldn't listen to him is just like the leftists did to Rav Kahane. Defemation with no explanation because not being able to deal with the issues.
-
You said it before. You did attack him before without any logical explanation. If their was a point he made thasat you didn't agree with, fine. Prove it wrong (at least try), but to say he is this or that and one shouldn't listen to him is just like the leftists did to Rav Kahane. Defemation with no explanation because not being able to deal with the issues.
I said what the issue to me was... He is always speaking derogatorily of other streams of Judaism, either Chassidus, or now Rambamist.... Even if he were 100% right in what he said I would reject his findings based on his approach, trying to prove that he is right and everyone else is wrong.
There is a way a good Rabbi can present his findings without saying things to insult other Jews.
Also I would not compare this Rabbi to Rabbi Kahane.
PS: I find no problem currently in Jewish practice which would require re-thinking the 'leaning' or 'reclining' on Pesach. It is done for the reason which we are taught, to act as royalty. As long as we do it with this kevannah and fufil the minimum amount to consume, we have achieved the mitzvah. Why does this Rabbi always have to pick out things like the size of a Kazayit {which Rabbis have always discussed around Pesach time} and make it into an attack on other Rabbis? His entire approach is inappropriate in my opinion...
-
It is not wrong for someone to follow always Shulchan Aruch or Mishneh Torah. I think Mishneh Torah is a better choice, but that's what both of these books were written for--so your average person will have a code to go by if they have a question on Jewish law and are not able to go through the Talmud to find their answer. I'm not making claims that scholars must do this, only the average person. Scholars must study all the sources.
Then on this we're in agreement. I can tell you a number of times I asked a shaila or general question to Rav Bar Hayim, and he pulled out a Mishne Torah and quoted me a line from Rambam in answer to my question. He has studied that issue in depth in a way I have not and felt the Rambam is on point with his learning out the halacha from the sugia, so he simply quoted him to me.
Scholars I agree must have flexibility and not be "pidgeon holed" so they have to learn all the sources.
The other thing you brought up about who Rav bar hayim learned with, well one thing is for certain that oftentimes the students of a great rav are not on the level of that Rav (Rav Qafeh for example who can compare with him?). That said, I do think it is the case that Rav Qafeh as a policy paskened only according to Rambam unless I am mistaken, but for sure some of his students may be more vigilant in that approach than he actually was. And hence Rabbi Bar Hayim was a student of Rav Qafeh alongside others who were also. I remember one time Rav Bar Hayim told me anecdotally that he once told one of them (either one of these other students or to Rav Qafeh directly, I forget the exact story), that he feels on some issues it would be a better approach to side with someone else over Rambam if his position is really forced in light of other things and that this is a weakness in that approach on a few issues. I forget the exact reply but no one bit his head off, and they basically asserted they stick to Rambam anyway. Wish I remembered that story more clearly.
-
Also I have never seen a stream of Judaism which just listens to one Rabbi for all its decisions. Chabad is the most open in that it accepts and teaches Rambam and it also teaches other great poskim. The entire Talmud is full of great sages who do not agree about halachic issues, and the Torah clearly explains how the decision will be found according to the majority decision.
-
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.
-
Here is the story from Talmud concerning how Halacha must be decided by majority opinion...
http://www.torahtots.com/parsha/devarim/nitzav3.htm
DOWN TO EARTH
The Talmud (Baba Metzia 59b) explains, "it is not in heaven" as follows:
After the Torah was given, it was no longer "in heaven." Hashem does not make Torah decisions in Heaven. Halachic (Torah law) decisions must be decided by human authorities following the guidelines given to Moshe at Har (Mt.) Sinai. It is Hashem's will that the Sages apply the laws of the Torah to the best of their human understanding. Decisions must reflect the opinion of the majority of a Bait Din (Jewish court), who are the final authority in all cases of Torah law.
The Talmud (ibid) brings this story to prove its point.
The Sages were debating whether or not a certain type of oven could become tamay (impure). The majority of the Sages ruled that it could. Rabbi Eliezer ben (son of) Horkenos held that it could not.
Rabbi Eliezer ben Horkenos, perhaps the most outstanding Sage of the generation, cited many proofs in favor of his position, but the Sages, who were the majority, would not accept these proofs.
Rabbi Eliezer ben Horkenos declared: "This carob tree will demonstrate that the Halachah (Torah law) follows my opinion."
A miracle occurred whereby the carob tree uprooted itself and replanted itself 100 cubits away. (some say, four hundred amot).
The Sages replied: "Halachah is not established on the basis of a carob tree.* "
[*Since Rabbi Eliezer was a very righteous man, the tree might have been uprooted at his command. This does not prove, though, that his ruling was correct.]
Rabbi Eliezer ben Horkenos declared: "This stream of water will demonstrate that the Halachah follows my opinion." The stream of water began to flow backwards against the current.
The Sages replied: "Halachah is not established on the basis of a stream."
Rabbi Eliezer ben Horkenos declared: "The walls of the Bait Hamidrash (House of Study) will demonstrate that the Halachah follows my opinion."
The walls of the Bait Hamidrash began to tremble and fall, and the Sages feared that any moment they would collapse.
Rabbi Yehoshua called out to the walls: "Why are you interfering in a Halachic debate among Sages?"
Immediately, out of respect for Rabbi Yehoshua, the walls did not collapse, but out of deference to Rabbi Eliezer, they did not return to their original upright position either. They remained slanted.
Rabbi Eliezer ben Horkenos declared: "The heavens will attest that the Halachah follows my opinion."
A bat kol (heavenly divine voice) proclaimed: "Why do you contest Rabbi Eliezer? The halachah always follows Rabbi Eliezer's teachings."
Rabbi Yehoshua rose and declared:
"It is written: 'It is not in heaven." ' (Devarim ibid).
What is meant by; 'It is not in the heaven'? Rebbi Yirmiah said: It means that we don't listen to a bat kol in matters of Halachah, for the Torah was already given to man at Har Sinai.
Rabbi Yehoshua continued:
"We don't listen to the bat kol because You (Hashem) already wrote in the Torah at Har Sinai (Shmot, Exodus 23:2) 'According to the majority (the matter) shall be decided.'*
[*R' Yehoshua understood this to mean that Hashem would never interfere with the judicial process through which the law is decided. Accordingly he interpreted the Heavenly echo to be merely a test of whether the Sages would hold their ground. And the next story proved him correct.]
Later, one of the Sages, Rabbi Natan met Eliyahu Hanavi (Elijah the prophet). He asked him: "What did Hashem say during this argument?"
Eliyahu replied to him: "He was laughing and saying (with satisfaction), 'My sons won me in the discussion.' "*
-
I will not read what this Rabbi writes because my opinion of him is not very high. Virtually everything you have ever brought here to JTF written by this Rabbi contains attacks on other streams of Judaism.
Other streams of Judaism? You know that reform and conservative call themselves "streams of judaism" right?
Anyway, I really don't think I brought anything from Rav Bar Hayim to this site that does anything other than upholding the Judaism of our forefathers and upholding chazal. These types of general and vague statements from you perplex me because on the many things I've posted here before I've never seen you lodge a complaint with substantial argument that Rav Bar Hayim is attacking streams through his Torah learning. (For example how about the keziath shiur where I wrote up almost word for word the entire shiur - is your complaint w rav bar hayim or w the talmud... or w Rav Yisrael Salanter or ... etc)?
You then say he is too caustic, well I would argue we need an approach that is caustic against the ghetto mentality. His is the type of mindset that will raise Jews up above the jackboots of bibi's kapos. The "shas and utj" style galut judaism is what will send us further into the ground, Imo.
To say you don't respect him is a very serious personal charge - why would you do that? Can't you just leave it at the fact you don't like his views? And why become personally offended?
We have been through this chabad thing already but I'm sorry to say you are stiill living in denial if you really think there are no or very few mesichistim out there. Unfortunately there are many. Still non mesichist chabad does good work and rav bar hayim readily praises some of what they do, so why do you act like he vilifies chabad? ...
-
You said it before. You did attack him before without any logical explanation. If their was a point he made thasat you didn't agree with, fine. Prove it wrong (at least try), but to say he is this or that and one shouldn't listen to him is just like the leftists did to Rav Kahane. Defemation with no explanation because not being able to deal with the issues.
This. 100 times this.
You formulated it in a way I was failing at, but I'm thinking exactly along these lines. Hazak ubaruch
-
KWRBT,
I was not addressing you in that message. Tag has posted things which I found myself in disagreement.
I now remember you telling me you study with Rabbi Bar Chayim. I apologize if I have offended you, this is not my intention.
When I say other streams of Judaism I am talking about Chassidus and Sephardic traditions which the Rabbi has said some things which I find offensive.
-
Also I have never seen a stream of Judaism which just listens to one Rabbi for all its decisions. Chabad is the most open
You can check almost every Chassidic group for starters. And Chabad is the best example of this (the Messianism of Chabad and clinging to their "Rebbe").
-
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.
Yes, by majority is how the talmud decides many matters (and some not according to majority!) Its a general rule and as with all general rules there are some exceptions.
But a posek today who has a talmud and generations of halachic/legal precedent before him on matters that are not entirely clearly decided by talmud or associated sources - for such a posek in such a case there is a methodology for arriving at a psak din. It does not involve an opinion poll or a vote tally.
-
.
.
.
To say you don't respect him is a very serious personal charge - why would you do that? Can't you just leave it at the fact you don't like his views? And why become personally offended?
We have been through this chabad thing already but I'm sorry to say you are stiill living in denial if you really think there are no or very few mesichistim out there. Unfortunately there are many. Still non mesichist chabad does good work and rav bar hayim readily praises some of what they do, so why do you act like he vilifies chabad? ...
Again I apologize because I am sure he is a very knowledgeable Rabbi... But I find his method very upsetting. Maybe it motivates you.... But he said things about Breslov Chassidut and other things about those who believe in Kabbalistic teachings which I find hard to swallow.
Maybe some day I will hear your Rabbi and understand what he is saying. But I don't agree that Chabad and CHassidus makes Jews who are not Zionists. I know many who attend Chabad Shabbatons and Yom Tovim who are very Zionistic. I even discussed Rabbi Kahane with my Chabad Rabbi personally the other day and he said he admires Rabbi Kahane. I also asked about Mesichist Chabdniks and my Rabbi said it is a small amount of CHabad shluchim who ruin it for the majority because mainstream Chabad does not teach this.
-
You can check almost every Chassidic group for starters. And Chabad is the best example of this (the Messianism of Chabad and clinging to their "Rebbe").
This is completely false..
I know that Chabad studies Rambam, there is a daily Rambam class which Chabad offers. Over Shavuot all night we studied Rambams Sefer HaMitzvot.
Chabad also teaches other Rabbis including Rabbi Nachman of Breslov.. If you would like me to list all the Rabbis which Chabad includes in their discussions I could probrobly find a list of them.
This is the kind of slander I am talking about. I know six Chabad Rabbis and not a single one of them believes Rebbe was Moshiach, and they sure don't teach this.
-
"I said what the issue to me was... He is always speaking derogatorily of other streams of Judaism, either Chassidus, or now Rambamist.... Even if he were 100% right in what he said I would reject his findings based on his approach, trying to prove that he is right and everyone else is wrong.
There is a way a good Rabbi can present his findings without saying things to insult other Jews. "
- A scholar is supposed to show his findings and his points. If him saying that a Kzait is what it is- "Like an olive size" and not 30 grams offends you for him simply stating the obvious, then the problem is not him but its you yourself and your logic. What is he supposed to say? Is he suppoed to withhold halahic information because of fear of offending others?
And I don't see him saying things to insult other Jews. Their are things he brought up because they need to be brought up because of the dangers such beliefs pose including Chabad Messianism. This objection of yours would be like you telling a Rabbi during (after) the time of Jesus not to prove the teachings of Jesus and the disciples wrong since it might offend some. Maybe truthful but the language is just too- truthful.
-
Tag,
Also I am not trying to defame this Rabbi. I know Jews of all kinds and it does no good for the Jewish people to create divisions. Virtually everything I have seen written by Rav BarChayim posted here has included derogatory statements about those who don't follow his beliefs. This is not necessary to make the point he is trying to make. If he had the right approach, according to my understanding, he could present his findings in a way without having to say others are wrong, the reader should be able to see the truth in what he wrote. To have to prove it to the point of saying that others are wrong is the approach which I don't agree with.
-
"I said what the issue to me was... He is always speaking derogatorily of other streams of Judaism, either Chassidus, or now Rambamist.... Even if he were 100% right in what he said I would reject his findings based on his approach, trying to prove that he is right and everyone else is wrong.
There is a way a good Rabbi can present his findings without saying things to insult other Jews. "
- A scholar is supposed to show his findings and his points. If him saying that a Kzait is what it is- "Like an olive size" and not 30 grams offends you for him simply stating the obvious, then the problem is not him but its you yourself and your logic. What is he supposed to say? Is he suppoed to withhold halahic information because of fear of offending others?
And I don't see him saying things to insult other Jews. Their are things he brought up because they need to be brought up because of the dangers such beliefs pose including Chabad Messianism. This objection of yours would be like you telling a Rabbi during (after) the time of Jesus not to prove the teachings of Jesus and the disciples wrong since it might offend some. Maybe truthful but the language is just too- truthful.
I know Chabad and they don't believe that the Rebbe was Moshiach. This is pure slander of a great organization. I will defend Chabad because I know the truth {from observation}. I reject any strain of Jewish belief which believes that Moshiach has come when it is clear that he has not.
I know six Chabad Rabbis locally and NOT ONE believes in Rebbe as Moshiach. And all those who I ask about it say it is a fringe group which believes this.
-
To have to prove it to the point of saying that others are wrong is the approach which I don't agree with.
Dude you youself said and are saying that he is wrong for saying that others are wrong. Soo your dong what you accuse him of doing and you not liking him for it. :o
-
"I said what the issue to me was... He is always speaking derogatorily of other streams of Judaism, either Chassidus, or now Rambamist.... Even if he were 100% right in what he said I would reject his findings based on his approach, trying to prove that he is right and everyone else is wrong.
There is a way a good Rabbi can present his findings without saying things to insult other Jews. "
- A scholar is supposed to show his findings and his points. If him saying that a Kzait is what it is- "Like an olive size" and not 30 grams offends you for him simply stating the obvious, then the problem is not him but its you yourself and your logic. What is he supposed to say? Is he suppoed to withhold halahic information because of fear of offending others?
And I don't see him saying things to insult other Jews. Their are things he brought up because they need to be brought up because of the dangers such beliefs pose including Chabad Messianism. This objection of yours would be like you telling a Rabbi during (after) the time of Jesus not to prove the teachings of Jesus and the disciples wrong since it might offend some. Maybe truthful but the language is just too- truthful.
I have said what I had to say on this topic.
I am sorry if I said I don't respect his opinion. I am sure that his opinion is valid and I should consider it... I will see if his approach ever changes to a manner which I can accept.
-
http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2008/02/08/the-power-of-chabad/
The Power of Chabad
By Yaakov Menken, on February 8th, 2008
I have a son approaching Bar Mitzvah age, which means he will be needing Tefillin shortly. My mother mentioned that her grandfather’s old Tefillin were in a package in a basement. I had never known of them before, but as you can imagine was excited to learn that they existed. Well… when I opened the bag my wife and I were dismayed. The batim, the boxes, were green. Mold green. We thought that after years in a wet basement, all was lost.
When I opened them, however, I got a surprise in the opposite direction. Not only were the parshiyos (the written parchments) in decent condition, but the writing was truly beautiful. I showed them to an expert sofer, who restored them. They are perhaps 150 years old, and the writing, he said, was only used by a pretty elite group. The batim were constructed from multiple pieces of leather, which we wouldn’t use today with such fine parchments. But what we found inside them were hidden gems. “He spent his money on the writing,” said the sofer. And who knows… what spiritual impact might have been felt from that level of sacrifice for the sake of a Mitzvah, four generations later?
The parshiyos are written in the Ksav, the font, attributed to the Alter Rebbe of Lubavitch.
When I read the responses to my earlier post, “A Hopeful Sign for Chabad?“, I was extremely pleased to see the fiery denunciation of the ‘Meshichist’ wing from commenters who identify with Lubavitch. I think a tad more forbearance is appropriate towards those other commenters who previously encountered opinions similar to Eli Soble’s from far more prominent figures within the movement. The fact that the JPost found no one better known than Soble to voice this tripe is a hopeful sign, but we cannot pretend that it has always been so.
The marginalization of the Meshichist viewpoint must be repeated until it is no longer espoused not merely in public, not merely in private conversation, but in the hearts of all ma’aminim, those faithful to Torah. Because, at the same time, Lubavitch has a long and distinguished Chassidic line, and thousands upon thousands of people willing to be moser nefesh, to give up their very lives, on behalf of all Jews and, indeed, all humanity.
Two newspaper articles, both published today, are good examples, and Rabbi Adlerstein deserves the credit for pointing them out. One is in the New York Times, the other the Concord Monitor, and both represent a Kiddush HaShem. Both of the gentlemen featured are Ba’alei Teshuva who found their way home via Lubavitch. Both have careers in the secular community. Both are unafraid to be who they are, beards, black hats, and all, in very foreign environments. And both have bridged the divide with great success.
Chabad shluchim are creating these types of success stories every day. There’s much to learn from them, and much that could be accomplished with more unity.
Frankly, there’s a divide to be bridged within the Orthodox world. Yes, the Yechi-niks are far too numerous, and far too visible. Yes, in Lubavitch there is a school of thought that other frum Jews have to be brought into Chabad. There are those who give their time, energy and money only to Lubavitch, who quote only Lubavitcher Rebbes, etc., etc., etc. The relationship has been rocky, and to a large extent that must be attributed to Lubavitchers rather than those who have criticized them. There is far too much of this to be dismissed as “the enmity of centuries of Misnahgdim.” There are serious issues here, and you certainly don’t see this sort of criticism leveled against Bobov, Stolin, Satmar, Ger, or any other Chassidic group. My aforementioned son is named after my wife’s grandfather, who was a Belzer Chossid, descended from the Noam Elimelech via the Dinover Rebbe. We all have our own parochial hang-ups, but you don’t find any similar level of friction between Belzers and Litvaks.
I would put it this way: there is mold on the outside. The public displays of the Meshichistin and these other issues stain the image of Lubavitch. The gems are less visible, less obvious, hidden inside. Having heard only positive things about Rabbis such as Dovid Eliezrie (and those positive things, quite frequently) one can only say keyn yirbu — may Rabbis such as he increase both in number and in influence.
Read more: http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2008/02/08/the-power-of-chabad/#ixzz1wzDrWhTZ
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
-
Again I apologize because I am sure he is a very knowledgeable Rabbi... But I find his method very upsetting. Maybe it motivates you.... But he said things about Breslov Chassidut and other things about those who believe in Kabbalistic teachings which I find hard to swallow.
Maybe some day I will hear your Rabbi and understand what he is saying. But I don't agree that Chabad and CHassidus makes Jews who are not Zionists. I know many who attend Chabad Shabbatons and Yom Tovim who are very Zionistic. I even discussed Rabbi Kahane with my Chabad Rabbi personally the other day and he said he admires Rabbi Kahane. I also asked about Mesichist Chabdniks and my Rabbi said it is a small amount of CHabad shluchim who ruin it for the majority because mainstream Chabad does not teach this.
In a shiur, Rabbi Bar Hayim had many positive things to say about Rav Nachman of Breslav, and especially about the practice of "hitbodedut," and personalizing prayer which they stressed. He is also not hesitant to point out that there are some delirious people out there who call themselves followers of Rav Nachman. But everyone is aware of this! Does he need to pretend it doesn't exist?
And some who do crazy things in the name of this (like the very strange rosh hashana uman thing). I mean, does that take anything away from Rav Nachman? No, not in my mind. It seems like you think it somehow is an attack on Breslav chassidus. We should be able to separate the wheat from the chaff here, and just as you find positive things in Breslav teachings which you embrace, rightfully, so too we can recognize some unwanted things (like for instance an unusual modern day custom with no real source) and be ok with setting that aside. In both cases we are making the decision not in spite or anger with anyone else and not with insults or personal affront. Just trying to analyze the issues and go for what is right.
-
In a shiur, Rabbi Bar Hayim had many positive things to say about Rav Nachman of Breslav, and especially about the practice of "hitbodedut," and personalizing prayer which they stressed. He is also not hesitant to point out that there are some delirious people out there who call themselves followers of Rav Nachman. But everyone is aware of this! Does he need to pretend it doesn't exist?
And some who do crazy things in the name of this (like the very strange rosh hashana uman thing). I mean, does that take anything away from Rav Nachman? No, not in my mind. It seems like you think it somehow is an attack on Breslav chassidus. We should be able to separate the wheat from the chaff here, and just as you find positive things in Breslav teachings which you embrace, rightfully, so too we can recognize some unwanted things (like for instance an unusual modern day custom with no real source) and be ok with setting that aside. In both cases we are making the decision not in spite or anger with anyone else and not with insults or personal affront. Just trying to analyze the issues and go for what is right.
I understand what you are saying.
But personally I like Rabbi Lazer Brodys approach which attempts to see the good in all Jews, and trying to bring them back to more mitzvah observance. I realize that Rabbi Bar Chayim has a different approach.
I agree that we all should be seeking the truth according to Jewish sources and I hope that we all know the truth so that we can teach others...
-
Halacha often relies on how people perceive the object rather than objective reality.
We will therefore freely drink a cup of water, even though if the microscopic organisms that were in the water, were larger and visible to the naked eye, the water would be forbidden.
Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach provides other examples of this rule. See chapter 4 of Halichot Shlomo, halacha 5 on Moadim for details.
Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach held that since to the naked eye, lice do not appear to be reproduced by the same means as larger insects, they legally have a different status allowing them to be killed on the Sabbath, even if objectively under a microscope or by other tests, you can prove, that lice are the natural offspring of a previous generation of lice.
What I stated above was in reponse to Tag-MechirTzedek's comment previously:
Also another example is killing lice on Shabbath. The opinion of R' Elizer is that killing lice is like killing a camel. The Hachamim disagree, BASED on the science and knowledge of their day that lice spontaniously generate. Therefore the Rav says that killing lice os forbidden on Shabbath (in agreement with R' Elizer + our knowledge over the other Hachamim) while some (for example R' Ovadia Yosef, and others) permit it today- their reasoning- just like yours, that is was made by the Hachamim and brought down in the Talmudh therefore it is allowed, although one can make a Humra and not do it him/her self. BUT this contradicts the Mesehet Horayot which specifically deals with situations where the Sanhedrin made a mistake and one knowledgeable NOT following it and if he did he is liable to bring a korban. (Its a whole discussion both Bavli and Yerushalmi)
-
I would like to pose a question to the pure Rambamists.
Rambam's son, Rabbi Avraham, in his introduction to the Agadot, printed in Ein Yaakov, that if modern scientist prove beyond a doubt that our previous understandings on science were wrong, the halacha must conform to the modern scientists.
Rambam's Hilchot Yesodei Hatora, chapters 3 and 4, contains many scientific ideas that have been proven wrong by modern scientists.
So what do you do? Follow Rambam even in these cases or allow for other viewpoints?
-
I understand what you are saying.
But personally I like Rabbi Lazer Brodys approach which attempts to see the good in all Jews, and trying to bring them back to more mitzvah observance. I realize that Rabbi Bar Chayim has a different approach.
Huh? Rav bar hayim doesn't disagree with bringing Jews back to mitzvah observance!
In fact when he warns Jews against falling for charlatans or heresies about messiah, he is trying to make sure these everyday Jews stay on the right pasth observing the mitzvahs.