Breakdown of the Halakhic System - Two Earth-Shattering Shiurim - Exclusive

[judeanoncapta]

I post the link to the first shiur which is available on the machonshilo website

http://machonshilo.org/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_download/gid,58/Itemid,64/

The second shiur is not on the website and I post it as a JTF Torah section exclusive.

http://www.2shared.com/file/3491971/3aaff66/Why_Rabbis_Cant_Decide-lomdus-postmodernism.html

These two shiurim really show how badly the Halakhic system has broken down and what we need to do to revive it.

[q_q_]

I just added them here too

normally with rapidshare I zip them, because they can make an individual wait before downloading many files consecutively).

as a backup, rapidshare is more reliable than many others.

megaupload is quite reliable but some of the adverts might offend some members..

http://rapidshare.com/files/124805771/Lomdus-BethYoseph-Postmodernism.mp3.html

http://rapidshare.com/files/124805715/Why_Rabbis_Can_t_Decide-lomdus-postmodernism.mp3.html

[q_q_]

Is that second one from the old website?

was it ever public?

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Great to have you back, judeanoncapta.   These may be a bit advanced for me but they sound very interesting so I will check these out.

[judeanoncapta]

Is that second one from the old website?

was it ever public?

No, it was never public. I asked Rav Bar Hayim for it and he put it on my flash drive and let me take it.
Now that I am here and can actually attend the shiurim personally, I get alot of exclusives. I actually have the third shiur in this series but it needs editing, I can give it to you once I am done.

[q_q_]

thanks.. this is fantastic, and I can't wait to hear the 3 oaths one.

[judeanoncapta]

thanks.. this is fantastic, and I can't wait to hear the 3 oaths one.

He doesn't mention the three oaths explicitly but his explanation of the midrash that says that Moshe killed the egyptian using the name of Hashem explains the three oaths quite well.

[q_q_]

thanks.. this is fantastic, and I can't wait to hear the 3 oaths one.

He doesn't mention the three oaths explicitly but his explanation of the midrash that says that Moshe killed the egyptian using the name of Hashem explains the three oaths quite well.

I will listen to his argument. 

It sounds like his argument might be based on the assumption that halacha as we had it in the gemara is the same as halacha at the time of moshe.

If that is the case, then the following is relevant. If not then it is just an interesting thing.

I did hear from an/the unreliable maimonidean, that that is not the case(i.e. moshe did not follow halacha like in the gemara. ). And for example the gemara about being killed rather than disobeying a custom and causing a chillul hashem..  (I had asked him about that in relation to chanukah), he said it was written at a time after chanukah. He would say that halacha developed.

Charedim though do make that assumption(that the avot or any biblical characters, kept the halacha of gemara) . Infact, they might even go as far as saying they kept the laws in the shulchan aruch or araba turim. I did read an article in the jewish tribune (an agudat yisroel paper in britain) that explained how avraham in purchasing the cave for sarah, was actually doing what he did in complete accordance with, and because of, the laws in choshen mishpat.

[q_q_]

ok.. I just listened to it.. [1]

judea, that link to the 3 oaths was very well spotted

so.. I found the thing about moshe, and  second lecture, 27min in.

For the benefit of others I will state his argument here.. perhaps editting it to add more..

I'm not adding much here... not really aruging with it . Just presenting it in text form.. And it's not the plain text of his argument.. I just listened to it once and only retained a small amount.

judea--   I guess it's pretty bad though if midrash - midrashic books, are a mixture of the siniatic and deliberately made up temporal things.
And the aggada in gemara..is any aggada in gemara from sinai? It would be a shame if that style of aggada is mixed up with anything siniatic.
 
What is below is more for others who didn't hear the shiur.
He gave some examples of  old teachings or traditions(he was suggesting these particular traditions are not sinaiatic). 
One was Moshe killing the egyptian(that's pshat).  Nothing in the pshat suggests anything magical. The egyptian was beating a jew, and Moshe saw it and killed the egyptian.  There is a teaching(prob midrash) that he killed the egyptian with the shem hameforesh(a special divine name with powerful qualities for those that know how to use it).    Rabbi Bar Hayyim argues that Moshe killed the egyptian normally. And that Many centuries later, when jews were in Galus, and could not relate to the story, and were looking for what they could learn from the story,  a chacham came up with a story that moshe killed him with the shem hameforesh. And he did so in order to teach  the masses to sit through their persecution.. Because sometimes, when things are bad in history, the evil regime is too strong, you can't fight it and have to sit it out.  It's safer that way..  And eventually the regime crumbles. As happened to the romans.  (he did try fighting the romans in the time of Rabbi Akiva - when he presumed that bar kochba was the messiah, but many jews died)
He gives another example. Of the story of rabbi akiva's students dying. THe story is that they died of a plage that causes asphyxiation. Due to their sin of not speaking to each other respectfully. Some huge number died (10,000 or so?).  Rabbi Bar Hayyim argues, or points out, that this is problematic.  Why such a severe punishment, and of all the jews, why rabbi akiva's students. They would have had better middot(character traits) than most of klal(congregation of) yisrael.
Rabbi Bar Hayyim then provides a source.. and argues from it (in light of the unbelievability of the above story) that they died in the revolt against the romans. This is far more believable and historically likely.
And he argues that the story that they died of that medical plague due to that sin, was made up to to give yeshiva bochers something they could relate to   - and perhaps to them or keep them not picking up swords and fighting oppressors. (and they were probably right that it was safer not to. If they had no chance doing so, like in galus against a strong regime with a well armed army)

He then mentioned the bows and arrows that kids play with on lab b'omer, and a kabbalistic reason that he didn't translate.   I have heard a reason that supports his  idea to the extent of his other examples..
note- rabbi bar hayyim said (I think quoting the ben ish chai), that there is no source for rabbi shimon bar yochai dying on lab b'omer.
I heard somewhat of a reason given , that  rabbi shimon bar yochai  died on lab bomer, and during his lifetime there was no rainbow. The rainbow is a reminder from G-d that he will not destroy the world,  and if there is a perfect tzaddik there is no need for such a sign.
Rabbi Bar Hayyim suggests the the idea of the bow and arrow came about from the revolt against the romans, which was a historical event. It was commemoriating it (I doubt they would have had much to celebrate though! )

So there is this general idea, of aggadic material in gemara, pehaps even midrashim, being made up in order to modify the behaviour of the people for the period in which they lived.

Personally.. I am not sure.. I wouldn't put it past rabbis of today.. I heard of one rosh yeshiva who would make things up to emphasise things. He told some high school kids that if they don't go to yeshiva, they're not jewish.  And he told his yeshiva kids that if they don't daven with a minyan, then their prayer will not be accepted. Interestingly, all his students went to daven with a minyan, whereas students in other yeshivot were more lax about it.  It is dissapointing to think that rabbis of gemara times did that though,
 
There is an idea, particualrly in charedi circles, of getting people to do more mitzvot, by nook or crook. They have camps where they entice kids (typically religious kids from religious homes) entice them with table tennis and games and teach them torah (though they'd probably be enticed by torah anyway!).
Aish also, they have these incredible trips to remote parts of the world, as psychology, in order to get kids to reflect on their life, and then they provide them with arguments for the torah. The irreligious kids themselves know they're going on such a trip, but they just go for the trip, and don't think they will comeback religious! some do!  Lubavitch accost secularly dressed jewish-looking people in the street , asking them if they put on teffilin, and if not then they try to get them to put them on.

so judea's argument or suggestion, is that the 3 oaths are an aggadic story made up to influence the behaviour of jews at that time. And perhaps of many times. (as opposed to being strict teachings that we are bound by and must follow without exception )

[1]
judea and I were on the same "page".. But for those that didn't realise..  When I was referring to the shiur relevant to the 3 oaths, this was a reference not to shiurim in this thread, but to a comment judea made in another thread where he linked to 2 shiurim.
it was a spin off from a discussion about rabbi dovid gottlieb of ohr
http://jtf.org/forum_english/index.php?topic=22036.0

and the shiurim  there were

Part 1
http://machonshilo.org/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_download/gid,49/Itemid,64/

Part 2
http://machonshilo.org/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_download/gid,50/Itemid,64/

 

[judeanoncapta]

q_q_, I am very impressed.

You are a very perceptive guy. I like your breakdown of the shiur.

I don't feel disappointed that Rabbis at the time of the Talmud made certain things up to influence behaviour for two powerful reasons.

1) It was a matter of life and death. They had two revolts, each one more disastrous than the next. Any Rabbi worth his salt would try to calm the rebellious Jews down, to make sure Jews stay alive at all.

2) That is the way of Midrashim. Read Maimonides on this subject. He and almost all Rishonim relate to Midrashim as parables to give over moral lessons. Only in recent times have there been Rabbis who claim that Midrashim are to be taken literally. This is a rather new development.

[q_q_]

q_q_, I am very impressed.

You are a very perceptive guy. I like your breakdown of the shiur.

I don't feel disappointed that Rabbis at the time of the Talmud made certain things up to influence behaviour for two powerful reasons.

1) It was a matter of life and death. They had two revolts, each one more disastrous than the next. Any Rabbi worth his salt would try to calm the rebellious Jews down, to make sure Jews stay alive at all.

2) That is the way of Midrashim. Read Maimonides on this subject. He and almost all Rishonim relate to Midrashim as parables to give over moral lessons. Only in recent times have there been Rabbis who claim that Midrashim are to be taken literally. This is a rather new development.

thanks for the compliments, though I don't like compliements!


with the revolts.. I guess they had 1 successful one (chanukah) when israel was under the greeks. Then when the romans conquered it, they had 2 unsuccessful revolts against the romans..
note for others - this page was useful http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Palestine

 
I think they could have done it without making up a story..

And if even originally, it was indeed a parable , and understood as a parable, then it was only relevant to the jews at that place, at that time, and so why include it in the gemara to be studied for thousands of years. Something so temporal should not have been included And belief that the 3 oaths were real and applicable in any exile, was a big factor in the holocaust.

Some midrashim are real stories, some are not. Though all of them teach something.
So saying all midrashim are in the same non-literal bag is not quite accurate.

The question is of course ok, let's they are not literal, but what do they teach. 
You are the first person to have offered a good answer to that. Answering what they teach/taught.

The following suggests that they are not made up.

It seems from this link, that the RAMBAM in iggeres teiman considered that in song of songs, king solomon allegorically made the jewish people swear an oath. 
Of course, this has many similarities to the 3 oaths. The one described by the RAMBAM seems to involve not going to israel en masse and rising up against the nation there. And of course the 3 oaths themselves link to te same pasuk/pasukim in Song of songs.

interesting that according gil student, the satmar said they don't apply
 
http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2005/05/religious-zionism-debate-iv.html
"
The Rambam, in his Iggeres Teiman (ch. 4, Qafah edition, p. 55), writes:
Because Shlomo knew with Divine inspiration that this nation, once it is ensnared in exile, will plot to awaken before the appropriate time and will be destroyed through this and will fall into troubles, he warned about this and made it vow -- allegorically (al derekh mashal) -- and said, "I adjure you, O you daughters of Jerusalem" (Song of Songs 2:7).
The Satmar Rav finds this significant: The great Rambam explicitly quotes the Three Oaths! However, the Rambam states that they are allegorical. The Satmar Rav (Va-Yoel Moshe, Ma'amar Gimmel Shevu'os, ch. 36, in the Ashkenazi 5760 edition, p. 47) explains the allegorical aspect of these oaths as meaning that, in truth, the oaths are only binding on the generation that took the oaths (his reasoning is actually much more elaborate). Therefore, these are not legally binding oaths, "only" allegorical but still very serious matters
"

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

q_q_

I remember vaguely from when I read the iggeres teiman, Rambam was referring specifically to a few false messiahs that had popped up and were causing massive casualties on groups of Jews who would follow them trying to slaughter the Muslims on their way to Israel and getting absolutely housed.  After several times of this happening, and considering the then- current status of the Moslem empire (which was dominant at that time), he was rebuking these various false messiah groups in their weak attempts to bring redemption by getting behind a false messiah and slaughtering Arabs.    Had the reality then been what it is today, would Rambam cite the song of songs in the face of Israeli victory over Arabs and the context of the shoah?   I tend to think the contextual reality would play a big role in the Maimonidean prescription. 

"will plot to awaken before the appropriate time and will be destroyed through this and will fall into troubles"  - seems to refer to actual failures that we had under a few false messiahs in the 800-1200's.  But what about the more recent adventures which did not destroy us, while Europe did?  Just a thought.  In general, I know close to nothing.

[q_q_]

q_q_

I remember vaguely from when I read the iggeres teiman, Rambam was referring specifically to a few false messiahs that had popped up and were causing massive casualties on groups of Jews who would follow them trying to slaughter the Muslims on their way to Israel and getting absolutely housed.  After several times of this happening, and considering the then- current status of the Moslem empire (which was dominant at that time), he was rebuking these various false messiah groups in their weak attempts to bring redemption by getting behind a false messiah and slaughtering Arabs.    Had the reality then been what it is today, would Rambam cite the song of songs in the face of Israeli victory over Arabs and the context of the shoah?   I tend to think the contextual reality would play a big role in the Maimonidean prescription. 

"will plot to awaken before the appropriate time and will be destroyed through this and will fall into troubles"  - seems to refer to actual failures that we had under a few false messiahs in the 800-1200's.  But what about the more recent adventures which did not destroy us, while Europe did?  Just a thought.  In general, I know close to nothing.

There are many variables.
What the RAMBAM Was telling the jews of yemen was not to follow false messiahs.

But based on that quote which I gave, quoting king solomon, the meaning might be to not go up en masse - with or without a false messiah.  Certainly zionism is all about awakening the love (and going up there en masse).

Now, whether after 1967, the RAMBAM - in his relationship with the state of israel - would be a satmar, an agudat yisroel or a religious zionist, or some mixture, in relation to israel, we don't know.

Taking the RAMBAM's King Solomon quote seriously, the question then comes.. How then could we have come to Israel the second time.
(we were exiled twice, so we entered twice.  Our first stay, we came in at Joshua's time. Our second stay , we came in long after King Solomon made that statement)

I have heard that this entry for the beginning of the second stay, is an argument for religious zionism.

I don't know how the RAMBAM would have answered that. But he did seem to quote King Solomon about not awakening the love.. As if they were under this allegorical oath..

Was the RAMBAM referring to the 3 oaths ? If yes, then that's an issue. If no, then still he is referring to a similar oath and applying it to them.

There are way too many variables here..

It may be that he is not taking the oath in song of songs as applicable as an oath on the whole jewish people forever, but he is just using that pasuk in his letter to them, as a rhetorical device..    and he is only applying it to the jews of yemen at that time.

An example of an extreme form of that kind of rhetoric.. somebody did once show me a book called Book of the honeycomb's flow by judah messer leon, and in it the rabbi there writes a letter discussing some wicked person that is trying to ruin him, but every sentence of the letter is a verse of tenach. Quite an astounding style.  The context of the verse had absolutely 0 relevance to the letter.   It may be here, one verse was quoted. The context of the verse isn't totally relevant, in the sense that the time it was taken is not relevant. The RAMBAM is just repeating what King Solomon said there, and applying it only to the jews of yemen at that time.  And that doesn't mean that he is saying it applies elsewhere.

Then you have the association that verse has with the 3 oaths, one could say yes, the gemara relates them to that verse. But it's just a hook.  And the RAMBAM was not and did not mean to tell them they are bound by the 3 oaths.
 (though he happens to be advising them with a similar message).

And one could say that he wasn't even telling them not to go up en masse, because they were not even thinking about it without a messiah.  He was just telling them not to follow a fase messiah, not to follow the false messiah up to israel.

To an extent, one could go either way on this one..
We know for sure what he was telling them. About not following a false messiah.
But whether his argument to them applies elsewhere, that is another matter.

note- given how the secular israeli govt stripped the torah from the jews of yemen, maybe they should have still abided by the letter the RAMBAM sent..   And maybe they thought they were, I read of how excited they were. Maybe they thought the planes were a messianic prophecy being fulfilled(wings of eagles).  Maybe they were right! There are just -so- many variables..

 

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Interesting.

It may be that he is not taking the oath in song of songs as applicable as an oath on the whole jewish people forever, but he is just using that pasuk in his letter to them, as a rhetorical device..    and he is only applying it to the jews of yemen at that time.

This was a smart way of putting it, and that was kind of what I was alluding to though not spelling it out as well...

[Lubab]

If one learns properly (using the methods of the Yud Gimel Midos SheHatorah Nidreshes Bahem) you can find more than one interpretation of of Talmudic passage and they can ALL be 100% correct and this will NOT lead to the legitimization of Christianity, homosexuality or any of those philsophies G-d forbid.

If learning is being done in a way that legitimizes such forbidden opinions than it is quite obvious that the person is not learning Torah at all.


When we give a Psak we give it for a given tiime and place and that does not mean the other opinion is wrong. The famous example of this is Beis Hillel and Shammai. We pasken like Hillel now but like Shammai LeAtid Lavo.

This does not mean one does not care about the Truth of the matter. Because in order to get to the truth of the matter you can't just say one opinon is wrong and the other is right. That is almost never the truth. When you find the Truth it will bring out the essence of both sides which at first appear contradictory but in truth are not contradictary at all.

If I had never learned the Torah of the Lubavitcher Rebbe I would agree with R' Chayim. But if you learn the Rebbe's sichot you will see how he time and time again brings out a machloket, shows how they cannot seemily be able to coexist, but then brings a third higher perspective on the matter which shows that both opinions are only bringing out different aspects of the same truth.

The bottom line is summed up perfectly when our sages said: Shei Ketuvim Hamachishim Zeh Et Zeh Ad Sheyavo Hashlishi VeYachriah Beneihem. That is the proper method of learning.

[Lubab]

To help explain this further:

All machloket is rooted in one fundamental machloket between severity (Shammai) and kindness (Hillel).

Which one is True? Severity or Kindness? In truth this is an invalid question. This the same as asking: is kindness a good thing or a bad thing. If you answer yes or no to that question your answer is not truth.

It's a ridiculous as someone asking is a knife good? Or what's better a knife or a fork? Those are the wrong questions. The question is what is a knife and a fork good for?

Ein Davar Sh'ein Lo Shaa (Pirkei Avot). A knife is good if used properly. A fork is good if used properly in the right time in the right way. Both are bad if used at the wrong time in the right way.

So too with kindesss and severity. Each can be good or bad depending on the situation and how they are used. Both are only tools.
The objective truth which R' Chaim wants to find is the inner goal that we want to acheive with kindness or severity and that does not change depending on which tool you are using.

e.g. if your goal is to raise your  child to be a mentch both kindess and severity are not contradictory anymore. Both are used as mere tools to acheive the same goal when needed, in the right proportion etc. The objective goal (raising the kid to be a mentch) does not change.

So truth looks like this:
 .
. .

You will always have the two contradictary extremes in every situation and then you willl have the inner point behind both of them (what both were created to accomplish which is the objective truth which never changes and unites both extremes and shows how they don't really contradict any more than a fork contradicts a knife.

This is beauty of Torah. It unites the subjective and the objective. It is flexible than postmodernism and  yet at the same time more scientific than mathematics and it shows how those two schools of thought don't even contradict.

[q_q_]

If one learns properly (using the methods of the Yud Gimel Midos SheHatorah Nidreshes Bahem) you can find more than one interpretation of of Talmudic passage and they can ALL be 100% correct and this will NOT lead to the legitimization of Christianity, homosexuality or any of those philsophies G-d forbid.

Rabbi Yishmael's 13 (yud gimmel) rules , when applicable, apply logically and strictly..

Nothing to do with validating a sea of interpretations where anything not forbidden by the torah is a valid interpetation. These are strict rules with strict conclusions.


And AFAIK they are only applied to interpreting tenach.

Do you have any example of them being used to interpret a gemara?

They are certainly not used in the 3 oaths gemara anyway!!!

This does not mean one does not care about the Truth of the matter. Because in order to get to the truth of the matter you can't just say one opinon is wrong and the other is right. That is almost never the truth. When you find the Truth it will bring out the essence of both sides which at first appear contradictory but in truth are not contradictary at all.
<snip>

There is no logic in saying that in every case when 2 rabbis disagree, the truth is in between them.

And I don't know how this is relevant to an intelligent discussion.

[Lubab]

If one learns properly (using the methods of the Yud Gimel Midos SheHatorah Nidreshes Bahem) you can find more than one interpretation of of Talmudic passage and they can ALL be 100% correct and this will NOT lead to the legitimization of Christianity, homosexuality or any of those philsophies G-d forbid.

Rabbi Yishmael's 13 (yud gimmel) rules , when applicable, apply logically and strictly..

Nothing to do with validating a sea of interpretations where anything not forbidden by the torah is a valid interpetation. These are strict rules with strict conclusions.


And AFAIK they are only applied to interpreting tenach.

Do you have any example of them being used to interpret a gemara?

They are certainly not used in the 3 oaths gemara anyway!!!

This does not mean one does not care about the Truth of the matter. Because in order to get to the truth of the matter you can't just say one opinon is wrong and the other is right. That is almost never the truth. When you find the Truth it will bring out the essence of both sides which at first appear contradictory but in truth are not contradictary at all.
<snip>

There is no logic in saying that in every case when 2 rabbis disagree, the truth is in between them.

And I don't know how this is relevant to an intelligent discussion.

Read carefully what I wrote about the source of machloket. Your answer is there. The Talmud itself states that "elei velue divrei elokim chaim" so if you say "there is no logic in saying that in every case when 2 rabbis disagree the truth is between them" you are calling the Talmud itself illogical. If we are not talking about legitimate Rabbis you are correct, but if we are talking about legitimate Rabbis who used the 13 principles of interpreting the Torah to get to their conclusion then  yes there most certainly is truth between them.

[Lubab]

The folly in this Rabbis perspective is nicely demonstrated when he is quoted from the softmore at YC. He says he thinks he is from YU so it probably should really say YU. In other words  he's assuming because his view that he's from Yeshiva University means that what the paper says is wrong. This is really a lazy way of looking at the world. It's like not understanding something and saying "oh it must be a typo".

In truth YC stands for Yeshiva College which is a division of Yeshiva University. Both are true. He's from Yeshiva University and it's supposed to say "YC". It's just that one someone doesn't have a good grasp on a topic they think the two things are irreconcilable when in fact they are not. Get it?

[Lubab]

The 13 principles are for learning Tanach, but each opinion in the gemarah must be based on a pasuk from Tanach learned with those principles.

[Lubab]

All you need to think about is this: kindness and severity. Which one is truth? When you figure out how to answer that properly this discussion will be over.

[q_q_]

There is also no logic in saying that whenever 2 rabbis disagree.
one is being strict, one is being lenient, and both are right.

It may be the case with hillel and shammai, that one was generally strict, and the other severe, and there is a (an aggadic I guess) tradition that shammai's is for the next world.

That would not apply to every disagreement. Sometimes 2 interpretations cannot be true simultaneously.  
Like, were Hagar and Keturah the same woman or not. (this is not a discussion between hillel and shammai .  But 2 different midrashim. And different rabbis hold differently. Rashi says same.  others say different )

The ideas you are expressing are generalising an example - the example of hillel and shammai -  to ridiculous levels..  IGnore the fact that it's Hillel, ignore the fact that it's Shammai, apply it to every rabbi that disagrees.  Take the tradition that Hillel is true in this world and the Shammai in the next world, and forget about the world bit. Just say every rabbi's position is true.  
It's just nonsense.  
And the idea that every opinions is equally valid is just relativism.. no different from the more modern relativism that all religions are equally true. Or that morality is relative and no one culture is better than another.

Funnily enough.
When I argued with somebody about hagar and keturah, and he said that all opinions are true ..  (most charedim just stop there, with some passage from gemara that they claim says all opinions are true). He then justified himself by saying that in quantum physics, they could both be true, in 2 different universes. For example a cat can be dead and alive at the same time.   I think he probably misunderstand quantum physics, or was afraid to admit that he couldn't answer the question, but really his answer takes the mick. And I don't think quantum physics was what the authors of the gemara had in mind or what they meant.

[Lubab]

There is also no logic in saying that whenever 2 rabbis disagree.
one is being strict, one is being lenient, and both are right.

It may be the case with hillel and shammai, that one was generally strict, and the other severe, and there is a (an aggadic I guess) tradition that shammai's is for the next world.

That would not apply to every disagreement. Sometimes 2 interpretations cannot be true simultaneously. 
Like, were Hagar and Keturah the same woman or not.

The ideas you are expressing are generalising an example - the example of hillel and shammai -  to ridiculous levels..  IGnore the fact that it's Hillel, ignore the fact that it's Shammai, apply it to every rabbi that disagrees.  Take the tradition that Hillel is true in this world and the Shammai in the next world, and forget about the world bit. Just say every rabbi's position is true. 
It's just nonsense.   
And the idea that every opinions is equally valid is just relativism.. no different from the more modern relativism that all religions are equally true. Or that morality is relative and no one culture is better than another.

Funnily enough.
When I argued with somebody about hagar and keturah, and he said that all opinions are true ..  (most charedim just stop there, with some passage from gemara that they claim says all opinions are true). He then justified himself by saying that in quantum physics, they could both be true, in 2 different universes. For example a cat can be dead and alive at the same time.   I think he probably misunderstand quantum physics, or was afraid to admit that he couldn't answer the question, but really his answer takes the mick. And I don't think quantum physics was what the authors of the gemara had in mind or what they meant.

You keep saying "every Rabbi". I don't mean "every Rabbi". I mean a Rabbi who has used the 13 principles properly to derive his view.

[q_q_]

You keep saying "every Rabbi". I don't mean "every Rabbi". I mean a Rabbi who has used the 13 principles properly to derive his view.

But this is not relevant here.

There is no case here of a rabbi using the 13 principles.

[q_q_]

The folly in this Rabbis perspective

which rabbi? which perspective?

is nicely demonstrated when he is quoted from the softmore at YC.

no idea what you are referring to.