Torah and Jewish Idea > Torah and Jewish Idea
Breakdown of the Halakhic System - Two Earth-Shattering Shiurim - Exclusive
Lubab:
--- Quote from: q_q_ on June 30, 2008, 07:54:01 PM ---
--- Quote from: Lubab on June 30, 2008, 07:48:13 PM ---
You misundersand. I'm not basing myself on that list at all. I'm just saying the same way Pinchas could be called Eliyahu so too Hagar can be called Keturah becacuse she was acting like her. I've proven it's a way that the sages talk sometimes.
What is so difficult to understand about that?
--- End quote ---
very easy to understand, but one doesn't accept any idea that one can understand.
your ideas are not acceptable, because it's all made up to allow you to believe some nonsense that the rabbis never disagreed.
So what's your proof that sages refer to A with the name of B, when they act the same.
Anything other than the case of the arizal's list? In his list, A is referred to as B, because it's a reincarnation (of mission you say, ok). That's a kabbalistic thing, reincarnation of mission. Not a logical rule that if 2 people act the same then you can refer to A as B.
You just make things up here. Your mind is all over the place, like a bull in a china shop.
--- End quote ---
My proof is Pinchas Hu Eliezer. Why do you think every instance of this must be in the Arizal's list?
Just because it's in kabbalah doesn't mean it's not logical. It's extremely logical anyone who doesn't think so dosn't know how to learn it right. It's talking about reality. The sages spoke this way about Elijah and we know as an empirical matter that a person's actions say a lot more about a person than their external given name who they may not live up to at all. So it's logical that the wise sages will often call a person by their "real name" the one that represents their behavior when appropriate.
So there's no reason not to say that might be what Rashi is doing here.
I can take horse to water but can't make it drink...if you don't want to accept it that's fine. But if you want to insist that there CAN BE NO RECONCILATION of these sources then you have a lot of work to do proving every possible way to understand what Chazal are telling us and showing how each one is incompible with the other.
Bottom line: if you are not willing to open your mind to the possiblity that these sources are compatible you won't understand. Will is higer than intellect and plays it like a puppet. If you are open to the possiblity you'll search and find the truth of each statement. What can I tell you? It's up to you.
DownwithIslam:
I will tell you the truth, I did not scroll to the beginning of this thread to see what the disagreement was about but it its clear that lubab is being spoken to like he is a muslim or something. Its fine to have a disagreement but lets not make the atmosphere one which anyone in the discussion no longer feels comfortable.
q_q_:
--- Quote from: DownwithIslam on June 30, 2008, 08:08:41 PM ---I will tell you the truth, I did not scroll to the beginning of this thread to see what the disagreement was about but it its clear that lubab is being spoken to like he is a muslim or something.
--- End quote ---
yeah well you're wrong
DownwithIslam:
--- Quote from: q_q_ on June 30, 2008, 08:12:26 PM ---
--- Quote from: DownwithIslam on June 30, 2008, 08:08:41 PM ---I will tell you the truth, I did not scroll to the beginning of this thread to see what the disagreement was about but it its clear that lubab is being spoken to like he is a muslim or something.
--- End quote ---
yeah well you're wrong
--- End quote ---
I see him being respectful but people aren't being respectful to him. I am not directing this at anyone in particular, I am just talking about the aura this thread gives off.
q_q_:
--- Quote from: Lubab on June 30, 2008, 08:07:20 PM ---<snip>
Bottom line: if you are not willing to open your mind to the possiblity that these sources are compatible you won't understand. Will is higer than intellect and plays it like a puppet. If you are open to the possiblity you'll search and find the truth of each statement. What can I tell you? It's up to you.
--- End quote ---
so you're willing to go against the plain meaning of what all these rabbis wrote.
suppose rabbi A says X. And you accept X.
Then as soon as Rabbi B appears and says something that appears to contradict rabbi A.
You then reinterpret Rabbi A and Rabbi B, rejecting the plain meaning of both of them.
If rabbi B had never said anything, or if you had not heard of RAbbi B, then you would have accepted the plain meaning of Rabbi A.
You look at everything as if it has been said by the same rabbi.
So. What if there is a time gap of 100 years.
Does that mean that all of Rabbi A's students take him for what he says. Then 100 years after, Rabbi B says something. And so descendents of students of Rabbi A have to reject their former view that they were taught, as they understood it.
The fact that you have to change your interpretation of Rabbi A each time another rabbi speaks on the subject, and then accept no rabbi for his plain meaning. Is just so blatantly irrational. It means you change your position the whole time.. You don't take any of them seriously.
side note-
Besides chassidic rebbes. Did all the rabbis that had this ruach hakodesh power live before the Baal Shem Tov?
'cos if they lived after then you'd have to reinterpret chabad teachings rejecting any plain meanings in light of those that have apparently contradicted accepted chabad teaching.
second side note- I know of no chabad rabbi that takes this extreme view tht you have.. that no rabbis between the talmud and the taz disagreed..
If you have an exact quote and reference, from that shulchan aruch harav that you mentioned.. that would be interesting , i could put it to some askmoses scholar. There are one or two good ones.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version