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

[Lubab]

And we are not talking about relatavism here: We are talking about this:
 .
. .

See the diagram. You must be able to see two sides and then see the "third" view which unites them both. This is a higher way of looking at the world than both relatavism and strict conservatism. It sees both philosophies as being expressions of the same Truth.

As far as whether Keturah and Hagar could be the same woman is you look deeper into the topic and study it further you WILL find that both opinions on that matter can be correct. I have not studied the hasidic philosophy on that particular topic but I can if you would like and get back to you and show you how neither opinion is really wrong.

But don't take the lazy way out. Study deeper before you reject one side.

[Lubab]

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.

I'm talking about the Rabbi who gave the shiur advertized on this thread.

[Lubab]

I'm not blowing things out of proportion when I compare all Talmudic debate to Hillel and Shammai. Every Rabbi of the Talmud derived their views from one school of thought or the other.

[judeanoncapta]

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.

I'm talking about the Rabbi who gave the shiur advertized on this thread.

It's ironic, Lubab, that in trying to disprove Rav Bar Hayim you end up showing us how correct he is. You are precisely what he is talking about. You are Post-Modern in your outlook towards Torah. You beleive that all opinions are equally correct and are just "true" or "false" in it's social context and time period.

You refer to Rav Bar Hayim's "folly". But if it is a folly, it is a folly shared by Maimonides, Nachmanides, the Maharshal, the Rif, the Baal HaMaor and pretty much every Rabbi that lived up until the time of the Beth Yosef. He is in good company.

I do find it ironic that you describe the classic way of studying Torah employed by all Tanaaim, Amoraim, Geonim and Rishonim as folly, while lauding your own Post-Modern view as correct and true.

It is precisely because many people think like you that they end up taking on a thousand foolish and unnecessary Humroth and because disillusioned with Judaism as a result. Since they think like you and cannot say that any opinion is incorrect, they just end up taking the stricter opinion in EVERY SINGLE Halakhic issue.

Then they twist themselves into a pretzel trying to be "Yoitzeh" all the views and make themselves miserable at the same time. Your view of Halakha, Lubab, which is unfortunately shared by many, is incorrect and leads to terrible results.

Think about the average Baal Teshuva having to endure a Chabad-style Pesah and you will see what I mean.

[q_q_]

I'm talking about the Rabbi who gave the shiur advertized on this thread.

The discussion before, was about the 3 oaths and centered around some other shiurim.. (as I mentioned in an early post in the thread, as a footnote).

But the shiurim judea posted in this thread were a discussion about how when studying in yeshiva, you are taught to follow all the discussion in the gemara.
Then when studying at a higher level, for example to be a rabbi, you are told to just accept the positions of various poskim, and you are not taught how they get from the gemara to those halachic positions. So people debate positions in gemara, but not positions amongst poskim.

That would be a summary of the 2 shiurim judea mentioned in this thread.
from rabbi bar hayyim.

His point was a problem with the way studying halacha - from the  poskim, is done at yeshivot

[judeanoncapta]

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.

Not true.

Many opinions are Mesorah and Some are Sevarah.

Since anything derived from the 13 principles is ALSO considered D'Oraitha, all Rabbinic opinions would be considered D'Oraitha if they were based on a pasuk from Tanach learned with those principles, and they are not considered D'Oraitha so your statement unravels itself.

[Lubab]

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.

I'm talking about the Rabbi who gave the shiur advertized on this thread.

It's ironic, Lubab, that in trying to disprove Rav Bar Hayim you end up showing us how correct he is. You are precisely what he is talking about. You are Post-Modern in your outlook towards Torah. You beleive that all opinions are equally correct and are just "true" or "false" in it's social context and time period.

You refer to Rav Bar Hayim's "folly". But if it is a folly, it is a folly shared by Maimonides, Nachmanides, the Maharshal, the Rif, the Baal HaMaor and pretty much every Rabbi that lived up until the time of the Beth Yosef. He is in good company.

I do find it ironic that you describe the classic way of studying Torah employed by all Tanaaim, Amoraim, Geonim and Rishonim as folly, while lauding your own Post-Modern view as correct and true.

It is precisely because many people think like you that they end up taking on a thousand foolish and unnecessary Humroth and because disillusioned with Judaism as a result. Since they think like you and cannot say that any opinion is incorrect, they just end up taking the stricter opinion in EVERY SINGLE Halakhic issue.

Then they twist themselves into a pretzel trying to be "Yoitzeh" all the views and make themselves miserable at the same time. Your view of Halakha, Lubab, which is unfortunately shared by many, is incorrect and leads to terrible results.

Think about the average Baal Teshuva having to endure a Chabad-style Pesah and you will see what I mean.

If someone is taking on every chumrah possible that is also wrong, just for the record.
You need to have a Rov who decides on these issues definitely, but this is irrelevant to the question of whether another Jew with another legitimate Rov can be right. Why does it say "Aseh Lecha Rov"? Why don't we all just figure out which opinion is right and follow that one, according to your view.

But your Rov cannot just be what to you seems more logical. Because you must recognize and I'm sure you'll agree that these Rabbis of the Talmud were smarter and a lot more logical than all three of us put together? Wouldn't you agree with that? Or do you think you are in some ways smarter than people like Rashi?

I think the Rambam is on my side and I can prove it. What I'm saying is the exact same thing he says about the 3 groups who learn Torah. The third group which is correct contains and unites the views of the other two. That's the way it works.

[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.

Not true.

Many opinions are Mesorah and Some are Sevarah.

Since anything derived from the 13 principles is ALSO considered D'Oraitha, all Rabbinic opinions would be considered D'Oraitha if they were based on a pasuk from Tanach learned with those principles, and they are not considered D'Oraitha so your statement unravels itself.

You are correct some are based on sevarah or mesorah, I do agree with that but that doesn't contradict what I"m saying. A mesorah would be quoting someone else who must have used the 13 principles and sevarah is what is logical, but the thirteen principles really are the essence of logic so they are not really two separate things.

All valid Rabbinic opinions do in a sense carry Biblical weight because the Torah commands that we follow their directives "Lo Sasur Min Hadavar...".

[judeanoncapta]

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.

Ludicrous.

That statement " Elu W'Elu Divre Elokim Hayim" was made about certain specific issues and points. extending that statement to encompass every statement in the Talmud is INSANE and is purely Post-Modern for it's own sake.

You conveniently leave out another common statement that the Talmudh is famous for saying while rejecting another opinion "K'Ashan L'Einayim uK'Homess L'Shinaim" This is like smoke to the eyes and vinegar to the teeth. You left it out because it is the exact opposite of your post-modern view of the Torah.

[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.

Ludicrous.

That statement " Elu W'Elu Divre Elokim Hayim" was made about certain specific issues and points. extending that statement to encompass every statement in the Talmud is INSANE and is purely Post-Modern for it's own sake.

You conveniently leave out another common statement that the Talmudh is famous for saying while rejecting another opinion "K'Ashan L'Einayim uK'Homess L'Shinaim" This is like smoke to the eyes and vinegar to the teeth. You left it out because it is the exact opposite of your post-modern view of the Torah.

You don't learn Torah. You learn only half the Torah, the half that you think is logical. That is really just a pursuit of worshiping your own brain, nothing to do with G-d or Judaism so let's just keep our facts straight.

To one who holds like Hillel, Shammai is indeed K'Ashan LeEnayim..." You must first grasp the contradiction fully before one can come along and show the third truth that is higher than them both.

I'm not saying that these Rabbis always at that time understood how their opinions were both true.. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. But certainly in the Torah of the Lubavitcher Rebbe it has been revealed how most all of these contradictions can be resolved so that we can look back and see how they didn't really contradict even if at the time they thought they did.

I'd like an answer to my earlier question: do you JNC think you or your Rabbi are in some respects smarter than someone like Rashi?
(You must if you believe you are the ones to decide whether one of his views should be rejected or accepted).

[judeanoncapta]

You are correct some are based on sevarah or mesorah, I do agree with that but that doesn't contradict what I"m saying. A mesorah would be quoting someone else who must have used the 13 principles and sevarah is what is logical, but the thirteen principles really are the essence of logic so they are not really two separate things.

All valid Rabbinic opinions do in a sense carry Biblical weight because the Torah commands that we follow their directives "Lo Sasur Min Hadavar...".

That Torah commandment applies only to a Sanhedrin. If it applied to every individual opinion then it would be a D'Oraitha commandment to put on tefilin on Shabbath because Rabbah Bar Bar Hana is certainly a valid source. It would ALSO be a D'Oraitha commandment NOT to put on tefilin on Shabbath because of the valid opinion of the Hakhamim. Perhaps a real Post-Modern philosopher can wrap his brain around that but I would rather go with the tried and true method of study described by the Ramban in his Haqdamah to Milhamoth Hashem, the Maharshal in his Haqdamah to Yam Shel Shlomo, the Rambam in his Haqdamah to Mishne Torah and all the great sages over the ages before this modern era.

[Lubab]

As an aside: is this Rabbi Bar Chayim the same one as the one on mesora.org?

[q_q_]

<snip>
A mesorah would be quoting someone else who must have used the 13 principles and sevarah is what is logical, but the thirteen principles really are the essence of logic so they are not really two separate things.

All valid Rabbinic opinions do in a sense carry Biblical weight because the Torah commands that we follow their directives "Lo Sasur Min Hadavar...".

mesorah is tradition.

and I assume sevarah means reasoning. Though I am not sure.

1) rabbi yishmael's 13 rules are Not logic.
infact, rabbi dovid gottlieb, former prof philosophy and PhD in mathematical deduction, said they are not logical.  
I wouldn't put it like that.. They are just rules.  Applied logically.

This is a book on formal logic. I am familiar with the professor that wrote it.

Proo f and Disproof in Formal Logic: An Introduction for Programmers (Oxford Texts in Logic) (Paperback)
by Richa rd Bornat (Author)

Rules like this are the essence of logic. And they can be written using mathematical symbols.

A--->B    A
-----------
    B


an example would be that
I believe that when A happens, B happens.
I believe A,

So I conclude B

That is nothing like the 13 rules.

The 13 principles are ways of deriving the encoded meanings that the author (G-d) encoded into the Torah.  For example, a general statement followed by an emumeration of particulars e.g.  
Don't steal, don't steal apples, oranges, pears.
Has a different meaning to
Don't steal apples, oranges, pairs, don't steal.

The rule that these are different, is not "the essence of logic". It's not logic at all.

It's just a rule, applied logically.


2)
Secondly, not every  tradition is derived from the 13 rules, infact I think you'd find that very few are.
I don't think you'd be able to use the 13 rules to conclude that potiphera's testicles were crushed.

Or the tradition that Cain and Abel had a twin sister.
Yes, there is a superfluous word there (Et - direct object marker). But no rule to get from that to the tradition that he had a twin. It is a hint to the tradition. But the source of the tradition is not the superfluous word.
 
3) Rabbinical fence laws are in gemara too, and not derived from those 13. neither are rabbinical mitzvot. You won't derive purim or chanukah from the 13 rules.
 
Infact. I reckon very few of the laws in gemara are derived from the 13..  
I think the malbim had 613 rules, but you still won't get about potiphera's damage, or cain and abel's twin sisters.

Here is an application of rules.. perhaps not of the 13. But you see it is not going to get you creative traditions, fresh stories , that are blatantly not derived.

This is an example of something derived, by rules like rabbi yishmael's. It is quite different to what you suggest. The conclusions cannot be as open ended as you posit. It's just not the ball game that you think it is.


http://www.myjewishlearning.com/holidays/Passover/TO_Pesach_Seder/Matzah_368/matzahfirstnight/matzahfirstnighttexts.htm

Mekhilta, Pischa 8 (Lauterbach)
One verse says "Seven days you shall eat matzah" and one verse says
"Six day you shall eat matzah." How can both of these verses be
maintained? The seventh day was included (in the first verse) but then
excluded (from the second verse). That which is excluded from a more
inclusive statement is meant to teach us about the whole statement. So,
just as on the seventh day it is optional (r'shut), so on all of the
other days, it is optional. Does this mean that it is optional on the
first night also? The verse "In the first month, on the fourteenth day
in the evening, you shall eat matzah" (Exodus 12:18) fixes it as an
obligation (hovah) to eat matzah on the first night.

[q_q_]

As an aside: is this Rabbi Bar Chayim the same one as the one on mesora.org?

no

The mesora one is called Rabbi Moshe Ben Chaim. He is quite conservative except that he is very anti the more "out there" kabbalah, and very openly and unapologetically and unreservedly, anti chabad on his site.

This one is Rabbi Daweed Bar Hayyim

[q_q_]

what do these phrases mentioned mean?

I have the translation for one of them.


"Lo Sasur Min Hadavar...".

"Aseh Lecha Rov"?  make for yourself a rav

"elu v'elu divrei elokim chaim"

[judeanoncapta]

I'd like an answer to my earlier question: do you JNC think you or your Rabbi are in some respects smarter than someone like Rashi?
(You must if you believe you are the ones to decide whether one of his views should be rejected or accepted).

You make Rav Bar Hayim's point so well, I have to thank you, Lubab.

You and those who think like you feel that any Rav from a earlier generation is automatically greater than a Rav from a later generation. This an untruth, as the Rambam writes in his Haqdama to Mishne Torah that if the accepted explanation of the Talmud in one way and a later Beth Din explains it in a different way, we follow the opinion that make the most sense and reject the older explanation.

So, therefore the fact is that MANY Rishonim and Acharonim after Rashi openly disagree with some of his explanations of the Talmudh. I guess they were saying that in certain instances they understood something that Rashi did not or that they were smarter than him atleast in that issue. This may seem like heresy to YOU but it was not considered heresy to them.

The list is endless of Rabbanim who disagree with some of what Rashi says. The Tosafoth who include some of Rashi's grandchildren openly disagree with him on many issues and therefore claim to be smarter than him on that issue. The Rosh, the Tur, The Netziv. As an example, every major Ashkenazi Posek disagrees with his view on how many berakhoth to say on tefilin. I guess they were claiming they were smarter than him on that issue.

This is the way of Torah. A Rav needs to understand the Talmudh fully without just beleiving a certain source blindly. A Rav needs to have the tools and training to understand the Talmudh and everything that he learns must sit well with him. If he thinks Rabbenu Tam is correct on a certain issue and Rashi is wrong, then he needs to follow Rabbenu Tam until he is convinced otherwise. Only a Rav that can make up his own mind on an Halakhic issue is worthy of the Title. A Rav that simply regurgitates the Taz and the Shakh when asked an Halakhic question is not a Rav, he's a record player.

Inherent in your statement,

(You must if you believe you are the ones to decide whether one of his views should be rejected or accepted).

is the idea that my Rav is incapable of deciding whether one of his views should be rejected or accepted. I reject and so does the Rambam this notion out of hand. If my Rav's explanation of the Talmudh makes more sense than Rashi's then we go with his explanation. That is purely and simply the truth according to the Rambam and I might add, all the Rabbanim that came before him.

[judeanoncapta]

You don't learn Torah. You learn only half the Torah, the half that you think is logical. That is really just a pursuit of worshiping your own brain, nothing to do with G-d or Judaism so let's just keep our facts straight.

If I am worshipping my own brain, so were all of the Tanaaim Amoraim Geonim and Rishonim.

Every insult you direct at me is directed towards them as well.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

I think the Rambam is on my side and I can prove it. What I'm saying is the exact same thing he says about the 3 groups who learn Torah. The third group which is correct contains and unites the views of the other two. That's the way it works.

I don't believe this section of Rambam you refer to has any application to your point or the discussion at hand.   If you are using it here, you have changed the meaning of the 3 types of groups he describes!

As I remember, the three groups are 1.  the person who takes every single thing the sages say on the literal simple level and therefore dishonors them by making them out to be simplistic or foolish as in cases where what they say was not meant literally but taken literally would appear to contradict all logic and rational sense.   2.  The person who openly denigrates the sages by saying that they spoke nonsense.   3.  The person who will look deeper and in cases where something seems to contradict common sense/obvious reality, they will find hidden and/or deeper meanings in it that the sages had meant for us.   The third person is the only one who does the sages justice.

But what does this have to do with your point where you say that you take rabbi 1's opinion, take rabbi 2's opinion, both as true and correct, then come to a higher truth that encompasses both - and do this in every single case in the gemara?    I'm not sure how this is related or supported at all by the three types of people in Rambam, unless you refer to something else.

[q_q_]

I think the Rambam is on my side and I can prove it. What I'm saying is the exact same thing he says about the 3 groups who learn Torah. The third group which is correct contains and unites the views of the other two. That's the way it works.

I don't believe this section of Rambam you refer to has any application to your point or the discussion at hand.   If you are using it here, you have changed the meaning of the 3 types of groups he describes!<snip>

this is becoming a bit of a circus.

I have no doubt that lulab will not be able to quote the RAMBAM and show that every opinion is true. Or whatever he is trying to claim.
(though i'm sure he can quote the RAMBA)

But since a few people -here, are familiar with the RAMBAM to which lulab is referring,

is anybody here  - lulab or anybody - able to quote the text ? or at least a reference. And then argue that blah is what it concludes.And not what lulab says.

I have hilchot yesodei hatorah here in english, so if it is from there then I could look it up and type it in.

[judeanoncapta]

Allow me to quote my source from the Rambam.

http://mechon-mamre.org/p/p0000.htm

Paragraph number 33.

33  So a town's residents are not forced to observe the customs of another town, nor is one court told to enact the restrictive legislations of another court in its town.  So too, if one of the Geonim understood that the correct way of the Law was such and such, and it became clear to another court afterwards that this was not the correct way of the Law written in the Talmud, the earlier court is not to be obeyed, but rather what seems more correct, whether earlier or later.

Now, it is incumbent upon Lubab to quote the Rambam that he claims backs him up.

But as far as my quote, one can clearly see that the Rambam does not beleive in the Post Modern view of the Torah and Talmudh that Lubab embraces. It is clear that we follow the explanation of the Talmudh that makes the most logical sense without trying to "unify" or try to explain that the two interpretations are really not arguing.

The greatest problem with Lubab's approach is that if one interpretation says something is forbidden and another interpretation says it is permitted, Lubab would try to explain how they really both permit it or both forbid it. Either way, the attempt to discover the truth is abandoned from the outset and a creative person tries to explain away the truth. This approach simply leads to muddled and untrue Halakhic opinions. The best way is for a Rav to try on his own to understand the Talmudh and then decide which interpretation makes the most sense. That is in the end all human beings can do. Try to perceive the truth and act upon it.

[Lubab]

Okay. There is so much to address since I came back and it is really too much to do in one post.

In these discussions I like to try to keep things simple and stick to the point.
I hope you will read all of this with an open mind.


What we have here is a fundamental disagreement about the nature of machloket.

I'd like to summarize my view on the matter.

I am a Lubavitcher Chassid. I have a tradition from my Rebbe (a Gaon Olam by all legitimate accounts) handed down and recorded in his sefer "Hayom Yom" that every written statement of Chazal from Moshe Rabbeinu all the way through and including the Shach and Taz are written with Ruach Hakodesh. This wasn't the Rebbe's original statement. It was a tradition passed down from his Rebbe passed down originally from the Alter Rebbe, author of Shulchan Aruch HaRav. So this statement comes originally from a great codifier of the entire sea of halacha in a work that I'm sure is respected by your Rabbi and every other legitimate Rabbi you can find today. I don't think anyone would really have the gaul to argue today that they know more about halacha and the nature of machlokes than the Alter Rebbe.

I would be amused to see someone make such a claim but I doubt you'd have the guts. It would be the ultimate display of arrogance and ignorance all wrapped into one.

So we really have a statement from the Alter Rebbe that in each and every statement between these sages, while they may hold different veiwpoints, both are really written with Ruach Hakoshesh. Both are really true.

I've tried my best to explain how this can be so. 

It's not postmodernism. Rather the school of hasidic philosophy shows how this is possible. The school of hasidic philosophy can show how two seemingly irreconcilable views or things can be viewed from a third higher or deeper perspective and once we grasp that perspective (the OBJECTIVE TRUTH-that's why this is not post-modernism) you can see how both those views which you once thought contradict really are just different expressions of the same inner truth much in the way that kindness and severity are both tools to do the right thing. 

So I'm not really arguing with you guys at all.

We have basically three groups of people here.

1. Those whom R' Bar Chayim is attacking who seem to learn with faith that both sides are really right and lose the fundamental belief that there is an objective truth in this world. But they can't really explain to you how both sides are true, they just believe it blindly.
2. You guys. You guys know there is an objective truth. But when faced with a view that appears to your logic to contradict it you reject it to preserve what you believe is the objective truth.
3. The School of the Thought of Chabad Chassidus. This is a third view that included the two above and it involves a three step process.

It first recognizes fully how the two view appear irreconcilble, then it seeks to find the inner truth that underlies both views. And then finally seeks to show how both those opinions which appeared irreconcilable are really just two ways of explaining that inner truth.

Now I said before this can be done retroactively. Even if at the times of the gemarah or even the Rambam they had not seen how their views really unite, we can see how they do with the revelation of hasidic philosophy that was revealed by the Baal Shem Tov.

Most people (if they are lucky) operate in their learning on one or all of the four levels of Pshat Remez Drush or Sod.
If we just learn this way, all the four views do not seem to unite.

Hasidic philosophy seeks the inner truth behind all four of those levels then comes back to explain how all those four levels unite and are really saying the same thing in different words.

I can show you many examples of how this works for anyone who is intersted.

But the proof is really in the pudding.

If the tradition of my Rebbeim about the truth of all those opinions is correct, I, or at least me with the aid of my teacher who is more expert than I in hasidic philosophy should be able to prove to you how any of these opinions do not really contradict upon further reflection.

So let's try this out.

Give me an opinion or a machloket or a certain view of a sage from the Shach and Taz or before that you think is truly irreconcilable.
Give me one opinion that you think must be rejected as invalid and I will with G-d's help try to show you how it really is valid. Logically.

q_q already gave me one about Hagar and Keturah. I hope to get back to him soon once I've spoken with my Rabbi about it.

[Lubab]

Allow me to quote my source from the Rambam.

http://mechon-mamre.org/p/p0000.htm

Paragraph number 33.

33  So a town's residents are not forced to observe the customs of another town, nor is one court told to enact the restrictive legislations of another court in its town.  So too, if one of the Geonim understood that the correct way of the Law was such and such, and it became clear to another court afterwards that this was not the correct way of the Law written in the Talmud, the earlier court is not to be obeyed, but rather what seems more correct, whether earlier or later.

Now, it is incumbent upon Lubab to quote the Rambam that he claims backs him up.

But as far as my quote, one can clearly see that the Rambam does not beleive in the Post Modern view of the Torah and Talmudh that Lubab embraces.

I believe the Rambam there is giving a directive for what people should do in the future which would include Rabbis after the Shach and Taz who I agree can be wrong as you will read in my above post. I'm staking my claim only over the views of the Shach and Taz and back.

[Lubab]

And while I think the Rambam would be fully supportive of this way of learning this way of learning was really only really brought out and revealed with the advent of the Baal Shem Tov and hasidic philosophy so I wouldn't expect to find it spoken about openly by the Rambam although I have no doubt I could find some hints to it.

We should also point out that machloket is not the same thing as setirah. Machloket means a division from the word Chiluk. It does not by it's translation mean the opinion is "wrong". These words "wrong" or "incorrect" are unfortunate mistranslations of the word Machloket.


It means this guy took this path and that guy took that path. But I'm sure we all agree that two paths can lead to the same goal as long as it's the right path.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

I think the Rambam is on my side and I can prove it. What I'm saying is the exact same thing he says about the 3 groups who learn Torah. The third group which is correct contains and unites the views of the other two. That's the way it works.

I don't believe this section of Rambam you refer to has any application to your point or the discussion at hand.   If you are using it here, you have changed the meaning of the 3 types of groups he describes!<snip>

this is becoming a bit of a circus.

I have no doubt that lulab will not be able to quote the RAMBAM and show that every opinion is true. Or whatever he is trying to claim.
(though i'm sure he can quote the RAMBA)

But since a few people -here, are familiar with the RAMBAM to which lulab is referring,

is anybody here  - lulab or anybody - able to quote the text ? or at least a reference. And then argue that blah is what it concludes.And not what lulab says.

I have hilchot yesodei hatorah here in english, so if it is from there then I could look it up and type it in.

I think that the three types of students were from Rambam on intro to perek chelek, but I don't have it with me.

[Lubab]

I'd appreciate it if people don't go further with this until reading my post carefully at the top of the thread because I don't want to go in circles all day.

I've read you posts with care and I hope you will give me the same respect.