Torah and Jewish Idea > Torah and Jewish Idea
Breakdown of the Halakhic System - Two Earth-Shattering Shiurim - Exclusive
judeanoncapta:
--- Quote from: Lubab on June 29, 2008, 02:20:22 AM ---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.
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: judeanoncapta on June 29, 2008, 03:01:23 AM ---
--- Quote from: Lubab on June 29, 2008, 02:38:58 AM ---
--- Quote from: q_q_ on June 29, 2008, 02:36:16 AM ---
--- Quote from: Lubab on June 29, 2008, 02:19:16 AM ---The folly in this Rabbis perspective
--- End quote ---
which rabbi? which perspective?
--- Quote from: Lubab on June 29, 2008, 02:19:16 AM ---is nicely demonstrated when he is quoted from the softmore at YC.
--- End quote ---
no idea what you are referring to.
--- End quote ---
I'm talking about the Rabbi who gave the shiur advertized on this thread.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: judeanoncapta on June 29, 2008, 03:05:54 AM ---
--- Quote from: Lubab on June 29, 2008, 02:20:22 AM ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: Lubab on June 29, 2008, 02:15:03 AM ---
--- Quote from: q_q_ on June 29, 2008, 02:08:42 AM ---
--- Quote from: Lubab on June 29, 2008, 01:39:08 AM ---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.
--- End quote ---
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!!!
--- Quote from: Lubab on June 29, 2008, 01:39:08 AM ---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>
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: judeanoncapta on June 29, 2008, 03:20:39 AM ---
--- Quote from: Lubab on June 29, 2008, 02:15:03 AM ---
--- Quote from: q_q_ on June 29, 2008, 02:08:42 AM ---
--- Quote from: Lubab on June 29, 2008, 01:39:08 AM ---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.
--- End quote ---
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!!!
--- Quote from: Lubab on June 29, 2008, 01:39:08 AM ---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>
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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).
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version