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, 03:30:14 AM ---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).
--- End quote ---
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,
--- Quote from: Lubab on June 29, 2008, 03:30:14 AM ---(You must if you believe you are the ones to decide whether one of his views should be rejected or accepted).
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: Lubab on June 29, 2008, 03:30:14 AM ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: Lubab on June 29, 2008, 03:09:20 AM ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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_:
--- Quote from: Kahane-Was-Right BT on June 29, 2008, 03:41:38 PM ---
--- Quote from: Lubab on June 29, 2008, 03:09:20 AM ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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>
--- End quote ---
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version