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

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

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.

I am of course reading your post with care, but I was asked a specific question by qq so I responded.   I am not so much weighing in on this controversy, only responding to your use of the 3 types of students, which I think may have been mistaken or not applicable in this discussion.

[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.

I am of course reading your post with care, but I was asked a specific question by qq so I responded.   I am not so much weighing in on this controversy, only responding to your use of the 3 types of students, which I think may have been mistaken or not applicable in this discussion.

No problem. I wasn't even really addressing  your post I just wanted to say that when I saw such a quick reply. The Rambam with the three groups is talking about a certain specific machloket and it may not prove my more global point which is why I did not rely on it in the post above.

[q_q_]

lulab, you mention another source, the shulchan aruch.
for the idea that rishonim and all these rabbis wrote with ruach hakodesh and so all they wrote is true.

this is important, if you can find a reference that would be very useful.

note- I have read this view in an artascroll autobiography of the chazon ish. He also thought all the rishonim wrote with ruach hakodesh.  And he i guess tried reconciling them. This view is certainly very common. So chabad is not alone here

But still, a source from the shulchan aruch would be very good..
Because that is widely accepted.

[judeanoncapta]

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.

The Rambam clearly states:

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.

Inherent in that statement is the idea that a later authority can be more correct than an earlier authority. Obviously it is possible that someone today can know more about the nature of machlokes than Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi. Or Rashi or even the Rambam. Or any earlier authority. I think that Rav Bar Hayim explanation of certain sugyoth in the Talmudh make more sense than the Rambam's and therefore according to the Rambam's own words, we should follow Rav Bar Hayim. Certain sugyoth in the Talmudh make more sense according to the Netziv than according to Rashi. Therefore we should follow the Netziv.I think that certain things written by the Chabad Rebbes on Halakhic issues make less sense than other authorities, therefore you must follow the other authorities.

Your ignorance and arrogance comment is ludicrous in light of the rambam's haqdama.

[Lubab]

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.

The Rambam clearly states:

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.

Inherent in that statement is the idea that a later authority can be more correct than an earlier authority. Obviously it is possible that someone today can know more about the nature of machlokes than Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi. Or Rashi or even the Rambam. Or any earlier authority. I think that Rav Bar Hayim explanation of certain sugyoth in the Talmudh make more sense than the Rambam's and therefore according to the Rambam's own words, we should follow Rav Bar Hayim. Certain sugyoth in the Talmudh make more sense according to the Netziv than according to Rashi. Therefore we should follow the Netziv.I think that certain things written by the Chabad Rebbes on Halakhic issues make less sense than other authorities, therefore you must follow the other authorities.

Your ignorance and arrogance comment is ludicrous in light of the rambam's haqdama.

You didn't read my posts fully. I addressed that statement. I don't believe every Rabbi's statement is true. Just the the sages from the Shach and Taz and prior which is completely consistent with this statement of the Rambam which is a guide for what to do in the future until today when many Rabbis have said many things that are downright wrong.

[judeanoncapta]

Lubab, if you beleive that two opinions of Rishonim are both true and equally valid, how in the world could you ever give a psak halakha on any issue at all?

[q_q_]

Earlier in the thread, some hebrew phrases were used, I asked what they meant.. I have now found translations. These may help people  - besides myself - to follow the thread.

"Lo Sasur Min Hadavar...".  - means you shall not go astray from that thing (the commandment)

"Aseh Lecha Rov"?  make for yourself a rav

"elu v'elu divrei elokim chaim"  from talmud Eruvin page 13b
these & these are words words from the Living G-d

Regarding  "elu v'elu divrei elokim chaim",  I cannot find eruvin 13b in english online. But, I did see a few articles discussing it. And they said that it says Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai's arguments are both Emet-Truth.  And the reason why the law is according to Hillel, is because Hillel (or Beit Hillel?) they were kind and humble.. and mentioned shammai's view before their own..

"
We will study the proof-text for "an example of controversy for Heaven's sake," which comes from Talmud Eruvin 13b.

For three years there was a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, the former asserting, 'The law is in agreement with our views.' and the latter contending, 'The law is in agreement with our views.' Then a bat kol (a voice from heaven) announced, ' Eilu v’eilu divrei Elohim chayim ‘these and those are the words of the living G-d, but the law is in agreement with the rulings of Beit Hillel.'

Since, however, 'both are the words of the living G-d', what was it that entitled Beit Hillel to have the law fixed according to their rulings? Because they were kindly and modest, they studied their own rulings and those of Beit Shammai, and were even so humble as to mention the words of Beit Shammai before their own.(Eruvin, 13b)"
"
 
Of course..
a)do all debates in gemara boil down to beis hillel and beis shammai?
if so, then it seems this gemara is saying both are true.

b)But this only refers to Beis Hillel and beis shammai.

Not, to any rabbi between them and Shach and Taz.

For that, lulab claims a source from the shulchan aruch. A reference for it would be very interesting

[judeanoncapta]

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.

Here's a question:

Does one say Birkath Hamazon after eating boiled vegetables or not?

Please show me how when the Hakhamim say "NO"

and rabbi Aqiva says "YES", they are really saying the same thing and please tell me who I should follow and why.

[judeanoncapta]

You didn't read my posts fully. I addressed that statement. I don't believe every Rabbi's statement is true. Just the the sages from the Shach and Taz and prior which is completely consistent with this statement of the Rambam which is a guide for what to do in the future until today when many Rabbis have said many things that are downright wrong.

Is it possible, Lubab, that one of the chabad Rebbes said something that was downright wrong?

Is that possible, Lubab?

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

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.

I am of course reading your post with care, but I was asked a specific question by qq so I responded.   I am not so much weighing in on this controversy, only responding to your use of the 3 types of students, which I think may have been mistaken or not applicable in this discussion.

No problem. I wasn't even really addressing  your post I just wanted to say that when I saw such a quick reply. The Rambam with the three groups is talking about a certain specific machloket and it may not prove my more global point which is why I did not rely on it in the post above.

Ok I see.  I am mostly an observer here, but if there is ever a time (like that was) that my very limited amount of knowledge enables me to comment I will chime in.  Otherwise just trying to understand and learn from the issues here in this discussion.

[q_q_]

<snip>
You didn't read my posts fully. I addressed that statement. I don't believe every Rabbi's statement is true. Just the the sages from the Shach and Taz and prior which is completely consistent with this statement of the Rambam which is a guide for what to do in the future until today when many Rabbis have said many things that are downright wrong.

here is evidence that the RAMBAM did not hold by that at all..

This is a copy/paste from another thread where I quoted some maimonidean types.
"
Rambam follows R. Haaye Gaon... HaRambam has a famous teshuba where he
explains the entire history of his view of tefillim and how upon
seeing the version according to Ha'aye Gaon he threw away his old
tefillim from Spain.
"

[judeanoncapta]

<snip>
You didn't read my posts fully. I addressed that statement. I don't believe every Rabbi's statement is true. Just the the sages from the Shach and Taz and prior which is completely consistent with this statement of the Rambam which is a guide for what to do in the future until today when many Rabbis have said many things that are downright wrong.

here is evidence that the RAMBAM did not hold by that at all..

This is a copy/paste from another thread where I quoted some maimonidean types.
"
Rambam follows R. Haaye Gaon... HaRambam has a famous teshuba where he
explains the entire history of his view of tefillim and how upon
seeing the version according to Ha'aye Gaon he threw away his old
tefillim from Spain.
"

That is incorrect.

The Rambam's tefilin opinion is the opposite of rav Hai Gaon. He must have mistook rav Hai Gaon for rav Saadya Gaon.

[Lubab]

If I can answer both questions about Hagar and Keturah and the machloket on cooked vegetables to your satisfaction will you all become Chabad Chassidim?

 

I will research and get back to you on both these points. I don't claim to know how to do this myself with every machloket but I know where to find the people who do...

[q_q_]

<snip>
You didn't read my posts fully. I addressed that statement. I don't believe every Rabbi's statement is true. Just the the sages from the Shach and Taz and prior which is completely consistent with this statement of the Rambam which is a guide for what to do in the future until today when many Rabbis have said many things that are downright wrong.

here is evidence that the RAMBAM did not hold by that at all..

This is a copy/paste from another thread where I quoted some maimonidean types.
"
Rambam follows R. Haaye Gaon... HaRambam has a famous teshuba where he
explains the entire history of his view of tefillim and how upon
seeing the version according to Ha'aye Gaon he threw away his old
tefillim from Spain.
"

That is incorrect.

The Rambam's tefilin opinion is the opposite of rav Hai Gaon. He must have mistook rav Hai Gaon for rav Saadya Gaon.

i'm glad you corrected that..

though if he did throw away a pair of teffilin that he thought went according to a wrong opinion, then the argument remains to lulab, amongst other arguments mentioned.

[q_q_]

If I can answer both questions about Hagar and Keturah and the machloket on cooked vegetables to your satisfaction will you all become Chabad Chassidim?

 

I will research and get back to you on both these points. I don't claim to know how to do this myself with every machloket but I know where to find the people who do...

most important, is the quote from the shulchan aruch that you claim is the basis for this idea that all opinions from post gemara to taz and shach, are true.


it would be interesting to see your responses to those objections mentioned though.

[q_q_]

regarding hagar and keturah.
here is the source that some say same woman, some say different woman.

rabbi aryeh kaplan in "the living torah" , provides the sources.
It is online here
http://bible.ort.org/books/pentd2.asp?ACTION=displaypage&BOOK=1&CHAPTER=25
commentary on Gen 25:1
Keturah
  A concubine (1 Chronicles 1:32). Some sources identify her with Hagar (Targum Yonathan; Bereshith Rabbah 61; Rashi). Others, however, maintain that she was a third wife (Bereshith Rabbah 57; Zohar 1:133b; Ibn Ezra; Rashbam; Ramban on 25:6). One ancient source states that Hagar was already dead at this time (Yov'loth 19:13).

[Lubab]

If I can answer both questions about Hagar and Keturah and the machloket on cooked vegetables to your satisfaction will you all become Chabad Chassidim?

 

I will research and get back to you on both these points. I don't claim to know how to do this myself with every machloket but I know where to find the people who do...

most important, is the quote from the shulchan aruch that you claim is the basis for this idea that all opinions from post gemara to taz and shach, are true.


it would be interesting to see your responses to those objections mentioned though.

No. I never said that was from the Shulchan Aruch. I said it was a tradition of the Chabad Rebbes going back to the Alter Rebbe (author of the Shulchan Aruch HaRav) and is codified in a book called Hayom Yom.

[q_q_]

If I can answer both questions about Hagar and Keturah and the machloket on cooked vegetables to your satisfaction will you all become Chabad Chassidim?

 

I will research and get back to you on both these points. I don't claim to know how to do this myself with every machloket but I know where to find the people who do...

most important, is the quote from the shulchan aruch that you claim is the basis for this idea that all opinions from post gemara to taz and shach, are true.


it would be interesting to see your responses to those objections mentioned though.

No. I never said that was from the Shulchan Aruch. I said it was a tradition of the Chabad Rebbes going back to the Alter Rebbe (author of the Shulchan Aruch HaRav) and is codified in a book called Hayom Yom.

ok.. interesting that the chazon ish had the same idea, of rishonim having ruach hakodesh.

anyhow, be interesting to see how you deal with the objections given, and maintain that  in those examples asked of you, both opinions don't contradict each other, and are both true!

[Lubab]

If I can answer both questions about Hagar and Keturah and the machloket on cooked vegetables to your satisfaction will you all become Chabad Chassidim?

 

I will research and get back to you on both these points. I don't claim to know how to do this myself with every machloket but I know where to find the people who do...

most important, is the quote from the shulchan aruch that you claim is the basis for this idea that all opinions from post gemara to taz and shach, are true.


it would be interesting to see your responses to those objections mentioned though.

No. I never said that was from the Shulchan Aruch. I said it was a tradition of the Chabad Rebbes going back to the Alter Rebbe (author of the Shulchan Aruch HaRav) and is codified in a book called Hayom Yom.

ok.. interesting that the chazon ish had the same idea, of rishonim having ruach hakodesh.

anyhow, be interesting to see how you deal with the objections given, and maintain that  in those examples asked of you, both opinions don't contradict each other, and are both true!

I have been very VERY busy today and have not been able to do the research. But I'm a man of my word and I want you to hold me to this. I WILL (G-d willing) research and get back to you on both those topics and see if we can figure out how both are true.

[q_q_]

I have been very VERY busy today and have not been able to do the research. But I'm a man of my word and I want you to hold me to this. I WILL (G-d willing) research and get back to you on both those topics and see if we can figure out how both are true.

no urgency, in your own time.  A forum is a fantastic medium for torah discussion.

[judeanoncapta]

I will research and get back to you on both these points. I don't claim to know how to do this myself with every machloket but I know where to find the people who do...

Meaning you find people creative enough to come up with some mystical or far-fetched explanation. But it doesn't mean that they have found the truth. It just means they're creative.

Here, I'll beat you to the punch.

Hita, the Hebrew word for wheat is similar to the word Het, the word for sin. Only difference is fourteen in gematria which is the word yad, hand. Hand represents Avodas Hashem in this physical word which turns even one's sins into klipas nogah, which can then be turned into pure kedushah. Wheat is klipas nogah because it can become both Hametz and Matzah. Since the birkath hamazon is based on the pasuk. "W'akhalta W'savata uverakhta al haaretz ha tova" We are blessing because of the land which is pure potential just like klipas noga so therefore we can only bless on wheat which is klipas nogah, pure potential. It is interesting that Rabbi Aqiva uses the term Yelek to describe vegetable which is 140 in gematria that ten times yad showing that it has purified through avodah and has acheived a level of perfection in all ten sefiroth that is why it is ten times yad therefore it has acheived a level beyond birkath hamazon which is said on potential therefore although Rabbi Aqiva held that making the birkath hamazon on it would acheive the greatest tikunim, the Hakhamim showed him that the Yelek was already perfected and the only bracha needed was borei nefashoth, a brakha that talks about souls showing that the yelek has acheived the spiritual tikun it needs without the birkath hamazon. Therefore it obvious that they were both saying the same thing and the same ultimate truth is in both.

Now, Lubab, did I reveal the ultimate truth here or did I just make something up?

[q_q_]

nice one judea..

I just thought of one (I can make up) for Hagar and Keturah.   How one opinion can midrash can say they are the same woman, and another that they are different women, and both be true. 

Ketura is a reincarnation of hagar..

done. quite neat really, (could even be true by coincidence - though that's unlikely). 

[q_q_]

I will research and get back to you on both these points. I don't claim to know how to do this myself with every machloket but I know where to find the people who do...

Meaning you find people creative enough to come up with some mystical or far-fetched explanation. But it doesn't mean that they have found the truth. It just means they're creative.

Here, I'll beat you to the punch.
<snip example>

Now, Lubab, did I reveal the ultimate truth here or did I just make something up?

I once asked a really great chabad rabbi - rabbi yossi yaffe of connecticut, who was on askmoses in 2002, when I asked him.. He is no longer on there.

I was thinking about what books define judaism.. Obviously midrashic get obscure.   Kabbalistic is broad and obscure..

And I was thinking of CLASSIC books, by that I meant, not just talmud and midrash. But any core text.

Not texts that involve speculation, or logical analysis.

New stuff. 

We had the revelation at Sinai. But since then we have had new innovations.

In kabbalah. The Arizal.  Claimed to have been taught by heavenly teachers.  That's new.
The RAMCHAL.   The Baal Shem Tov.

And I asked him, as he is a chabad rabbi. What allows somebody to come up with -new stuff - . I must have put the quetion well, better than that. But he was also a brilliant rabbi. And he answered, that in Chassidus, a Rebbe when he makes a (he gave some word for a shiur), is speaking/writing with something similar to ruach hakodesh, where all the Torah is seen as one. And they can come up with new material. But a chassid cannot.

That is of course internally consistent..  (though there is the problem of how would one know whether somebody has spoke to an angel or written with ruach hakodesh or similar).

We await lulab's answer, but  Lulab still has an issue though, because if he asks this rabbi and this rabbi comes up with a completely fresh innovative answer, one that could be totally made up, such as judea's or mine, then how is that ok?
I know I didn't write with ruach hakodesh. 

Would lulab be assuming that this rabbi he asks, answers with ruach hakodesh?

Remember also, that this rabbi lulab is asking, is not pre shach and taz.  So what source would he be using to say that they have ruach hakodesh.  And I am intrigued to know what was so special about the era pre shach and taz, that rabbis after them do not have ruach hakodesh?!   And why in the heck would a chabad book talk about the shach like that, when the Shach hated chabad!!!!!!!!  When asked what is the religion closest to judaism, he responded "chabad" !

[judeanoncapta]

Would lulab be assuming that this rabbi he asks, answers with ruach hakodesh?

If he wants to remain consistent, Yes.

Remember also, that this rabbi lulab is asking, is not pre shach and taz.  So what source would he be using to say that they have ruach hakodesh.  And I am intrigued to know what was so special about the era pre shach and taz, that rabbis after them do not have ruach hakodesh?! 

Because the Shach and taz were right before the chassidic movement. Since many famous rabbis opposed that movement, Lubab cannot beleive they had ruah hakodesh because they opposed chassidism.

 And why in the heck would a chabad book talk about the shach like that, when the Shach hated chabad!!!!!!!!  When asked what is the religion closest to judaism, he responded "chabad" !

Two different people.

Lubab and I are referring to a great sage that wrote a commentary on the shulchan aruch called Sifthe Kohen which is abbreviated as Shach.

Your story is refer to Rabbi Elazar Menachem Shach, a Lithuanian Rabbi who headed the Ponevich Yeshiva in Bnei Brak who died in the early 2000's.

[q_q_]

Would lulab be assuming that this rabbi he asks, answers with ruach hakodesh?

If he wants to remain consistent, Yes.

If he claims that, then I don't think he would even be being internally consistent.  His chabad theological source would not say that this rabbi has ruach hakodesh. Not as he described it anyway.

Remember also, that this rabbi lulab is asking, is not pre shach and taz.  So what source would he be using to say that they have ruach hakodesh.  And I am intrigued to know what was so special about the era pre shach and taz, that rabbis after them do not have ruach hakodesh?! 

Because the Shach and taz were right before the chassidic movement. Since many famous rabbis opposed that movement, Lubab cannot beleive they had ruah hakodesh because they opposed chassidism.

 And why in the heck would a chabad book talk about the shach like that, when the Shach hated chabad!!!!!!!!  When asked what is the religion closest to judaism, he responded "chabad" !

Two different people.

Lubab and I are referring to a great sage that wrote a commentary on the shulchan aruch called Sifthe Kohen which is abbreviated as Shach.

Your story is refer to Rabbi Elazar Menachem Shach, a Lithuanian Rabbi who headed the Ponevich Yeshiva in Bnei Brak who died in the early 2000's.

thanks again for the correction!