Torah and Jewish Idea > Torah and Jewish Idea
Breakdown of the Halakhic System - Two Earth-Shattering Shiurim - Exclusive
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:
--- Quote from: Lubab on June 29, 2008, 04:28:33 PM ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: Lubab on June 29, 2008, 04:54:45 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
Is it possible, Lubab, that one of the chabad Rebbes said something that was downright wrong?
Is that possible, Lubab?
Kahane-Was-Right BT:
--- Quote from: Lubab on June 29, 2008, 04:45:28 PM ---
--- Quote from: Kahane-Was-Right BT on June 29, 2008, 04:42:03 PM ---
--- Quote from: Lubab on June 29, 2008, 04:40:49 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version