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, 05:32:30 PM ---
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...
--- End quote ---
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_:
--- Quote from: judeanoncapta on June 30, 2008, 04:51:39 AM ---
--- Quote from: Lubab on June 29, 2008, 05:32:30 PM ---
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...
--- End quote ---
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?
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: q_q_ on June 30, 2008, 04:08:33 PM ---
Would lulab be assuming that this rabbi he asks, answers with ruach hakodesh?
--- End quote ---
If he wants to remain consistent, Yes.
--- Quote from: q_q_ on June 30, 2008, 04:08:33 PM ---
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?!
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote from: q_q_ on June 30, 2008, 04:08:33 PM --- 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" !
--- End quote ---
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_:
--- Quote from: judeanoncapta on June 30, 2008, 04:33:26 PM ---
--- Quote from: q_q_ on June 30, 2008, 04:08:33 PM ---
Would lulab be assuming that this rabbi he asks, answers with ruach hakodesh?
--- End quote ---
If he wants to remain consistent, Yes.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote from: judeanoncapta on June 30, 2008, 04:33:26 PM ---
--- Quote from: q_q_ on June 30, 2008, 04:08:33 PM ---
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?!
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote from: q_q_ on June 30, 2008, 04:08:33 PM --- 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" !
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
thanks again for the correction!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version