Torah and Jewish Idea > Torah and Jewish Idea
Breakdown of the Halakhic System - Two Earth-Shattering Shiurim - Exclusive
Lubab:
Ok. Here we go.
Re: the Macholoket about the cooked vegetables. How are they both valid? And how do we know which one to follow?
My Rabbi said he would need to look into that gemara to see exactly what they are arguing about but he gave me one possible example of how hasidic philsophy might view such a case in the way I described i.e.
.
. .
If the machloket is as you state it, both opinions agree on the basic principle and are only differ in how it should be applied. i.e. both agree that we only need to say Birchat Hamazon when we have satiation "VeAChalta Vesavaatah Uverachta".
Their difference might lie in what they consider satiation. There are different types of satiation. There is a satiation of the mouth (i.e. so a person is temporarily not hungry anymore..which cooked vegetables might give you) and there is satiation of the stomach (so a person is full in a way that he's really gotten all the nutrients he needs to have energy to do what he needs to do and it's a more permanent kind of situation).
In order to see the common ground here we need to look at the purpose of saying Berachot. It is to bring an awareness and a gratitude for the food G-d has provided for us. Some people are at the level where they are very spoiled and need to recognize that even small things (like the more temporary satiation, and in general all the smaller gifts we have in life) come from G-d and we need to be thankful for them. The other opinion speaks to those who are at an even higher level, where food and satiation has no real meaning to them unless it can be used to fulfill their mission in this world (for such a person Birchat Hamazon might be required only for the stomach kind of satiation).
Both opinions are certainly valid as both types of satiation are real and different people do need to appreciate G-d's gifts in different ways.
We pasken the halacha based on the rules of how we paskin halacah. Usually in these matters we would go by the Rov (who had the larger academy). The larger academy would be an indication that that is the level where most people are holding so that is the particular rule they need.
Re: Hagar and Keturah.
Obviously since we are dealing with a factual account only one of those two opinions is the one that actually happened. However the Torah can be learned at various levels. You can read it just for the facts, but it can also be read for the lesson or deeper meaning contained in the words e.g. even a fiction story can have a real life lesson and if one would just read a fiction for the facts and not pay any attention to the lesson you'd find it quite foolish, when in truth the reader is the fool.
So it's possible in this case that if Ketura really was Hagar, Hagar at that point was acting so unlike her usual self that she was really more like Keturah. Or alternatively, if she really wasn't Keturah, she was acting so similar to Keturah that their lives were basically a repeat.
Even poetry (Lahavdil) has more than one meaning and the fact that the Torah left it ambigious as to whether she was or was not Keturah signals to us that there is more than one way of looking at this. One literal, and one looking deeper at how the person was acting or what lesson we are are meant to learn.
P.S. JNC I got quite a laugh from your "beat to the punch". It's a lot easier to tear down the arguments you make for me than the ones I actually make so I understand where you are coming from there. I don't know who taught you how to learn like that but it obviously wasn't someone who really knew how Torah or Chassidut for that matter works.
judeanoncapta:
--- Quote from: Lubab on June 30, 2008, 06:05:53 PM ---
P.S. JNC I got quite a laugh from your "beat to the punch". It's a lot easier to tear down the arguments you make for me than the ones I actually make so I understand where you are coming from there. I don't know who taught you how to learn like that but it obviously wasn't someone who really knew how Torah or Chassidut for that matter works.
--- End quote ---
My satirical explanation made about as much sense as yours did.
And the truth is that your whole view of the Torah shows that you don't understand how the Torah and talmudic system works. You still didn't explain to me how a person who thinks both opinions are right can possibly give a psak halakha other than just picking the more stringent view in all issues.
Listen to the second shiur.
According to the Rambam's principle, if you can disprove what Rav Bar Hayim says in those first two shiurim to my satisfaction, I'll become a Chabadnik.
Lubab:
--- Quote from: judeanoncapta on June 30, 2008, 06:28:27 PM ---
--- Quote from: Lubab on June 30, 2008, 06:05:53 PM ---
P.S. JNC I got quite a laugh from your "beat to the punch". It's a lot easier to tear down the arguments you make for me than the ones I actually make so I understand where you are coming from there. I don't know who taught you how to learn like that but it obviously wasn't someone who really knew how Torah or Chassidut for that matter works.
--- End quote ---
My satirical explanation made about as much sense as yours did.
And the truth is that your whole view of the Torah shows that you don't understand how the Torah and talmudic system works. You wedidn't explain to me how a person who thinks both opinions are right can possibly give a psak halakha other than just picking the more stringent view in all issues.
Listen to the second shiur.
According to the Rambam's principle, if you can disprove what Rav Bar Hayim says in those first two shiurim to my satisfaction, I'll become a Chabadnik.
--- End quote ---
You obviously did not read my post.
I said how you pasken halacha. You generally go by the Rov. Further, if it is a deoratta we go lechumra if it is a derabbanan we go lekulah.
I think the explanation above is perfectly logical. If you don't think it is I'd like to know why SPECIFICALLY.
I will be happy to try and disprove that section and make you into a Chabadnik when I get a chance.
q_q_:
--- Quote from: Lubab on June 30, 2008, 06:05:53 PM ---<snip>
Re: Hagar and Keturah.
Obviously since we are dealing with a factual account only one of those two opinions is the one that actually happened. However the Torah can be learned at various levels. You can read it just for the facts, but it can also be read for the lesson or deeper meaning contained in the words e.g. even a fiction story can have a real life lesson and if one would just read a fiction for the facts and not pay any attention to the lesson you'd find it quite foolish, when in truth the reader is the fool.
So it's possible in this case that if Ketura really was Hagar, Hagar at that point was acting so unlike her usual self that she was really more like Keturah. Or alternatively, if she really wasn't Keturah, she was acting so similar to Keturah that their lives were basically a repeat.
Even poetry (Lahavdil) has more than one meaning and the fact that the Torah left it ambigious as to whether she was or was not Keturah signals to us that there is more than one way of looking at this. One literal, and one looking deeper at how the person was acting or what lesson we are are meant to learn.
<snip>
--- End quote ---
nope.
One midrash says same person. The other midrash says different people.
Some rabbis say same. Others say different.
You have been claiming that all opinions from rabbis of that long period talmud to "the taz", even if they appear to disagree, are actually truth, and in agreement.
So how do you reconcile or explain that?
And do you hold this view on midrash too?
That both midrashim agree.
Lubab:
--- Quote from: q_q_ on June 30, 2008, 06:53:19 PM ---
--- Quote from: Lubab on June 30, 2008, 06:05:53 PM ---<snip>
Re: Hagar and Keturah.
Obviously since we are dealing with a factual account only one of those two opinions is the one that actually happened. However the Torah can be learned at various levels. You can read it just for the facts, but it can also be read for the lesson or deeper meaning contained in the words e.g. even a fiction story can have a real life lesson and if one would just read a fiction for the facts and not pay any attention to the lesson you'd find it quite foolish, when in truth the reader is the fool.
So it's possible in this case that if Ketura really was Hagar, Hagar at that point was acting so unlike her usual self that she was really more like Keturah. Or alternatively, if she really wasn't Keturah, she was acting so similar to Keturah that their lives were basically a repeat.
Even poetry (Lahavdil) has more than one meaning and the fact that the Torah left it ambigious as to whether she was or was not Keturah signals to us that there is more than one way of looking at this. One literal, and one looking deeper at how the person was acting or what lesson we are are meant to learn.
<snip>
--- End quote ---
nope.
One midrash says same person. The other midrash says different people.
Some rabbis say same. Others say different.
You have been claiming that all opinions from rabbis of that long period talmud to "the taz", even if they appear to disagree, are actually truth, and in agreement.
So how do you reconcile or explain that?
And do you hold this view on midrash too?
That both midrashim agree.
--- End quote ---
Both are valid. Yes. One might be valid at the level of Pshat the other at the level of Drush for instance.
And yes of course it applies to Midrash which is well before the Taz.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version