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

[Lubab]

You misundersand. I'm not basing myself on that list at all. I'm just saying the same way Pinchas could be called Eliyahu so too Hagar can be called Keturah becacuse she was acting like her. I've proven it's a way that the sages talk sometimes.

What is so difficult to understand about that?

very easy to understand, but one doesn't accept any idea that one can understand.

your ideas are not acceptable, because it's all made up to allow you to believe some nonsense that the rabbis never disagreed.

So what's your proof that sages refer to A with the name of B, when they act the same. 

Anything other than the case of the arizal's list? In his list, A is referred to as B, because it's a reincarnation (of mission you say, ok). That's a kabbalistic thing, reincarnation of mission.  Not a logical rule that if 2 people act the same then you can refer to A as B.

You just make things up here. Your mind is all over the place, like a bull in a china shop.


 

My proof is Pinchas Hu Eliezer. Why do you think every instance of this  must be in the Arizal's list?
Just because it's in kabbalah doesn't mean it's not logical. It's extremely logical anyone who doesn't think so dosn't know how to learn it right. It's talking about reality. The sages spoke this way about Elijah and we know as an empirical matter that a person's actions say a lot more about a person than their external given name who they may not live up to at all. So it's logical that the wise sages will often call a person by their "real name" the one that represents their behavior when appropriate.

So there's no reason not to say that might be what Rashi is doing here.

I can take horse to water but can't make it drink...if you don't want to accept it that's fine. But if you want to insist that there CAN BE NO RECONCILATION of these sources then you have a lot of work to do proving every possible way to understand what Chazal are telling us and showing how each one is incompible with the other.

Bottom line: if you are not willing to open your mind to the possiblity that these sources are compatible you won't understand. Will is higer than intellect and plays it like a puppet. If you are open to the possiblity you'll search and find the truth of each statement. What can I tell you? It's up to you.

[DownwithIslam]

I will tell you the truth, I did not scroll to the beginning of this thread to see what the disagreement was about but it its clear that lubab is being spoken to like he is a muslim or something. Its fine to have a disagreement but lets not make the atmosphere one which anyone in the discussion no longer feels comfortable.

[q_q_]

I will tell you the truth, I did not scroll to the beginning of this thread to see what the disagreement was about but it its clear that lubab is being spoken to like he is a muslim or something.

yeah well you're wrong

[DownwithIslam]

I will tell you the truth, I did not scroll to the beginning of this thread to see what the disagreement was about but it its clear that lubab is being spoken to like he is a muslim or something.

yeah well you're wrong

I see him being respectful but people aren't being respectful to him. I am not directing this at anyone in particular, I am just talking about the aura this thread gives off.

[q_q_]

<snip>
Bottom line: if you are not willing to open your mind to the possiblity that these sources are compatible you won't understand. Will is higer than intellect and plays it like a puppet. If you are open to the possiblity you'll search and find the truth of each statement. What can I tell you? It's up to you.

so you're willing to go against the plain meaning of what all these rabbis wrote.

suppose rabbi A says X. And you accept X.
Then as soon as Rabbi B appears and says something that appears to contradict rabbi A.
You then reinterpret Rabbi A and Rabbi B, rejecting the plain meaning of both of them.

If rabbi B had never said anything, or if you had not heard of RAbbi B, then you would have accepted the plain meaning of Rabbi A.

You look at everything as if it has been said by the same rabbi.
So. What if there is a time gap of 100 years.
Does that mean that all of Rabbi A's students take him for what he says. Then 100 years after, Rabbi B says something. And so descendents of students of Rabbi A have to reject their former view that they were taught, as they understood it.
The fact that you have to change your interpretation of Rabbi A each time another rabbi speaks on the subject, and then accept no rabbi for his plain meaning. Is just so blatantly irrational. It means you change your position the whole time.. You don't take any of them seriously.

side note-
Besides chassidic rebbes. Did all the rabbis that had this ruach hakodesh power live before the Baal Shem Tov?
'cos if they lived after then you'd have to reinterpret chabad teachings rejecting any plain meanings in light of those that have apparently contradicted accepted chabad teaching.

second side note- I know of no chabad rabbi that takes this extreme view tht you have.. that no rabbis between the talmud and the taz disagreed..

If you have an exact quote and reference, from that shulchan aruch harav that you mentioned.. that would be interesting , i could put it to some askmoses scholar.  There are one or two good ones.

[Lubab]

<snip>
Bottom line: if you are not willing to open your mind to the possiblity that these sources are compatible you won't understand. Will is higer than intellect and plays it like a puppet. If you are open to the possiblity you'll search and find the truth of each statement. What can I tell you? It's up to you.

so you're willing to go against the plain meaning of what all these rabbis wrote.

suppose rabbi A says X. And you accept X.
Then as soon as Rabbi B appears and says something that appears to contradict rabbi A.
You then reinterpret Rabbi A and Rabbi B, rejecting the plain meaning of both of them.

If rabbi B had never said anything, or if you had not heard of RAbbi B, then you would have accepted the plain meaning of Rabbi A.

You look at everything as if it has been said by the same rabbi.
So. What if there is a time gap of 100 years.
Does that mean that all of Rabbi A's students take him for what he says. Then 100 years after, Rabbi B says something. And so descendents of students of Rabbi A have to reject their former view that they were taught, as they understood it.
The fact that you have to change your interpretation of Rabbi A each time another rabbi speaks on the subject, and then accept no rabbi for his plain meaning. Is just so blatantly irrational. It means you change your position the whole time.. You don't take any of them seriously.

side note-
Besides chassidic rebbes. Did all the rabbis that had this ruach hakodesh power live before the Baal Shem Tov?
'cos if they lived after then you'd have to reinterpret chabad teachings rejecting any plain meanings in light of those that have apparently contradicted accepted chabad teaching.

second side note- I know of no chabad rabbi that takes this extreme view tht you have.. that no rabbis between the talmud and the taz disagreed..

If you have an exact quote and reference, from that shulchan aruch harav that you mentioned.. that would be interesting , i could put it to some askmoses scholar.  There are one or two good ones.

There is no rejection of plain meaning going on here, just a recogniton that the plain meaning is not the ONLY meaning to a verse. Some of Chazal speak about the pshat of a pasuk and some talk about the Remez and some the Derush etc.

I think you do have an obligation to see if there is truly irreconcilable difference between the opinions before you reject one as invalid.
We need to recognize that these sages were a lot smarter than us and if we think one of their explanations is invalid it is almost certain that the flaw is in our understanding of the explanation, not with the explanation itself.

That's  how you are supposed to learn. The alternative that is being suggested here is just throwing out SEEMINGLY inconsistent statements because they seem ILLOGICAL TO US. No attempt at reconciliation. No thought they maybe, just maybe these Rabbis meant something a bit deeper than what we understand from there words. It's a lazy way to learn and I'm not really sure it can be called
"Torah learning" at all because the student is looking for his own truth, not the truth found in the holy words in front of him. 

[judeanoncapta]

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.

 

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.

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.

Go by the Rov of whom? Geonim? Rishonim? Achronim? All of the above?

That is ludicrous. The Talmudh is what decides the Halakha and if one interpretation makes the most sense, who cares how many other opinions disagree with it?

Your principle of going by the Rov when applied to hundreds of Hakhamim over thousands of years makes no sense at all.

[Lubab]

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.

 

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.

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.

Go by the Rov of whom? Geonim? Rishonim? Achronim? All of the above?

That is ludicrous. The Talmudh is what decides the Halakha and if one interpretation makes the most sense, who cares how many other opinions disagree with it?

Your principle of going by the Rov when applied to hundreds of Hakhamim over thousands of years makes no sense at all.

I meant Rov i.e. the majority not Rov i.e. Rabbi.

[Lubab]

The Talmud itself prescribes this method for deciding the halacha. Generally the academy that is larger wins, or in some cases the academy that is more expert in the field. It depends on whether it's dinei mamonos or dinei nefashos whether it's deoraitta or derabannan.

These are the basic principles of paskening halacha. It's the ABCs.

[judeanoncapta]

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.

 

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.

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.

Go by the Rov of whom? Geonim? Rishonim? Achronim? All of the above?

That is ludicrous. The Talmudh is what decides the Halakha and if one interpretation makes the most sense, who cares how many other opinions disagree with it?

Your principle of going by the Rov when applied to hundreds of Hakhamim over thousands of years makes no sense at all.

I meant Rov i.e. the majority not Rov i.e. Rabbi.

I know what you meant. And I was asking whether you go by the majority of the Geonim, Rishonim, Achronim or all of the above.

And also, Lubab if you can only pasken halakhic based on a number system ie. finding a majority of great sages who lived in the past, how can you possibly apply halakha to a new reality, a new situation that those Rabbis never had to deal with, ie test tube babies, cloning, fighting a civilian enemy in wartime, qorban pesah etc?

[judeanoncapta]

The Talmud itself prescribes this method for deciding the halacha. Generally the academy that is larger wins, or in some cases the academy that is more expert in the field. It depends on whether it's dinei mamonos or dinei nefashos whether it's deoraitta or derabannan.

These are the basic principles of paskening halacha. It's the ABCs, my friend. It's the stuff I learned in fourth grade gemarah class. If you don't know this stuff there isn't much room to discuss more complex matters.

Don't talk down to me. I'm speaking about the interpretations of that Talmudh. How do you decide whether Rashi or Rabbenu Tam's opinion is correct?

The difference is that Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel or Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yose were arguing about what the Halakha is and Rashi and Rabbenu Tam are arguing as to what the Talmudh is saying. Therefore only one of them can be right. Get it?

[Lubab]

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.

 

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.

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.

Go by the Rov of whom? Geonim? Rishonim? Achronim? All of the above?

That is ludicrous. The Talmudh is what decides the Halakha and if one interpretation makes the most sense, who cares how many other opinions disagree with it?

Your principle of going by the Rov when applied to hundreds of Hakhamim over thousands of years makes no sense at all.

I meant Rov i.e. the majority not Rov i.e. Rabbi.

I know what you meant. And I was asking whether you go by the majority of the Geonim, Rishonim, Achronim or all of the above.

And also, Lubab if you can only pasken halakhic based on a number system ie. finding a majority of great sages who lived in the past, how can you possibly apply halakha to a new reality, a new situation that those Rabbis never had to deal with, ie test tube babies, cloning, fighting a civilian enemy in wartime, qorban pesah etc?

I think the way it works is in each generation the Rov makes the decision but they cannot overrule an earlier generations's decision unless their yeshiva is bigger. I believe that's the way it works. But there most definitely are rules about how to decide this stuff.


Modern decisions? Are a bigger problem. There are very few people who really know how to pasken these days but everyone does have an obligation to pick a Rov (Rabbi) and stick to their decisions. It says that when a Rov Paskens that becomes the halacha even if he might have made a mistake because G-d gave the decision making power over to the Rov (Torah Lo Bashamayim Hi).

Of course the Rov must have a valid semicha and shimush and the Rabbi who gave him Semicha must have had the same.
I know there was a break in the chain of Semicha but I think we've had some pretty great Rabbis that were worthy to give semicha in the past several generations and if someone got semicha from someone who got semicha from someone who got semicha from someone very authoratiative like I dunno...the Vilna Gaon. Then we can rely on such a psak.

If you're sephardic you'll obviously go to a Rov who follows the Beis Yosef.
If you're not you'll go to an Ashkenazi Rov.

The Torah scholarship in this generation is pretty weak but I wouldn't say the halachik system has "broken down" because a Psak by a legitimate Rov is given the stamp of approval by G-d when He said the Rabbis are the ones who must decide the halacha, not Me.
 

[Lubab]

The Talmud itself prescribes this method for deciding the halacha. Generally the academy that is larger wins, or in some cases the academy that is more expert in the field. It depends on whether it's dinei mamonos or dinei nefashos whether it's deoraitta or derabannan.

These are the basic principles of paskening halacha. It's the ABCs, my friend. It's the stuff I learned in fourth grade gemarah class. If you don't know this stuff there isn't much room to discuss more complex matters.

Don't talk down to me. I'm speaking about the interpretations of that Talmudh. How do you decide whether Rashi or Rabbenu Tam's opinion is correct?

The difference is that Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel or Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yose were arguing about what the Halakha is and Rashi and Rabbenu Tam are arguing as to what the Talmudh is saying. Therefore only one of them can be right. Get it?

Well, no. It's not true that only one of them can be "right". They can both be right and we will paskin according to the principles about how we paskin. There are rules about it.

Sorry to have talked down to you I lost my cool there, will edit.

[MassuhDGoodName]

Re:  "...And I don't know how this is relevant to an intelligent discussion."

Well...I disagree!      

[judeanoncapta]

The Talmud itself prescribes this method for deciding the halacha. Generally the academy that is larger wins, or in some cases the academy that is more expert in the field. It depends on whether it's dinei mamonos or dinei nefashos whether it's deoraitta or derabannan.

These are the basic principles of paskening halacha. It's the ABCs, my friend. It's the stuff I learned in fourth grade gemarah class. If you don't know this stuff there isn't much room to discuss more complex matters.

Don't talk down to me. I'm speaking about the interpretations of that Talmudh. How do you decide whether Rashi or Rabbenu Tam's opinion is correct?

The difference is that Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel or Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yose were arguing about what the Halakha is and Rashi and Rabbenu Tam are arguing as to what the Talmudh is saying. Therefore only one of them can be right. Get it?

Well, no. It's not true that only one of them can be "right". They can both be right and we will paskin according to the principles about how we paskin. There are rules about it.

Sorry to have talked down to you I lost my cool there, will edit.

Lubab, when the Talmud quotes three braitoth one after another to explain what a Huliah is (in reference to the tying of tzitzith.)

וכמה שיעור חוליא תניא רבי אומר כדי שיכרוך וישנה וישלש

Rambam, Rashi and many other Rishonim say that this first Braitha means that a Huliah consists of three wrappings and although Rebbi could have just said shalosh Krikhoth, he was just using a figurative lashon in this instance.

The Raavad says that if Rebbi meant three Krikhoth, he would have said so. Rebbi specifically used this lashon because he was refering to wrapping the white and blue together three times and then wrapping the white string one more time making a total of seven Krikhoth.

 תאנא הפוחת לא יפחות משבע והמוסיף לא יוסיף על שלש עשרה הפוחת לא יפחות משבע כנגד שבעה רקיעים והמוסיף לא יוסיף על שלש עשרה כנגד שבעה רקיעין וששה אוירין שביניהם

Therefore the Raavad understands this next line that one should not make less than seven or more than thirteen as referring to how many Krikhoth in each Hulia.

Rashi and the Rambam understand that line as saying that one needs atleast seven Hulioth of three Krikhoth each and no more than thirteen Hulioth of three each in each corner of tzitzit.

The Raavad holds than one can have as many hulioth as he likes or as few as one.
 תנא כשהוא מתחיל מתחיל בלבן הכנף מין כנף וכשהוא מסיים מסיים בלבן

Now Rashi interprets this braitha as referring to the Gedhil as a whole that at a minimum the first Krikha and the last Krikha have to be white and it can be all tekheleth in between like the Rambam or majority tekheleth like Rashi.

The Raavad interprets this braitha as referring each Hulia requiring each one to start with white and end with white and of course this statement is the lychpin of his shita since if you interpret this braitha as referring to the Gedhil as a whole, there is no reason to look at the second braitha as referring to the Hulia because the seven number makes less sense if there is no reason to begin and end with white.

Lubab, the authors of these braitoth had one thing in mind when they wrote those braitoth or gave them over to their students. It's either like Rashi and the Rambam or it's like the Raavad. The authors did not have two interpretations in mind.

Just because you can come up with some mystical explanation showing the "inner meaning" Behind each shita, does not mean that they are both right. It just means you're creative.

The fact is that either the Raavad is right or he is wrong. Or Rashi and the Rambam are either right or wrong. Or do you actually beleive that the intention of the original authors was for the braitoth to be read in two ways and they meant both interpretations?

[judeanoncapta]

The Talmud itself prescribes this method for deciding the halacha. Generally the academy that is larger wins, or in some cases the academy that is more expert in the field. It depends on whether it's dinei mamonos or dinei nefashos whether it's deoraitta or derabannan.

These are the basic principles of paskening halacha. It's the ABCs, my friend. It's the stuff I learned in fourth grade gemarah class. If you don't know this stuff there isn't much room to discuss more complex matters.

Don't talk down to me. I'm speaking about the interpretations of that Talmudh. How do you decide whether Rashi or Rabbenu Tam's opinion is correct?

The difference is that Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel or Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yose were arguing about what the Halakha is and Rashi and Rabbenu Tam are arguing as to what the Talmudh is saying. Therefore only one of them can be right. Get it?

Well, no. It's not true that only one of them can be "right". They can both be right and we will paskin according to the principles about how we paskin. There are rules about it.

Sorry to have talked down to you I lost my cool there, will edit.

I understand that when what two Rabbanim said is clear and it contradicts each other, they may both have good points and are right in some way even if we choose one as psak halakha. I know that.

What I am saying is when two Rabbis are arguing about what the Talmudh is saying, not their own opinion, but what the Talmudh is saying, they cannot be both be right.

[judeanoncapta]

The Torah scholarship in this generation is pretty weak but I wouldn't say the halachik system has "broken down" because a Psak by a legitimate Rov is given the stamp of approval by G-d when He said the Rabbis are the ones who must decide the halacha, not Me.

You said that you are a Rabbi. Therefore you are precisely the one to decide the halakha. If you feel unwilling or unworthy to do so, please stop calling yourself a Rabbi. A Rabbi gives psak Halakha to the people. If he can't, he should step down.

The Torah scholarship in this generation is pretty weak because the Halakhic system has broken down and because the search for the truth has been abandoned at the outset and then we go searching for some other way to make a decision.

And the scholarship is so weak because Rabbis are indocrinated in the idea that they can't possibly understand something in the Talmudh better than a Rishon or an older Acharon.

If you tell people over and over that they can't understand the Talmudh or come to their own conclusion on an Halakhic issue, SURPRISE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  You get generations of Rabbis who don't understand the Talmudh and can't possibly come to their own conclusion on anything.

That's why the Torah scholarship is so weak. Listen to the second shiur especially the end part from 1:20:00 onwards.

[yaaqov]

I think the way it works is in each generation the Rov makes the decision but they cannot overrule an earlier generations's decision unless their yeshiva is bigger. I believe that's the way it works. But there most definitely are rules about how to decide this stuff.

I believe the concept you are referring to is from TB Megillah, that a Beth Din may only overrule another beth din if the latter beth din is yoter b'hachmah uv'minyan.

It has nothing to do with how big a rav's yeshiva is.

[yaaqov]

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.

No.  This regarding an issue which is safeq, and you do not have someone to ask at that moment for clarification.

When rabbanim have the sources in front of them and delve into an issue and then rule on it, they are not ruling min hasafeq.  They are clearing up the safeq.

[q_q_]

safek means doubt. Let's translate the hebrew terms or expressions thrown in, so that jews that are not so familiar with hebrew, can follow the discussion.

[yaaqov]

safek means doubt. Let's translate the hebrew terms or expressions thrown in, so that jews that are not so familiar with hebrew, can follow the discussion.

Thanks for catching this. 

I usually do.  I just got caught up in the discussion, and figured that someone must have mentioned the English already.  I'll try to remember for next time.

[Lubab]

The Torah scholarship in this generation is pretty weak but I wouldn't say the halachik system has "broken down" because a Psak by a legitimate Rov is given the stamp of approval by G-d when He said the Rabbis are the ones who must decide the halacha, not Me.

You said that you are a Rabbi. Therefore you are precisely the one to decide the halakha. If you feel unwilling or unworthy to do so, please stop calling yourself a Rabbi. A Rabbi gives psak Halakha to the people. If he can't, he should step down.

Let me just deal with one thing at a time as time allows and first I'll deal with this because it was obviously meant to be incendiary.

I don't call myself a Rabbi. People call me a Rabbi that because I have have completed the course of study which gives me the title "yadin".

As you may or may not be aware there are different levels of Rabbis.
There's 'Yadin' and a 'Yadin Yadin'. A 'yadin yadin' can pasken halacha while a Yadin cannot. I can give you a ruling in Issur Veheter and Hilchos Shabbos. That's about it because that's what you need to know for "yadin". A yadid yadin needs to learn Choshen Mishpat and have at least one year of shimush (internship) under a practicing paskening Rov. It's similar to how there are B.A.s and PHDs. Different levels  give you different levels of authority.

I don't know how it works in your yeshiva but that's how it works in Chabad and the Chabad tradition is rooted in a tradition going back to when before Chabad even existed. So there's no reason to correct people if they call me a Rabbi.  Rabbi means teacher and I do teach Torah. When someone is a paskening Rov in my cicles we call them a "Rov" not a "Rabbi".

[Lubab]

You are concerned that so many people have become convinced they can never understand something as well as a Rishon, Tanna etc. and therefore people today are not able to come up with their own ideas and you have a big problem with this.

Well first of all I don't think nobody is saying we should not try to reach that level of understanding. In the times of Moshiach we are told that we will understand things even better than the Rabbis of the Talmud so I'm not sure where you or your Rabbi is hearing this from but it certainly isn't from me. 

At the same time we must recognize the danger in taking this concept too far.

The danger is as follows and is quite simple: some people may (because of their own ego or feelings of self accomplishment) be convinced that their learning is at the level of a Rashi, when in fact it is not.

Some people try to leave their imprint on the Torah. Others try to let the Torah leave an imprint on them. The latter is the proper way of learning and will lead to innovation automatically when someone studies hard. They won't even need to try to innovate because their understanding will be so clear that the innovations just come to them as a matter of course.

So you can run into a problem like this:

If you convince anyone or a person convinces himself that he understands a gemarah as good or better than someone like Rashi he might THINK he knows it better but in fact was so too absorbed in his own ego and his preconceived notions of what the gemarah means and therefore wasn't even really looking to understand Rashi's point of view in the first place. He never even gave Rashi a fair shot. So he misunderstood Rashi and now is going around saying he knows better than Rashi when in fact he's just making a mockery of himself and the Torah. I think this would qualify as the arrogance of ignorance that R' Kahane used to refer to.

I'm not saying you do that. I'm not saying your Rabbi does that. But I'm saying that attitude could lead to that and I have seen it lead to that and it's quite a sorry sight.

[Lubab]

I also feel compelled to point out a major inconsistency in the way you are arguing with me here.


I gave you an explanation that contained a possible reconciliation of two views that at first seemed to you irreconcilable (re: saying Birchat Hamazon on cooked vegetables). My explanation was not "mystical" at all as you claim.  Instead of saying one view is wrong I showed how both could be right and a different rule was better suited to a certain type of person or a certain generation.

It's on this thread for anyone to read and it's based on nothing but a relevant pasuk and some facts that are apparent to anyone living on this earth.

I never saw you once address the explanation specifically or point out why you think it's flawed in any way shape or form although you reject it.

So while with one side of your mouth you champion the right of the Torah student to be able to come up with his own innovation in Torah. I did (with the help of my Rabbi) exactly that and you derided me as just being "creative" (as if it's a bad thing!).

So is coming up with innovation in Torah a good  thing or a bad thing?
Answer: it's good when you come to the conclusions that you like. But it's bad when you come to conclusions you don't like.
 
Which conclusions do you like? The ones that validate one opinion and throw the other to the dogs because this is the way you are convinced Torah should be learned.


The fact that you are able to with argue with such inconsistency only confirms what I've known since I first got into a discussion with you months ago: you are not really discussing with me. You are OPPOSING me. There's a big difference between those two things.
 

P.S. I see and understand your question about how the beraisa must have intened ONE thing. But if you agree with me that the beraisa was written with Ruach Hakodesh then I see no problem with saying that the beraisa (like a pasuk) was left intentionally ambigious to lend itself to two possible interpretations both of which are valid depending on the time, place, spritual level of the generation etc.

I gave you an example of how this can work with the cooked vegetable case and now you want me to show you how it could work in this case. I can do that but it won't help. First you need to recognize that more than one level of interpretation can both be true, both be intended by the author, and both be appropriate for different situations. Study the vegetable explantion to see how this works and just apply the same principle to any other dispute between Rishonim. Namely, find the underlying axiom that they both agree upon, and then look to see how they are applying the same axiom in different ways and then figure out for whom one opinion is valid and in what situation another might be valid. This is not easy stuff but this is the proper way to learn and it is a TRUE SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH to learn this way. If you throw out the other opinion you'll wind up with a half-truth and a half-truth is a whole lie.

Odds are likely that if you find yourself throwing out an opinion of someone of the stature of Rashi, that the problem is with your understanding of Rashi, not with the Rashi.

Could you be smarter than Rashi? Yes you could be if you learned as much in quantity and quality as he did and every student of Torah should be taught that they have that potential. But we also need to call a spade a spade and when someone hasn't even learned a thimblesfull of what Rashi knew we can't just let them go around deciding which Rashis he wants to reject and which ones he wants to accept.

[q_q_]

regarding the hagar and keturah

you are ignoring the plain meaning of a rabbi that says regarding keturah "zoh hagar - this is hagar". But ok, I understand you -have- to ignore the plain meaning if it contradicts what another rabbi says.. Since you assume that all those rabbis opinions are true, and it's as if they came from the same sane consistent rabbi.

and since you don't have ruach hakodesh, you rightly said, your explanation is a -possible- explanation.

Though, as rabbi gottlieb said, "there's always an if".  One doesn't  really know 100% who one's parents are. Maybe they went to the hospital, found a baby that looked a bit like them, they weren't the parents but they convinced you that they were.  It is remotely possible that the world was created 1 second ago.   Is it possible that G-d doesn't exist ? Rabbi Gottlieb said, yes! There's always an If.

so the question you would have to ask regarding the explanations you come up with , is how likely is it that they are correct?

There are hundreds of creative explanations that rabbis without ruach hakodesh could come up with. All different. Not all correct.

So since you ignore the pshat of the words of rashi and ramban or of  2 midrashim , on hagar and keturah. You ignore it In favour of these poetic  explanations that reconcile the 2. Then you really don't know if you are correct, or the other hundred creative rabbis(without ruach hakodesh) , with different explanations, are correct. And since all the explanations coiuld differ, it may be that only 1/100 of them are correct. Or 1/1000 of them. Or none of them, since there are another million creative explanations nobody had thought of yet, and one of those was correct.

An explanation that is invented, may be implausible.
What If blue elephants exist above your head.. You can't prove they don't.  Maybe they do, there's always an If.  Or, they may be plausible, simple explanations. But there may be millions of different ones that one could invent..

With this method, the likelyhood of anybody understanding -anything- of any rabbi of that era, is very slim.

 
Secondly.

Suppose rabbi A says X,  and 50 years later, Rabbi B says Not X.
Both rabbis A and B lived in that ruach hakodesh era of rabbis.

Rabbi A 's students wre taught, and believed X. Do they then change their understanding 50 years later, when they hear Rabbi B?

It seems that you are claiming that at the end of that era, we know more about what the original rabbis of that era thought, than their original students. Because we are in possession of more facts, facts that they did not have.

And if you were correct about this idea that the reconciling explanation that reconciles - not just 2, but , say, 10 or 20 different rabbis is correct. Then surely, one would not have to think now for creative explanations to the most obvious problems. Rabbis would have been done already.. especially within that long period you mention, of ruach hakodesh..

one midrash says hagar and keturah were the same, another says not. There are rabbis writing on either side. So why are you the first person to come up with and write down, an explanation to reconcile it?
Why didn't these rabbis, with their ruach hakodesh, write an all encompassing explanation of how both are true..

If it was really the case then it would be absolutely fundamental