Ask Judea Torah Show 7

[judeanoncapta]

Thank you so much for your questions last week. Can't wait to hear the new ones.

[q_q_]

who are the classic hebrew grammarians and what are the names of their books ?

[q_q_]

Regarding Abbaye Raba and the well in Beitzah 36b 

I asked last week, and you mentioned that Abbaye often went against Raba. In the story, the last line is important. 

Abbaye  had a mill and asks Raba regarding protecting it on shabbos.
Raba gives him a lenient way within the law that he can do it.
Abbaye is strict .. he lets the mill be destroyed.
*And says that the mill was destroyed as a punishment for not listening to Raba (or his rav?). *

But that last line is important.  Why did he say he was punished for not following Raba?

As if he should have followed Raba.  He Knew that his mill would be destroyed if he did it his way and left it there. He clearly thinks he was punished for not following Raba, and he should have followed him.

Why? What does this teach?

Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb of Ohr, has used this argument that you have to follow your rav.

And I imagine it is the basis of others who say that if you ask your rav, you are bound by his decision.

MY perosnal view, is it might be teaching that you can't be machmir(stricter) than your rav. It could cause him embarrassment.  Or, more generally, it's about not so much "your rav or having a rav a personal rav" But it's about not being stricter than a scholar you ask.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Dear Judea,

In last week's show you mentioned how much of the Talmud Yerushalmi has been lost and the work as a whole remains incomplete, so in many cases we must defer to the Talmud Bavli with no other choice.  I was wondering if you think it is possible to recover any of the lost material or has any recently been found?   Perhaps in archeaological digs, or in some cave somewhere, like they found the dead sea scrolls, etc.   And if any has been found, is it reliable or can it be reliably added to the current composition of Talmud Yerushalmi?

Also, you mentioned the subject of the dead sea scrolls last show and spoke about how they were an essene sect which hid in a cave to avoid the dangers of 'end times' -  I have heard various religious sects take different angles on these scripts, especially some (like I heard on george noory's "coast to coast" show on the radio late at night) that use the findings to insist that the idea of a killed messiah was within Jewish thought prior to Jesus and that early Christianity was a Jewish breakoff sect.  I was wondering, do our sages generally have a similar opinion to you, that this was a small breakaway sect, they did not have normative beliefs, and what is the significance, if any, of these finds to Orthodox Judaism.  I understand they had some texts that are not within our mesorah and I wonder are these unknown/unused texts significant in any way to us?  What is Torah Judaism's view of the dead sea scrolls?

[q_q_]

A NK guy told me a definition of a rodef.
If A is running after B and B is running away .  A is a rodef.

is this correct? what does the halacha really say? Does B have to be running away?

What if B is sitting in a cafe and cannot see him? Or A comes up from behind.
Or B fights back.  Is A still a rodef or not?

And is killing the last resort. The NK guy and rabbis I spoke to said yes. That you have to run, and if you can't run you injure, and if that doesn't work, then kill him (in this sense, last resort).

But I also heard that if somebody comes to kill you, get up early and kill him
And Rabbi Binyamin Kahane quoting a rashi about killing a burglar, and it is assumed he is trying to kill you, and you kill him not as a last resort, but you kill him.  Is it a mitzva? or just a positive thing?

The rabbis I spoke to started out saying that if somebody comes to kill you, kill him first. But then when told what the NK guy said, they agree you have to run and if that fails,  try to injure and last resort kill.

I can't reconcile that with other things I have heard e.g. from rabbi binyamin kahane. What does the text say?

[Tzvi Ben Roshel1]

Shalom,
  You said in the last show, that the way to spread the Sheva Mitzvot Bnai Noah is to build the 3rd Temple.
  My question is- will it really change the way that the nations and particullary the christians and muslims think. I mean wont they just modify their religion as has and is happening. For example the christians said for the last 2,000 years that (actualy they had this as their 1 and only prophecy in the NT) that the Jews will never return to the Holy land because we didn't accept Jesus, but this was proven wrong, BH so why dont we see millions becoming Noahides? Also wouldn't they just modify their religion again to make it look like all along that that is what has to happen for Jesus to return?  Also with the muslims- what will having a Temple (that is significant to us and nothing to them) do to them dropping their gangster religion and accepting the G-d of Israel? And what would prevent them from shooting missiles onto it, even before we complete it?
  I was thinking about something different then building a Temple (which of-course should be built becuase G-d wants it built, and its Halacha, but I dont think that through it necessarily will the nations make peace in the world, and accept the nation of Israel because of it). I was thinking about their being more "Kiruv" and debate so to speak, between the Jewish religion and any and all the other ism's of the world. Also when I asked, and why I asked was if you knew what the guy (Student of your Rav) meant and how the nation could do it.

  Also another question, but maybe its connected to the previous- I was thinking (just a though, so I would like to know what you would say about it) do you think that maybe it is a blessing in disguise that everyone (Jews, Muslims, Christians) wants Jerusalem, and that because everyone wants it, and concideres it Holy, and their are different people's living their, that if their is a Nuclear War in the world (G-d forbid) between Islam and the West, maybe they wont touch Jerusalem and for all the Jews their it will be the safest place to be at. Their still might be terrorism, their might be war, but nukes wont be dropped their, what do you think about it?
 

[q_q_]

Regarding the problem of kabbalah being very pacifistic, and the kabbalistic rabbis claiming absolute truth, from heavenly teachers. You seemed to agree that not just charlatans of today, but classic kabbalists were very pacifistic..

You mentioned that when kabbalah goes against halacha, we do halacha. 
I agree..

But this just points to the idea of not taking kabbalah seriously.  If  a kabbalistic text goes against halacha sometimes, and we say "well, that can't be right". then it calls into question the entire text. Especially if as rabbi bar hayyim said, the text, e.g. zohar, has anachronisms in it.
And this calls into question even a great kabbalist that accepted the zohar(I think the arizal did).. Didn't his heavenly teacher tell him it was not all written or at all written by rabbi shimon bar yochai?

I can understand those that accept it completely, because they accept the truth claim, so they accept it.  And I can understand those that reject it completely, they at least they are consistent.

But one that accepts parts of a text that doen't contradict what he believes, and rejects parts that do. That is just not honest, for a text whose claim, is that it was written by a certain person who received knowledge from an angel.
 
If parts contradict, then those parts we could say are unreliable. But the rest of it, the honest answer is that we don't know, and therefore, cannot take it seriously. And that's being politically correct and polite. The harsh answer is that the author is G-d forbid,  a  lunatic albeit an intelligent one, or, a liar or a gullible person with an overactive imagination who believes his own nonsense.   
Of course, most of our rabbis have accepted kabbalah, and most of the great rabbis have been kabbalists. The vilna Gaon - another kabbalist and great rabbi. So people don't want to disrespect these personalities. So one politely uses a methodology that just proves they don't take kabbalah or kabbalistic texts or kabbalists writing kabbalah, seriously,  while they say little against the text or person that wrote it.  or people that claimed heavenly teachers, and accepted it as holy.  It's a politically correct compromise. But really it calls into question these kabbalists and it is certainly not taking kabbalah seriously.

[q_q_]

The people that want to build the temple now..

they quote the RAMBAM - hilchot melachim, to say that te messiah fights wars.

But they don't quote him to say that in Ch1 halachot 1-2  he says that these 3 mitzvot should be done in this order -   Appoint a King, Wipe out amalek, Build a temple.

(I am partly playing devils advocate here , because I understand how they might accept the RAMBAM in one place but not another, if one thing he said is disputed. However, still, they quote the RAMBAM as if -he- is their authority, and they don't bother to mention that they are going against the RAMBAM in another area, directly related to what they are doing).

[q_q_]

I have heard from a charedi a statement that there is no basis for a state of israel pre moshiach..

what is your argument to this?

We had Kings in the past. Who were the bad ones? How did that come about? Who elected them and what gave them a basis? Do we even need a basis?

Did we ever have sovereignty without a King?  Would that be an argument for a basis of the state of israel today and whenever?

[q_q_]

I have heard from an unreliable maimonidean that a minhag has to be defined by a bet din, or it's not a minhag? 
(note- i guess a sanhedrin/bet din hagadol, too, might make a minhag. Or is it then a law?.)

Is it true though that a minhag not made by a court, has no basis in halacha?

What is the difference between a minhag and a law? Is a minhag by a bet din, and a law by a sanhedrin?

and a minhag literally a local law?


 

[Tzvi Ben Roshel1]

I think that you think that we can have a Jewish king now.
  But if this is true then why does the Rambam say that a Jewish king is appointed by a Prophet?

[2honest]

Hello Judea,

what's your view about the creation of the world as it is described in the beginning of The Tanach?
Do you understand it literally or allegorically?

What do you think about creationists claiming the world is about 6000 years old due to a literal unterstanding of the text?

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Sorry this may be long.
There's a new blog at jpost.com by a charedi woman.  It's called "modesty blase"
The comment thread got a little interesting, here (link for those interested) http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/modesty/entry/social_action#comments
 
 I was hoping you could explain and/or respond to a certain statement by a charedi arguing in the thread.   He is defending the banning of R. Slifkin's books by saying that Rambam didn't know kabbalah.   I'm not sure I understand how someone can say this.   Wouldn't whatever elements of kabbalah known at that time have been known by Rambam, and he just didn't accept certain things or understood differently?   Another guy raised a challenge along these lines, but it wasn't answered.   Here is what the charedi guy is arguing:

Nosson Slifkin is trying to explain the aggados of chazal according to his understanding of the Rambam in Moreh (and his knowledge of that as well is limited). Where I differ with you (and him): since kabala was not revealed in Rambam's time, he wrote what he wrote. If he would have known about kabala, he would have changed his mind like 99% of subsequent rishonim and achronim after revelation of zohar etc.

and

Again I refer to you the hakdama of moreh (third chelek). The Rambam's opinion of maseh breshiet and merkava is phyisics and metaphysics which is rooted in Aristo's greek philosophy. He says there that he did not learn this from a Rebbe so perhaps he erred in his understanding. The Gra in hil. talmud torah and hil kishuf states clearly that the Rambam did not see the kaballa so he erred in thinking that aggados was the clothing of philosophy. Rather maseh breshit and merkava are the foundations of kabala.

and

  needless to say, 99.9% of klal yisroel accepted the zohar and the subsequent understanding of aggados not like the Rambam. That's called Mesorah!

 

He later says that it was divine providence that kaballah would not be revealed to Rambam.  he uses the term chachmas hanistar.  I'm not able to follow his comments or his line of reasoning at all, so can you explain this at all?   I would like to know what he is trying to say about aggados kabalah etc.    The discussion thread there is way over my head, so it wouldn't be productive for me to join in there or ask people to explain these foreign concepts.  But I am very interested in the Slifkin controversy. Thanks for the help.