Torah and Jewish Idea > Torah and Jewish Idea
Ask Judea Torah Show 7
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?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version