Torah and Jewish Idea > Torah and Jewish Idea
Ask Judea Torah Show 8
Tzvi Ben Roshel1:
Is a Jew allowed to take another Jew to a non-Jewish court? (I believe you will say no). So my question is, do you (and Rav Bar Hayim) believe a Jew can take another Jew to court in the courts of modern day Israel?
And also part B) What about if we assume that the courts are not leftists, and that they are 100% for taking over the land of Israel (so we can assume that we are talking about the original courts of the State of Israel).
q_q_:
I have heard that some Sefaradim don't wear kippot or have their heads covered, because it's just a custom and they don't keep it.
I guess that would be an example of a custom in the gemara not instituted by a bet din, right? what others are there = in the gemara, not instituted by a bet din?
do you think one should wear a head covering? why?
I know it has a reason, of reminding one that G-d is above.. But - playing devils advocate, it's easy to come up with a reason to wear an item of clothing, and then say well, you have to wear this item. And you get customs that aren't important, are not derived.
are any customs important?
you seem to dispute the idea that custom is as strong as law.
Kahane-Was-Right BT:
Dear Judea,
I sometimes read the articles on the blog called hirhurim by Rabbi Gil Student. You might be aware of this rabbi or his site. He made a somewhat famous and very informative refutation of all the lies often thrown at the Talmud by the neonazis.
Some of the ideological leanings of the site do irk me though, but it's a good blog overall. There was an article about the recent controversy over hiring non-Jewish workers to build up Jewish settelments on Shabbat. Here is the link for anyone interested http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2008/07/building-on-shabbos.html
In the comment thread, the Talmud Yerushalmi was brought up. Someone commented asking first, how can Rabbeinu Tam's opinion fit with that of the Talmud Yerushalmi? He prefaced it by saying "The opinion that you can build a house on Shabbos with Amirah lenachri is the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam. However, many Rishonim pasken it is forbidden as the Yerushalmi paskens like RSB"E that you can't do any work related to karka." I don't know what this means at all, could you explain it? Then the commenter answers himself thus
--- Quote --- I feel the answer is that it is a machlokes Bavli/Yerushalmi: The Bavli (Avodah Zarah 21b-22a) has machlokes: RSB"G says there is aris for a field, and RSB"E says there is not aris for a field. But in the Bavli we pasken like RSB"G, not like RSB"E. Therefore, R"T rejects the Yerushalmi because the Bavli argues on it.
--- End quote ---
I'm also not sure what all of that means, particularly "aris" or what the RSB's stand for, but I'm not sure the last part could be true in any case? Is it really sufficient reason to reject a Yerushalmi position merely because "Bavli argues on it." Wouldn't that be holding the Bavli as superior to Yerushalmi and isn't that mistaken?
A few people raised the issue about Yerushalmi vs. Bavli in the comments. Later on, Rabbi Gil Student responded. Someone had said "It's just a cop out to say, Well, Bavli disagrees."
The Rabbi says in response
--- Quote --- The Rif at the end of Eruvin also says that we follow the Bavli over the Yerushalmi.
I agree that it is a cop out to not even try to understand the Bavli and Yerushalmi as agreeing. But sometimes it is just a disagreement.
--- End quote ---
When I look at that quote of the Rif which I found online translated, it seems to me just a fancy way of stating Bavli supremacy over Yerushalmi. And also I don't think the person was saying that they SHOULD be understood to agree. Only if someone believes the Bavli is superior would they force a reading of the Yerushalmi to fit with Bavli's opinion, right? But in any event, what do you make of that Rif commentary on Eruvin 104b.
I'll quote it for you here: "“Since the sugya of our
Gemara (the Babylonian Talmud) permits it, it is of no concern to us that
the Gemara of the Inhabitants of the West forbids it, because we rely on our
Gemara since it is later in time, and they (the Sages in Babylonia) were more
versed in the Gemara of the Inhabitants of the West than we are. Were they not
convinced that this statement of the Gemara of the Inhabitants of the West is not
to be relied upon, they would not have permitted it.”
- essentially this is saying that Yerushalmi can't possibly mean what we think it means or can't possibly be saying what it appears to say because that disagrees with Bavli on the issue. right?
One last thing, either you had said it or an article by Rabbi Bar Chayyim that I had read said this, but apparently there were some rabbis from an area near France that came to the land of Israel and sort of forced upon the inhabitants the Bavli which at that time was not used within Eretz Yisrael (Yerushalmi was used). I read in Hakira - an online magazine from Flatbush - that it was due to the influence of the Rif that the 'supremacy' of the Bavli (like some of the commenters were arguing for) came about amongst a majority of Jews. And they quoted specifically that passage from Eruvin cited by Rabbi Student in the comments as their footnote for this statement. Did everyone adopt the Rif's opinion? Is there room within the mesorah to disagree with this basic notion? Any additional thoughts? Thanks for your time, hope this wasn't too long.
q_q_:
You once said that Rabbi Meir Kahane ztl hyd said about the israeli high court that it can't get any lower.
That statement is not in any kahane audios I have ever heard, and I heard them all.. And I saw any video about him on youtube or google video.
Where did he say it?
I ask because it's one I haven't heard and I'd like to hear/see it! (or read it if he wrote it)
Tzvi Ben Roshel1:
Can you talk about the different aspects of "Dina Malcuta Dina".
(When will the show be made?)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version