Torah and Jewish Idea > Torah and Jewish Idea
Accepting the Torah, But Remaining a Gentile
q_q_:
--- Quote from: judeanoncapta on December 21, 2008, 01:09:31 AM ---
--- Quote from: Tzvi Ben Roshel on December 19, 2008, 09:27:50 AM ---And JNC- you say 1/3 of Torah or whatever. Let me ask you- do you think that a Rabbi who goes to speak to non-religious Jews should (after showing the proofs and proving the Torah to be 100% true) then go on to speak about Karbanot and building the Temple as opposed to Shabbat and modesty, etc? Speaking about the temple in a time when their is no temple is pointless in that type of croud becuase it would be preaching to do something that one cannot (and anyway sacrifices are mentioned, if you would only listin). After the proofs he speaks a lot about keeping Shabbat, about modesty, etc. Becuase 1- theat is the covenent between Israel and G-d and 2- it is something that people CAN actually do. It is 100% applicable today and should be done. - Getting into the topic of sacrifices and building the Temple is almost no point in that type of crowd because it will not change a thing in the way people behave right now. - On the other hand those who already keep Mitzvot- that we are able, then their are some groups that learn all different parts of the Talmud and each group gets into their specific topics.
Also wasn't it your Rav who himself said that things should be done a step at a time? Meaning that we all know that with 70% (I dont know whatever the amount is) of non-religious we wont build the Temple right away. Are you going to disown your Rav too becuase he talks about 1/ 613th at a time? As opposed to the attitude of all or nothing? - Anyway in what shiur will anyone get it all? Many Rabbis speak of different things, some focus on one topic and others on another, also the different shiurim themselves focus on different topics.
--- End quote ---
I think that you have hit directly on my point. He teaches only what is applicable to Jews living in Exile. ie applicable today.
That is Galuth Judaism. I think that we must be striving for something greater. ie the other 413 commandments.
I know that a Jew living in Galuth needs Galuth Judaism to stay alive. I fully realize that.
But in Israel, the last thing that we need is Galuth Judaism. Galuth Judaism blinds us and makes us immobile. It makes us unable to conceive of what the entire Torah system actually is because we are so caught up in maintaining the customs that we were used to in Galuth. When my Rav put out a psak that all Jews in Israel no matter where their ancestors came from may eat Qitnioth on Pesah, he received death threats. That is Galuth Judaism, my friend. That is Galuth Judaism.
And also, I think if you asked Rav Mizrahi "If the Israeli Government changed it's mind tommorow and said 'If you want to build the Temple tommorow, go ahead', Should we go ahead and build it?", I guarrantee you that he would say "No!!"
So, it's not a question of how much he speaks or doesn't speak about the other 413 commandments, it's a matter of whether he uprooted and voided the other 413 commandments. That is the real issue.
--- End quote ---
That does merge a few things though..
Galus judaism as judaism applicable for when in Galus..
and galus judaism as in , the unintellectual rhetoric and behaviour.. like whoever sends death threats to rabbi bar hayyim over the kitniyot issue!
While in galus, the kitniyot custom was questioned.. So there was a galus judaism without that.. Just as there was a galus judaism with less kabbalah.. And other things that became more in galus.
The details about the sacrifices are taught.. because every word of the torah is holy.. Sometimes rabbis doing popular talks don't talk about it.. But serious ones do.. So I don't see a galus judaism without that. I guess you are talking about on a really serious level so the rabbi is confident and knows what to do. Indeed.. I have read that nowadays these things are left to "the gedolim", though everything is, so that comes down to gedolim again
The Korban pesach , there are reasons both ways. So there are many issues here.. All of which you put under a banner of galus judaism.. Rabbis have debated it. So it's not purely "gedolim say".
Are modern Eruvs "galus judaism" or just wrong.. One can blur it into that label. Saying Gedolim..
Really these are all separate issues, that deserve iondividual attention , the only thing connecting them are Gedolim, but they are behind anything.
The Gedolim thing crept up in Galus. But these general labels cause us not to give any of these things properly schoalrly attention..
It would be great if you wrote scholarly articles on these individual things. You did a great show on the korban pesach. But i'm sure you had written notes on it.. A written document is much better for something so serious. And then you really don't have to repeat yourself.
You can number the paragraphs and refer people to whatever paragraph of your document!
Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks:
--- Quote from: judeanoncapta on December 21, 2008, 12:51:48 AM ---True, I am all in favor of "live and let live" when it comes to christians and not attempting to proselytize christians.
However, the christian he debated was a Jew who had converted to christianity. When the Christian world spends millions of dollars every year to convert Jews to christianity, Jews are required to respond. And that is what Rabbi Mizrahi was doing. I do not oppose him on that at all.
--- End quote ---
I will confess I don't really know who this Rabbi is and exactly what he is saying about Christianity. Obviously he has the right to debate a Christian who is trying to convert him to Christianity. If that is ALL he is doing, and he is NOT issuing a polemic against Christianity in general, then I take back what I said.
Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks:
DownwithIslam, I don't think Judeanoncapta is anti-Chabad. Far from it. He has some theological issues with them (especially their rabbi), but he does not think they are bad Jews that must be converted.
Now, I do agree with you that when 99% of Chabad are hardcore Zionists even if just by default, there isn't really a need to argue with any of their views, at least on this forum. I think my analogy between Chabad/Breslov Hasidic Jews and other conservative, biblical Jews and Pentecostals and non-Pentecostal right-wing Bible-believing Christians was valid--there might be some genuine theological differences at the microcosmic level, but nothing worth airing public disagreements over when they agree on 99% of matters of faith and culture.
q_q_:
--- Quote from: C.F. on December 21, 2008, 01:38:25 AM ---
--- Quote from: judeanoncapta on December 21, 2008, 12:51:48 AM ---True, I am all in favor of "live and let live" when it comes to christians and not attempting to proselytize christians.
However, the christian he debated was a Jew who had converted to christianity. When the Christian world spends millions of dollars every year to convert Jews to christianity, Jews are required to respond. And that is what Rabbi Mizrahi was doing. I do not oppose him on that at all.
--- End quote ---
I will confess I don't really know who this Rabbi is and exactly what he is saying about Christianity. Obviously he has the right to debate a Christian who is trying to convert him to Christianity. If that is ALL he is doing, and he is NOT issuing a polemic against Christianity in general, then I take back what I said.
--- End quote ---
Some do issue arguments against christianity in general(as a response to missionaries).. he styled it as a response to that christian missionary that was bothering them.
Of course to counter missionaries one would be arguing against christianity in general. But it's to counter missionaries. It's not targetted to a gentile audience.
I don't think you will find ONE rabbi or jewish organisation that targets a gentile audience and argues against christianity.
q_q_:
--- Quote from: C.F. on December 21, 2008, 01:44:17 AM ---DownwithIslam, I don't think Judeanoncapta is anti-Chabad. Far from it. He has some theological issues with them (especially their rabbi), but he does not think they are bad Jews that must be converted.
Now, I do agree with you that when 99% of Chabad are hardcore Zionists even if just by default, there isn't really a need to argue with any of their views, at least on this forum. I think my analogy between Chabad/Breslov Hasidic Jews and other conservative, biblical Jews and Pentecostals and non-Pentecostal right-wing Bible-believing Christians was valid--there might be some genuine theological differences at the microcosmic level, but nothing worth airing public disagreements over when they agree on 99% of matters of faith and culture.
--- End quote ---
As Wafa Sultan said. People have the right to decide what they are called..
Chabad would not call themselves Zionists. To call them "hardcore zionists" is crazy. Very ignorant. Though that is to be expected.. I don't know why you speak in detail about chabad and breslov when you cannot possibly know about them.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version