Torah and Jewish Idea > Torah and Jewish Idea
Shalom
Tag-MehirTzedek:
--- Quote from: Dan Ben Noah on June 05, 2012, 10:05:05 PM ---Rabbi Bar Hayim's audio was made in response to people who claimed he was a "Rambamist". He agrees with Rambam in most cases. But he over-generalized about what a "Rambamist" is, talking about a "group" that doesn't exist. Maybe individuals exist who only believe anything that Rambam wrote but they are not your average Mishneh Torah adherents. That would be like associating all Kahanists with people who plotted to blow up a girls' school. The chayas site had a problem with him saying this hasiba practice was antiquated and that people were stubborn and obstinate who still did it. There are a lot of technically antiquated practices that are still practiced though, like the 2-day holidays.
Also, this lice issue did not begin with Rambam but the Gemara. So some apparently still permit killing lice on Shabbat for other reasons, and this is not just Mishneh Torah adherents, but other people such as the Lubavitcher Rebbe who said that it's possible that spontaneous generation exists even if we can't observe it and the halacha shouldn't be changed. I don't believe that spontaneous generation exists, but I think that the proper thing for a rabbi to do would not be to change the halacha itself, but tell people not to kill anything on the Sabbath unless it poses a threat to your life, because nothing exists that meets the spontaneous generation criteria in the Mishneh Torah. So I would agree with the Lubavitcher Rebbe's method, but reach Rabbi Bar Hayim's conclusion--don't change the halacha but don't kill lice on Shabbat.
--- End quote ---
The Haseba and the Rambamist audio lectures are 2 different topics and different lectures.
No he didn't over generalize. A Rambamist is someone who only follows the Rambam (or thinks he is following the Rambam) with the exclusion of all else without taking into the insights and opinions of others.
Anyway did you yourself listen to his Haseba lecture?
Spontanious generation doesn't exist. What you said about the Lubavitcher R' opinion and your conclusion are 2 opposites. Either it exists or does not. Either its allowed or not. Their are those who allow it. Other's do not.
About "changing" its not technically changing its applying it correctly which only someone with great years ,experience and knowledge can do. Not the average person. And it would be people with the mindset that would be able to form the proper Sanhedrin as well. NOT those who just open the Mishna Torah, or Shulhan Aruch, Ben Ish Chai or Mishna Brura and just read without the proper overall knowledge, background, experience, secular, wordly and Torah knowledge. It would be okay for a regual person though to accept any one of these systems as their "Rav" soo to speak.
Tag-MehirTzedek:
Dan you want one perversion of this type of thinking- and this is with those who only rely on the Shulahan Aruch. For example- "Land for Peace". It doesn't mention fighting for the land of Israel in the Shulhan Aruch, but it does in saving one's life, soo therefore automatically if their is a situation of either fighting for the land or risking a life, we go with "Land for Peace". Do you not see a problem with that reasoning?
Kahane-Was-Right BT:
Upon reading this now (just beginning so far), I can already see the response suffers from a "no true scotsman" fallacy. Rav Bar Hayim studied with these people for years. They were indeed serious scholars. And I have encountered some rambamists on facebook myself. They do exist and they shocked me w the things they said. One guy for instance slandered Rav Yakov Kamenetsky zt"l because he "dared" point out that some of Rambam's views on astronomy were subsequently proven wrong in modern times and therefore needn't be followed.
And something more well known. There is a more "scholarly" type Rambamist who wrote up a pamphlet saying the moon landing must have been staged because rambam said the moon is a sentient being. (Rav Yakov had asserted that the moon landing among other things proves that view false). This person wrote up a pamphlet attacking this point of view on the grounds that we must assume Rambam was correct. Btw , its an aristotelian view of the cosmos that the sun planets etc are sentient beings. Wonder if the author of that pamphlet even knows that.
I think the writer you cite is either in denial or not well aware of his compatriots
Kahane-Was-Right BT:
--- Quote from: Dan Ben Noah on June 05, 2012, 04:45:05 PM ---This would be like stigmatizing people who adhere to the Shulchan Aruch as a group called "Karoists"
--- End quote ---
But there are people like that! And they don't make any sense either. And when people insist one "has to follow shulchan aruch" they equally err. Of course one cannot go wrong following a psak of rambam or shulchan aruch, but to say that a rabbinic scholar can only just blindly follow one of them is just not true and puts unecessary limits on halacha.
--- Quote --- who are on par with Karaites.
--- End quote ---
Well you added this part, but maybe it is worth consideration. A halachic code doesn't replace the Oral Torah which is governed by Talmud.
Tag-MehirTzedek:
Here is another "Rambamist". This is also a form of Fundamentalism, similar to the NK. The NK made a whole ideology from something they interpreted (from a small line in Ketuvim) and made a whole ideology out of it. Ignoring virtually everything else on the issue. In fact even stepping on the Torah, Jews and Judaism from that twisted fundamentalist world view.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version