Torah and Jewish Idea > Torah and Jewish Idea
Shalom
Kahane-Was-Right BT:
--- Quote from: Dan Ben Noah on June 05, 2012, 11:28:14 PM ---It is not wrong for someone to follow always Shulchan Aruch or Mishneh Torah. I think Mishneh Torah is a better choice, but that's what both of these books were written for--so your average person will have a code to go by if they have a question on Jewish law and are not able to go through the Talmud to find their answer. I'm not making claims that scholars must do this, only the average person. Scholars must study all the sources.
--- End quote ---
Then on this we're in agreement. I can tell you a number of times I asked a shaila or general question to Rav Bar Hayim, and he pulled out a Mishne Torah and quoted me a line from Rambam in answer to my question. He has studied that issue in depth in a way I have not and felt the Rambam is on point with his learning out the halacha from the sugia, so he simply quoted him to me.
Scholars I agree must have flexibility and not be "pidgeon holed" so they have to learn all the sources.
The other thing you brought up about who Rav bar hayim learned with, well one thing is for certain that oftentimes the students of a great rav are not on the level of that Rav (Rav Qafeh for example who can compare with him?). That said, I do think it is the case that Rav Qafeh as a policy paskened only according to Rambam unless I am mistaken, but for sure some of his students may be more vigilant in that approach than he actually was. And hence Rabbi Bar Hayim was a student of Rav Qafeh alongside others who were also. I remember one time Rav Bar Hayim told me anecdotally that he once told one of them (either one of these other students or to Rav Qafeh directly, I forget the exact story), that he feels on some issues it would be a better approach to side with someone else over Rambam if his position is really forced in light of other things and that this is a weakness in that approach on a few issues. I forget the exact reply but no one bit his head off, and they basically asserted they stick to Rambam anyway. Wish I remembered that story more clearly.
muman613:
Also I have never seen a stream of Judaism which just listens to one Rabbi for all its decisions. Chabad is the most open in that it accepts and teaches Rambam and it also teaches other great poskim. The entire Talmud is full of great sages who do not agree about halachic issues, and the Torah clearly explains how the decision will be found according to the majority decision.
muman613:
http://www.halachabrura.org/parsha-e.htm
Nitzavim
Deciding Halacha by Prophecy or Bat Kol
(based on Birur Halacha, Bava Metzia 59b)
When there was a dispute between R' Eliezer and the Sages (Bava Metzia 59b), and a Bat Kol from heaven declared that the Halacha is always as R' Eliezer says, R' Yehoshua brought the pasuk in our parsha "It is not in heaven", to show that a Bat Kol is not to be relied upon.
On the other hand, in Yevamot (14a) the gemara states that the rule that Halacha is like Bet Hillel against Bet Shammai is based on a Bat Kol.
Tosafot give two explanations to reconcile the sources: A) In the case of R' Eliezer it was clear that the Halacha was like the Sages since they were the majority, and a Bat Kol cannot overcome a clear Halachic rule; whereas in the case of Bet Hillel, it wasn't clear if Halacha is like Bet Hillel since they were the majority, or like Bet Shammai since they were more sagacious, and a Bat Kol is decisive where the halacha is unclear. B) In the case of R' Eliezer the Bat Kol came out only to honor him, after he requested "Let heaven prove me right", and not as a true decision, and therefore it is not to be reckoned with.
R' Nissim Gaon explained that in the case of R' Eliezer the Bat Kol was disregarded since it was worded generally: "Halacha is always like R' Eliezer", which could be construed to mean that Halacha is always like him except here. This can explain why the Bat Kol in the case of Bet Hillel is decisive: because it had exact wording.
The Rambam brings the pasuk "It is not in heaven", to show that a prophet cannot add or omit a mitzvah, nor interpret a mitzvah in a manner not delivered by Moshe Rabbenu. Ma'ase Rekach explains that the Rambam agrees with the first opinion in Tosafot, that where Halacha is unsettled, a Bat Kol or prophecy can be used to settle the halacha, since this does not contradict anything in the Torah. But Pri Chadash holds that in the Rambam's view, in no case can prophecy decide Halacha, and the reason for the rule that halacha is like Bet Hillel isn't because of the Bat Kol, rather because they were the majority, and the Bat Kol came only to honor them.
muman613:
Here is the story from Talmud concerning how Halacha must be decided by majority opinion...
http://www.torahtots.com/parsha/devarim/nitzav3.htm
DOWN TO EARTH
The Talmud (Baba Metzia 59b) explains, "it is not in heaven" as follows:
After the Torah was given, it was no longer "in heaven." Hashem does not make Torah decisions in Heaven. Halachic (Torah law) decisions must be decided by human authorities following the guidelines given to Moshe at Har (Mt.) Sinai. It is Hashem's will that the Sages apply the laws of the Torah to the best of their human understanding. Decisions must reflect the opinion of the majority of a Bait Din (Jewish court), who are the final authority in all cases of Torah law.
The Talmud (ibid) brings this story to prove its point.
The Sages were debating whether or not a certain type of oven could become tamay (impure). The majority of the Sages ruled that it could. Rabbi Eliezer ben (son of) Horkenos held that it could not.
Rabbi Eliezer ben Horkenos, perhaps the most outstanding Sage of the generation, cited many proofs in favor of his position, but the Sages, who were the majority, would not accept these proofs.
Rabbi Eliezer ben Horkenos declared: "This carob tree will demonstrate that the Halachah (Torah law) follows my opinion."
A miracle occurred whereby the carob tree uprooted itself and replanted itself 100 cubits away. (some say, four hundred amot).
The Sages replied: "Halachah is not established on the basis of a carob tree.* "
[*Since Rabbi Eliezer was a very righteous man, the tree might have been uprooted at his command. This does not prove, though, that his ruling was correct.]
Rabbi Eliezer ben Horkenos declared: "This stream of water will demonstrate that the Halachah follows my opinion." The stream of water began to flow backwards against the current.
The Sages replied: "Halachah is not established on the basis of a stream."
Rabbi Eliezer ben Horkenos declared: "The walls of the Bait Hamidrash (House of Study) will demonstrate that the Halachah follows my opinion."
The walls of the Bait Hamidrash began to tremble and fall, and the Sages feared that any moment they would collapse.
Rabbi Yehoshua called out to the walls: "Why are you interfering in a Halachic debate among Sages?"
Immediately, out of respect for Rabbi Yehoshua, the walls did not collapse, but out of deference to Rabbi Eliezer, they did not return to their original upright position either. They remained slanted.
Rabbi Eliezer ben Horkenos declared: "The heavens will attest that the Halachah follows my opinion."
A bat kol (heavenly divine voice) proclaimed: "Why do you contest Rabbi Eliezer? The halachah always follows Rabbi Eliezer's teachings."
Rabbi Yehoshua rose and declared:
"It is written: 'It is not in heaven." ' (Devarim ibid).
What is meant by; 'It is not in the heaven'? Rebbi Yirmiah said: It means that we don't listen to a bat kol in matters of Halachah, for the Torah was already given to man at Har Sinai.
Rabbi Yehoshua continued:
"We don't listen to the bat kol because You (Hashem) already wrote in the Torah at Har Sinai (Shmot, Exodus 23:2) 'According to the majority (the matter) shall be decided.'*
[*R' Yehoshua understood this to mean that Hashem would never interfere with the judicial process through which the law is decided. Accordingly he interpreted the Heavenly echo to be merely a test of whether the Sages would hold their ground. And the next story proved him correct.]
Later, one of the Sages, Rabbi Natan met Eliyahu Hanavi (Elijah the prophet). He asked him: "What did Hashem say during this argument?"
Eliyahu replied to him: "He was laughing and saying (with satisfaction), 'My sons won me in the discussion.' "*
Kahane-Was-Right BT:
--- Quote from: muman613 on June 06, 2012, 12:07:48 AM ---I will not read what this Rabbi writes because my opinion of him is not very high. Virtually everything you have ever brought here to JTF written by this Rabbi contains attacks on other streams of Judaism.
--- End quote ---
Other streams of Judaism? You know that reform and conservative call themselves "streams of judaism" right?
Anyway, I really don't think I brought anything from Rav Bar Hayim to this site that does anything other than upholding the Judaism of our forefathers and upholding chazal. These types of general and vague statements from you perplex me because on the many things I've posted here before I've never seen you lodge a complaint with substantial argument that Rav Bar Hayim is attacking streams through his Torah learning. (For example how about the keziath shiur where I wrote up almost word for word the entire shiur - is your complaint w rav bar hayim or w the talmud... or w Rav Yisrael Salanter or ... etc)?
You then say he is too caustic, well I would argue we need an approach that is caustic against the ghetto mentality. His is the type of mindset that will raise Jews up above the jackboots of bibi's kapos. The "shas and utj" style galut judaism is what will send us further into the ground, Imo.
To say you don't respect him is a very serious personal charge - why would you do that? Can't you just leave it at the fact you don't like his views? And why become personally offended?
We have been through this chabad thing already but I'm sorry to say you are stiill living in denial if you really think there are no or very few mesichistim out there. Unfortunately there are many. Still non mesichist chabad does good work and rav bar hayim readily praises some of what they do, so why do you act like he vilifies chabad? ...
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version