Torah and Jewish Idea > Torah and Jewish Idea
Shalom
Tag-MehirTzedek:
Anyway the Rambam, as great as he was made mistakes as well. He was human, in fact today I was dealing with a case of the Rambam contradicting himself in some major point of Torah though.
muman613:
--- Quote from: Dan Ben Noah on June 05, 2012, 05:28:20 PM ---I read all that and listened to the audios before. But I still think that there is no purer halachic code out of the ones available today than the Mishneh Torah, and Rabbi Bar Hayim hasn't brought one into existence, has he? Also the way he was talking about "hasiba" reminded me of the way Conservative Jews think about changing halacha.
--- End quote ---
Halacha can change... This is why Halacha is the living Torah and sages of the day can argue pro or con to support their view. Obviously Halacha cannot contradict the simple meaning of the Torah but within a framework of ideas the Halacha can change... It is not carved in stone.
http://www.zootorah.com/controversy/Levi.pdf
--- Quote ---http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/decide.html
III. Limited Role of Charisma/Inspiration
Halachic decision-making is not a matter of a Rabbi secluding himself in a room and getting a direct answer from G-d which he then communicates with ex cathedra authority. Indeed, based on the verse, "It [the Torah] is not in Heaven", the Talmud declares that prophecy and Divine inspiration cannot be taken into account in the resolution of halachic questions. All halachic resolution depends on a solid empirical grounding in the facts coupled with a reasoned application from the primary texts that Jewish law considers to be definitive, e.g. Talmud, Codes. Ad hoc decision-making that is not rooted in these texts is generally illegitimate.
.
.
.
VI. Halachic Reasoning: Combination of Inductive and Deductive Logic
Halachic reasoning, in common with all reasoning by analogy, involves a combination of inductive and deductive logic. First, relevant primary data - rulings in particular cases extracted from Talmud and Codes - have to be identified and collected. Second, through inductive reasoning, a hypothesis is formulated that explains the specific collection of rulings by reference to a more general principle. Third, through deductive reasoning, this principle can be utilized to apply to new situations that are not explicitly covered by the earlier rulings but can now be subsumed under the principle that is believed to explain those earlier rulings. Uncertainty, ambiguity, and disagreement among halachic scholars can arise at any stage of this three-stage process.
--- End quote ---
Tag-MehirTzedek:
--- Quote from: Dan Ben Noah on June 05, 2012, 05:28:20 PM ---I read all that and listened to the audios before. But I still think that there is no purer halachic code out of the ones available today than the Mishneh Torah, and Rabbi Bar Hayim hasn't brought one into existence, has he? Also the way he was talking about "hasiba" reminded me of the way Conservative Jews think about changing halacha.
--- End quote ---
Almost no one does Hasiba today. It's a fact. All the people who think they are doing what they call "Hasiba" is not it at all. What do most do today? lean over (totally uncomfortably) and eat their Massa or drink the cups of wine and then go back to normal sitting out of relief.
Some (and these are few) actually do Hasiba correctly, but go again't the purpose of Hasiba to begin with. The reason for making Hasiba as stated in Chazal was for Jews on the night of the Seder to behave like freed men and children of THE King (HKBH). Soo the way of eating like royalty during that time was to do what is called Hasiba.
It is not changing Halacha like the conservative. The opposite, it is keeping Halacha and knowing reality and applying that custom (custom or statement of the Hachamim at that time) to today's reality and telling people to yes continue on this night of Pessah to eat like important noble men. And how do important people eat today? They do not eat reclining.
What about possibly changing the Halacha? Its not changing the Halacha at all. It is applying it properly today. Also it is not a Misswa Min Ha Torah but it is from the Rabbanim with the reason provided for, therefore with their reasoning known we apply their reasoning to how to eat on that night to how to eat this coming Pessah night as well. (Obviously only Talmidei Hachamim would and do tackle these issues and when this logic applies and when not, another example in Shaving during Hol Hamoed, which not only Rav Bar-Haim allows (when done correctly) but other Hachamim including Rav Moshe Feinstein ZTL, Rav Soloveichic and others as well)
Tag-MehirTzedek:
--- Quote from: Dan Ben Noah on June 05, 2012, 06:32:37 PM --- You could use the same reasoning to say that we have advanced methods of telling time and fast communication now so we only need to observe Rosh HaShana and other holidays for only one day outside of Eretz Yisrael instead of two, because the original purpose for making two days is irrelevant now. Does Rabbi Bar Hayim allow this? I respect him, and these types of arguments would be good to submit on a resurrected Sanhedrin, but as far as practical halacha is concerned, I don't think he has anything better to offer than the Mishneh Torah.
--- End quote ---
I did think about that before and I did ask him this specific question and the answer is no, one must keep 2 days of Yom Tov outside of Israel. And yes, most likly when the Sanhedrin will be made again they would probably lift that decree (besides other reasons applying as well. For example- that in the Galut it takes 2ce as much then as in Israel to accomplish spiritually).
BUT their is 1 major difference between these examples. The 2 day Yom Tov was made by the Sanhedrin and Beit Din that did have power to rule (I beleive in the time of Hillel who had Smicha) the Hasiba or shaving for example was not with the reasons provided as well. That is the difference.
Also another example is killing lice on Shabbath. The opinion of R' Elizer is that killing lice is like killing a camel. The Hachamim disagree, BASED on the science and knowledge of their day that lice spontaniously generate. Therefore the Rav says that killing lice os forbidden on Shabbath (in agreement with R' Elizer + our knowledge over the other Hachamim) while some (for example R' Ovadia Yosef, and others) permit it today- their reasoning- just like yours, that is was made by the Hachamim and brought down in the Talmudh therefore it is allowed, although one can make a Humra and not do it him/her self. BUT this contradicts the Mesehet Horayot which specifically deals with situations where the Sanhedrin made a mistake and one knowledgeable NOT following it and if he did he is liable to bring a korban. (Its a whole discussion both Bavli and Yerushalmi)
Tag-MehirTzedek:
See this response from Rav Bar-Hayim, read carefully (not on website, I put in _______, although probably not necessary and no it wasn't R' Ovadia Yosef, but someone else).
Spontaneous generation does not and never did exist. According to Wikipedia: "The theory was synthesized by Aristotle,[1] who compiled and expanded the work of prior natural philosophers and the various ancient explanations of the appearance of organisms; it held sway for two millennia. It is generally accepted to have been ultimately disproven in the 19th Century by the experiments of Louis Pasteur, expanding upon the experiments of other scientists before him (such as Francesco Redi who had performed similar experiments in the 17th century). Ultimately, it was succeeded by germ theory and cell theory." Therefore, any Halakhic opinion based on this false belief is rooted in error, an error which has nothing to do with the Tora. Halakha should be based on reality and reason, not fallacies. I am aware that someone like R. _________ may make an argument based on Halakhic stability, etc. I feel that this position cannot and will not stand up to criticism. Furthermore, it paints the Tora as something anachronistic and frozen, unable to deal with changing realities. This is a very serious matter indeed. I am aware that some people cannot conceive of any of the Hakhamim being mistaken about anything. This is a naive, if quaint, notion, rooted in a very particular type of philosophical outlook (hashqapha) which today is mainstream in the Haredi world an not uncommon in other parts of the Orthodox world.. It is not a Tora-based point of view; see Wayiqra 4:13 and Masekheth Horayoth.
The claim that spontaneous generation did indeed exist once upon a time but ceased to exist at some point is childish and untenable, and reflects poorly on those who express such a view. Even if this ludicrous suggestion were true, it would not justify killing a louse on Shabath today.
Some of Hazal believed in spontaneous generation. Based on this belief, and the assumption that only life created by univocal generation is considered to be truly alive, those Hakhamim ruled that killing a louse was mutar. We find, however, that other Hakhamim ruled that killing a louse on Shabath is "no different from killing a camel". R. Eliezer is recorded by the TB (Shabath 12a, 107b) as being of this view, as is Hizqiya by the TY (Shabath 1:3). Clearly they either did not believe this concept to be true, or, alternately, they felt that true or not, if something is plainly alive it may not be killed on Shabath.
The TB is no more binding than the TY, and vice versa. All of the Tora SheBa'al Pe has to be learned, analysed and understood correctly, as Rambam mentions in his introduction to MT. This requires many, many years of specialised study and training. That which appears to a true Hakham capable of the above to be the truth of the matter at hand is the Halakha. This does not preclude the possibility that two great Hakhamim will differ. The search for understanding and truth continues with their disciples, students and followers. This has always been darka shel Tora, the way of Tora study and practice.
Kol Tuv
DHY
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version