JTF.ORG Forum
Torah and Jewish Idea => Torah and Jewish Idea => Topic started by: judeanoncapta on June 24, 2008, 04:57:54 PM
-
I post the link to the first shiur which is available on the machonshilo website
http://machonshilo.org/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_download/gid,58/Itemid,64/
The second shiur is not on the website and I post it as a JTF Torah section exclusive.
http://www.2shared.com/file/3491971/3aaff66/Why_Rabbis_Cant_Decide-lomdus-postmodernism.html
These two shiurim really show how badly the Halakhic system has broken down and what we need to do to revive it.
-
I just added them here too
normally with rapidshare I zip them, because they can make an individual wait before downloading many files consecutively).
as a backup, rapidshare is more reliable than many others.
megaupload is quite reliable but some of the adverts might offend some members..
http://rapidshare.com/files/124805771/Lomdus-BethYoseph-Postmodernism.mp3.html
http://rapidshare.com/files/124805715/Why_Rabbis_Can_t_Decide-lomdus-postmodernism.mp3.html
-
Is that second one from the old website?
was it ever public?
-
Great to have you back, judeanoncapta. These may be a bit advanced for me but they sound very interesting so I will check these out.
-
Is that second one from the old website?
was it ever public?
No, it was never public. I asked Rav Bar Hayim for it and he put it on my flash drive and let me take it.
Now that I am here and can actually attend the shiurim personally, I get alot of exclusives. I actually have the third shiur in this series but it needs editing, I can give it to you once I am done.
-
thanks.. this is fantastic, and I can't wait to hear the 3 oaths one.
-
thanks.. this is fantastic, and I can't wait to hear the 3 oaths one.
He doesn't mention the three oaths explicitly but his explanation of the midrash that says that Moshe killed the egyptian using the name of Hashem explains the three oaths quite well.
-
thanks.. this is fantastic, and I can't wait to hear the 3 oaths one.
He doesn't mention the three oaths explicitly but his explanation of the midrash that says that Moshe killed the egyptian using the name of Hashem explains the three oaths quite well.
I will listen to his argument.
It sounds like his argument might be based on the assumption that halacha as we had it in the gemara is the same as halacha at the time of moshe.
If that is the case, then the following is relevant. If not then it is just an interesting thing.
I did hear from an/the unreliable maimonidean, that that is not the case(i.e. moshe did not follow halacha like in the gemara. ). And for example the gemara about being killed rather than disobeying a custom and causing a chillul hashem.. (I had asked him about that in relation to chanukah), he said it was written at a time after chanukah. He would say that halacha developed.
Charedim though do make that assumption(that the avot or any biblical characters, kept the halacha of gemara) . Infact, they might even go as far as saying they kept the laws in the shulchan aruch or araba turim. I did read an article in the jewish tribune (an agudat yisroel paper in britain) that explained how avraham in purchasing the cave for sarah, was actually doing what he did in complete accordance with, and because of, the laws in choshen mishpat.
-
ok.. I just listened to it.. [1]
judea, that link to the 3 oaths was very well spotted
so.. I found the thing about moshe, and second lecture, 27min in.
For the benefit of others I will state his argument here.. perhaps editting it to add more..
I'm not adding much here... not really aruging with it . Just presenting it in text form.. And it's not the plain text of his argument.. I just listened to it once and only retained a small amount.
judea-- I guess it's pretty bad though if midrash - midrashic books, are a mixture of the siniatic and deliberately made up temporal things.
And the aggada in gemara..is any aggada in gemara from sinai? It would be a shame if that style of aggada is mixed up with anything siniatic.
What is below is more for others who didn't hear the shiur.
He gave some examples of old teachings or traditions(he was suggesting these particular traditions are not sinaiatic).
One was Moshe killing the egyptian(that's pshat). Nothing in the pshat suggests anything magical. The egyptian was beating a jew, and Moshe saw it and killed the egyptian. There is a teaching(prob midrash) that he killed the egyptian with the shem hameforesh(a special divine name with powerful qualities for those that know how to use it). Rabbi Bar Hayyim argues that Moshe killed the egyptian normally. And that Many centuries later, when jews were in Galus, and could not relate to the story, and were looking for what they could learn from the story, a chacham came up with a story that moshe killed him with the shem hameforesh. And he did so in order to teach the masses to sit through their persecution.. Because sometimes, when things are bad in history, the evil regime is too strong, you can't fight it and have to sit it out. It's safer that way.. And eventually the regime crumbles. As happened to the romans. (he did try fighting the romans in the time of Rabbi Akiva - when he presumed that bar kochba was the messiah, but many jews died)
He gives another example. Of the story of rabbi akiva's students dying. THe story is that they died of a plage that causes asphyxiation. Due to their sin of not speaking to each other respectfully. Some huge number died (10,000 or so?). Rabbi Bar Hayyim argues, or points out, that this is problematic. Why such a severe punishment, and of all the jews, why rabbi akiva's students. They would have had better middot(character traits) than most of klal(congregation of) yisrael.
Rabbi Bar Hayyim then provides a source.. and argues from it (in light of the unbelievability of the above story) that they died in the revolt against the romans. This is far more believable and historically likely.
And he argues that the story that they died of that medical plague due to that sin, was made up to to give yeshiva bochers something they could relate to - and perhaps to them or keep them not picking up swords and fighting oppressors. (and they were probably right that it was safer not to. If they had no chance doing so, like in galus against a strong regime with a well armed army)
He then mentioned the bows and arrows that kids play with on lab b'omer, and a kabbalistic reason that he didn't translate. I have heard a reason that supports his idea to the extent of his other examples..
note- rabbi bar hayyim said (I think quoting the ben ish chai), that there is no source for rabbi shimon bar yochai dying on lab b'omer.
I heard somewhat of a reason given , that rabbi shimon bar yochai died on lab bomer, and during his lifetime there was no rainbow. The rainbow is a reminder from G-d that he will not destroy the world, and if there is a perfect tzaddik there is no need for such a sign.
Rabbi Bar Hayyim suggests the the idea of the bow and arrow came about from the revolt against the romans, which was a historical event. It was commemoriating it (I doubt they would have had much to celebrate though! )
So there is this general idea, of aggadic material in gemara, pehaps even midrashim, being made up in order to modify the behaviour of the people for the period in which they lived.
Personally.. I am not sure.. I wouldn't put it past rabbis of today.. I heard of one rosh yeshiva who would make things up to emphasise things. He told some high school kids that if they don't go to yeshiva, they're not jewish. And he told his yeshiva kids that if they don't daven with a minyan, then their prayer will not be accepted. Interestingly, all his students went to daven with a minyan, whereas students in other yeshivot were more lax about it. It is dissapointing to think that rabbis of gemara times did that though,
There is an idea, particualrly in charedi circles, of getting people to do more mitzvot, by nook or crook. They have camps where they entice kids (typically religious kids from religious homes) entice them with table tennis and games and teach them torah (though they'd probably be enticed by torah anyway!).
Aish also, they have these incredible trips to remote parts of the world, as psychology, in order to get kids to reflect on their life, and then they provide them with arguments for the torah. The irreligious kids themselves know they're going on such a trip, but they just go for the trip, and don't think they will comeback religious! some do! Lubavitch accost secularly dressed jewish-looking people in the street , asking them if they put on teffilin, and if not then they try to get them to put them on.
so judea's argument or suggestion, is that the 3 oaths are an aggadic story made up to influence the behaviour of jews at that time. And perhaps of many times. (as opposed to being strict teachings that we are bound by and must follow without exception )
[1]
judea and I were on the same "page".. But for those that didn't realise.. When I was referring to the shiur relevant to the 3 oaths, this was a reference not to shiurim in this thread, but to a comment judea made in another thread where he linked to 2 shiurim.
it was a spin off from a discussion about rabbi dovid gottlieb of ohr
http://jtf.org/forum_english/index.php?topic=22036.0
and the shiurim there were
Part 1
http://machonshilo.org/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_download/gid,49/Itemid,64/
Part 2
http://machonshilo.org/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_download/gid,50/Itemid,64/
-
q_q_, I am very impressed.
You are a very perceptive guy. I like your breakdown of the shiur.
I don't feel disappointed that Rabbis at the time of the Talmud made certain things up to influence behaviour for two powerful reasons.
1) It was a matter of life and death. They had two revolts, each one more disastrous than the next. Any Rabbi worth his salt would try to calm the rebellious Jews down, to make sure Jews stay alive at all.
2) That is the way of Midrashim. Read Maimonides on this subject. He and almost all Rishonim relate to Midrashim as parables to give over moral lessons. Only in recent times have there been Rabbis who claim that Midrashim are to be taken literally. This is a rather new development.
-
q_q_, I am very impressed.
You are a very perceptive guy. I like your breakdown of the shiur.
I don't feel disappointed that Rabbis at the time of the Talmud made certain things up to influence behaviour for two powerful reasons.
1) It was a matter of life and death. They had two revolts, each one more disastrous than the next. Any Rabbi worth his salt would try to calm the rebellious Jews down, to make sure Jews stay alive at all.
2) That is the way of Midrashim. Read Maimonides on this subject. He and almost all Rishonim relate to Midrashim as parables to give over moral lessons. Only in recent times have there been Rabbis who claim that Midrashim are to be taken literally. This is a rather new development.
thanks for the compliments, though I don't like compliements!
with the revolts.. I guess they had 1 successful one (chanukah) when israel was under the greeks. Then when the romans conquered it, they had 2 unsuccessful revolts against the romans..
note for others - this page was useful http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Palestine
I think they could have done it without making up a story..
And if even originally, it was indeed a parable , and understood as a parable, then it was only relevant to the jews at that place, at that time, and so why include it in the gemara to be studied for thousands of years. Something so temporal should not have been included And belief that the 3 oaths were real and applicable in any exile, was a big factor in the holocaust.
Some midrashim are real stories, some are not. Though all of them teach something.
So saying all midrashim are in the same non-literal bag is not quite accurate.
The question is of course ok, let's they are not literal, but what do they teach.
You are the first person to have offered a good answer to that. Answering what they teach/taught.
The following suggests that they are not made up.
It seems from this link, that the RAMBAM in iggeres teiman considered that in song of songs, king solomon allegorically made the jewish people swear an oath.
Of course, this has many similarities to the 3 oaths. The one described by the RAMBAM seems to involve not going to israel en masse and rising up against the nation there. And of course the 3 oaths themselves link to te same pasuk/pasukim in Song of songs.
interesting that according gil student, the satmar said they don't apply
http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2005/05/religious-zionism-debate-iv.html
"
The Rambam, in his Iggeres Teiman (ch. 4, Qafah edition, p. 55), writes:
Because Shlomo knew with Divine inspiration that this nation, once it is ensnared in exile, will plot to awaken before the appropriate time and will be destroyed through this and will fall into troubles, he warned about this and made it vow -- allegorically (al derekh mashal) -- and said, "I adjure you, O you daughters of Jerusalem" (Song of Songs 2:7).
The Satmar Rav finds this significant: The great Rambam explicitly quotes the Three Oaths! However, the Rambam states that they are allegorical. The Satmar Rav (Va-Yoel Moshe, Ma'amar Gimmel Shevu'os, ch. 36, in the Ashkenazi 5760 edition, p. 47) explains the allegorical aspect of these oaths as meaning that, in truth, the oaths are only binding on the generation that took the oaths (his reasoning is actually much more elaborate). Therefore, these are not legally binding oaths, "only" allegorical but still very serious matters
"
-
q_q_
I remember vaguely from when I read the iggeres teiman, Rambam was referring specifically to a few false messiahs that had popped up and were causing massive casualties on groups of Jews who would follow them trying to slaughter the Muslims on their way to Israel and getting absolutely housed. After several times of this happening, and considering the then- current status of the Moslem empire (which was dominant at that time), he was rebuking these various false messiah groups in their weak attempts to bring redemption by getting behind a false messiah and slaughtering Arabs. Had the reality then been what it is today, would Rambam cite the song of songs in the face of Israeli victory over Arabs and the context of the shoah? I tend to think the contextual reality would play a big role in the Maimonidean prescription.
"will plot to awaken before the appropriate time and will be destroyed through this and will fall into troubles" - seems to refer to actual failures that we had under a few false messiahs in the 800-1200's. But what about the more recent adventures which did not destroy us, while Europe did? Just a thought. In general, I know close to nothing.
-
q_q_
I remember vaguely from when I read the iggeres teiman, Rambam was referring specifically to a few false messiahs that had popped up and were causing massive casualties on groups of Jews who would follow them trying to slaughter the Muslims on their way to Israel and getting absolutely housed. After several times of this happening, and considering the then- current status of the Moslem empire (which was dominant at that time), he was rebuking these various false messiah groups in their weak attempts to bring redemption by getting behind a false messiah and slaughtering Arabs. Had the reality then been what it is today, would Rambam cite the song of songs in the face of Israeli victory over Arabs and the context of the shoah? I tend to think the contextual reality would play a big role in the Maimonidean prescription.
"will plot to awaken before the appropriate time and will be destroyed through this and will fall into troubles" - seems to refer to actual failures that we had under a few false messiahs in the 800-1200's. But what about the more recent adventures which did not destroy us, while Europe did? Just a thought. In general, I know close to nothing.
There are many variables.
What the RAMBAM Was telling the jews of yemen was not to follow false messiahs.
But based on that quote which I gave, quoting king solomon, the meaning might be to not go up en masse - with or without a false messiah. Certainly zionism is all about awakening the love (and going up there en masse).
Now, whether after 1967, the RAMBAM - in his relationship with the state of israel - would be a satmar, an agudat yisroel or a religious zionist, or some mixture, in relation to israel, we don't know.
Taking the RAMBAM's King Solomon quote seriously, the question then comes.. How then could we have come to Israel the second time.
(we were exiled twice, so we entered twice. Our first stay, we came in at Joshua's time. Our second stay , we came in long after King Solomon made that statement)
I have heard that this entry for the beginning of the second stay, is an argument for religious zionism.
I don't know how the RAMBAM would have answered that. But he did seem to quote King Solomon about not awakening the love.. As if they were under this allegorical oath..
Was the RAMBAM referring to the 3 oaths ? If yes, then that's an issue. If no, then still he is referring to a similar oath and applying it to them.
There are way too many variables here..
It may be that he is not taking the oath in song of songs as applicable as an oath on the whole jewish people forever, but he is just using that pasuk in his letter to them, as a rhetorical device.. and he is only applying it to the jews of yemen at that time.
An example of an extreme form of that kind of rhetoric.. somebody did once show me a book called Book of the honeycomb's flow by judah messer leon, and in it the rabbi there writes a letter discussing some wicked person that is trying to ruin him, but every sentence of the letter is a verse of tenach. Quite an astounding style. The context of the verse had absolutely 0 relevance to the letter. It may be here, one verse was quoted. The context of the verse isn't totally relevant, in the sense that the time it was taken is not relevant. The RAMBAM is just repeating what King Solomon said there, and applying it only to the jews of yemen at that time. And that doesn't mean that he is saying it applies elsewhere.
Then you have the association that verse has with the 3 oaths, one could say yes, the gemara relates them to that verse. But it's just a hook. And the RAMBAM was not and did not mean to tell them they are bound by the 3 oaths.
(though he happens to be advising them with a similar message).
And one could say that he wasn't even telling them not to go up en masse, because they were not even thinking about it without a messiah. He was just telling them not to follow a fase messiah, not to follow the false messiah up to israel.
To an extent, one could go either way on this one..
We know for sure what he was telling them. About not following a false messiah.
But whether his argument to them applies elsewhere, that is another matter.
note- given how the secular israeli govt stripped the torah from the jews of yemen, maybe they should have still abided by the letter the RAMBAM sent.. And maybe they thought they were, I read of how excited they were. Maybe they thought the planes were a messianic prophecy being fulfilled(wings of eagles). Maybe they were right! There are just -so- many variables..
-
Interesting.
It may be that he is not taking the oath in song of songs as applicable as an oath on the whole jewish people forever, but he is just using that pasuk in his letter to them, as a rhetorical device.. and he is only applying it to the jews of yemen at that time.
This was a smart way of putting it, and that was kind of what I was alluding to though not spelling it out as well...
-
If one learns properly (using the methods of the Yud Gimel Midos SheHatorah Nidreshes Bahem) you can find more than one interpretation of of Talmudic passage and they can ALL be 100% correct and this will NOT lead to the legitimization of Christianity, homosexuality or any of those philsophies G-d forbid.
If learning is being done in a way that legitimizes such forbidden opinions than it is quite obvious that the person is not learning Torah at all.
When we give a Psak we give it for a given tiime and place and that does not mean the other opinion is wrong. The famous example of this is Beis Hillel and Shammai. We pasken like Hillel now but like Shammai LeAtid Lavo.
This does not mean one does not care about the Truth of the matter. Because in order to get to the truth of the matter you can't just say one opinon is wrong and the other is right. That is almost never the truth. When you find the Truth it will bring out the essence of both sides which at first appear contradictory but in truth are not contradictary at all.
If I had never learned the Torah of the Lubavitcher Rebbe I would agree with R' Chayim. But if you learn the Rebbe's sichot you will see how he time and time again brings out a machloket, shows how they cannot seemily be able to coexist, but then brings a third higher perspective on the matter which shows that both opinions are only bringing out different aspects of the same truth.
The bottom line is summed up perfectly when our sages said: Shei Ketuvim Hamachishim Zeh Et Zeh Ad Sheyavo Hashlishi VeYachriah Beneihem. That is the proper method of learning.
-
To help explain this further:
All machloket is rooted in one fundamental machloket between severity (Shammai) and kindness (Hillel).
Which one is True? Severity or Kindness? In truth this is an invalid question. This the same as asking: is kindness a good thing or a bad thing. If you answer yes or no to that question your answer is not truth.
It's a ridiculous as someone asking is a knife good? Or what's better a knife or a fork? Those are the wrong questions. The question is what is a knife and a fork good for?
Ein Davar Sh'ein Lo Shaa (Pirkei Avot). A knife is good if used properly. A fork is good if used properly in the right time in the right way. Both are bad if used at the wrong time in the right way.
So too with kindesss and severity. Each can be good or bad depending on the situation and how they are used. Both are only tools.
The objective truth which R' Chaim wants to find is the inner goal that we want to acheive with kindness or severity and that does not change depending on which tool you are using.
e.g. if your goal is to raise your child to be a mentch both kindess and severity are not contradictory anymore. Both are used as mere tools to acheive the same goal when needed, in the right proportion etc. The objective goal (raising the kid to be a mentch) does not change.
So truth looks like this:
.
. .
You will always have the two contradictary extremes in every situation and then you willl have the inner point behind both of them (what both were created to accomplish which is the objective truth which never changes and unites both extremes and shows how they don't really contradict any more than a fork contradicts a knife.
This is beauty of Torah. It unites the subjective and the objective. It is flexible than postmodernism and yet at the same time more scientific than mathematics and it shows how those two schools of thought don't even contradict.
-
If one learns properly (using the methods of the Yud Gimel Midos SheHatorah Nidreshes Bahem) you can find more than one interpretation of of Talmudic passage and they can ALL be 100% correct and this will NOT lead to the legitimization of Christianity, homosexuality or any of those philsophies G-d forbid.
Rabbi Yishmael's 13 (yud gimmel) rules , when applicable, apply logically and strictly..
Nothing to do with validating a sea of interpretations where anything not forbidden by the torah is a valid interpetation. These are strict rules with strict conclusions.
And AFAIK they are only applied to interpreting tenach.
Do you have any example of them being used to interpret a gemara?
They are certainly not used in the 3 oaths gemara anyway!!!
This does not mean one does not care about the Truth of the matter. Because in order to get to the truth of the matter you can't just say one opinon is wrong and the other is right. That is almost never the truth. When you find the Truth it will bring out the essence of both sides which at first appear contradictory but in truth are not contradictary at all.
<snip>
There is no logic in saying that in every case when 2 rabbis disagree, the truth is in between them.
And I don't know how this is relevant to an intelligent discussion.
-
If one learns properly (using the methods of the Yud Gimel Midos SheHatorah Nidreshes Bahem) you can find more than one interpretation of of Talmudic passage and they can ALL be 100% correct and this will NOT lead to the legitimization of Christianity, homosexuality or any of those philsophies G-d forbid.
Rabbi Yishmael's 13 (yud gimmel) rules , when applicable, apply logically and strictly..
Nothing to do with validating a sea of interpretations where anything not forbidden by the torah is a valid interpetation. These are strict rules with strict conclusions.
And AFAIK they are only applied to interpreting tenach.
Do you have any example of them being used to interpret a gemara?
They are certainly not used in the 3 oaths gemara anyway!!!
This does not mean one does not care about the Truth of the matter. Because in order to get to the truth of the matter you can't just say one opinon is wrong and the other is right. That is almost never the truth. When you find the Truth it will bring out the essence of both sides which at first appear contradictory but in truth are not contradictary at all.
<snip>
There is no logic in saying that in every case when 2 rabbis disagree, the truth is in between them.
And I don't know how this is relevant to an intelligent discussion.
Read carefully what I wrote about the source of machloket. Your answer is there. The Talmud itself states that "elei velue divrei elokim chaim" so if you say "there is no logic in saying that in every case when 2 rabbis disagree the truth is between them" you are calling the Talmud itself illogical. If we are not talking about legitimate Rabbis you are correct, but if we are talking about legitimate Rabbis who used the 13 principles of interpreting the Torah to get to their conclusion then yes there most certainly is truth between them.
-
The folly in this Rabbis perspective is nicely demonstrated when he is quoted from the softmore at YC. He says he thinks he is from YU so it probably should really say YU. In other words he's assuming because his view that he's from Yeshiva University means that what the paper says is wrong. This is really a lazy way of looking at the world. It's like not understanding something and saying "oh it must be a typo".
In truth YC stands for Yeshiva College which is a division of Yeshiva University. Both are true. He's from Yeshiva University and it's supposed to say "YC". It's just that one someone doesn't have a good grasp on a topic they think the two things are irreconcilable when in fact they are not. Get it?
-
The 13 principles are for learning Tanach, but each opinion in the gemarah must be based on a pasuk from Tanach learned with those principles.
-
All you need to think about is this: kindness and severity. Which one is truth? When you figure out how to answer that properly this discussion will be over.
-
There is also no logic in saying that whenever 2 rabbis disagree.
one is being strict, one is being lenient, and both are right.
It may be the case with hillel and shammai, that one was generally strict, and the other severe, and there is a (an aggadic I guess) tradition that shammai's is for the next world.
That would not apply to every disagreement. Sometimes 2 interpretations cannot be true simultaneously.
Like, were Hagar and Keturah the same woman or not. (this is not a discussion between hillel and shammai . But 2 different midrashim. And different rabbis hold differently. Rashi says same. others say different )
The ideas you are expressing are generalising an example - the example of hillel and shammai - to ridiculous levels.. IGnore the fact that it's Hillel, ignore the fact that it's Shammai, apply it to every rabbi that disagrees. Take the tradition that Hillel is true in this world and the Shammai in the next world, and forget about the world bit. Just say every rabbi's position is true.
It's just nonsense.
And the idea that every opinions is equally valid is just relativism.. no different from the more modern relativism that all religions are equally true. Or that morality is relative and no one culture is better than another.
Funnily enough.
When I argued with somebody about hagar and keturah, and he said that all opinions are true .. (most charedim just stop there, with some passage from gemara that they claim says all opinions are true). He then justified himself by saying that in quantum physics, they could both be true, in 2 different universes. For example a cat can be dead and alive at the same time. I think he probably misunderstand quantum physics, or was afraid to admit that he couldn't answer the question, but really his answer takes the mick. And I don't think quantum physics was what the authors of the gemara had in mind or what they meant.
-
There is also no logic in saying that whenever 2 rabbis disagree.
one is being strict, one is being lenient, and both are right.
It may be the case with hillel and shammai, that one was generally strict, and the other severe, and there is a (an aggadic I guess) tradition that shammai's is for the next world.
That would not apply to every disagreement. Sometimes 2 interpretations cannot be true simultaneously.
Like, were Hagar and Keturah the same woman or not.
The ideas you are expressing are generalising an example - the example of hillel and shammai - to ridiculous levels.. IGnore the fact that it's Hillel, ignore the fact that it's Shammai, apply it to every rabbi that disagrees. Take the tradition that Hillel is true in this world and the Shammai in the next world, and forget about the world bit. Just say every rabbi's position is true.
It's just nonsense.
And the idea that every opinions is equally valid is just relativism.. no different from the more modern relativism that all religions are equally true. Or that morality is relative and no one culture is better than another.
Funnily enough.
When I argued with somebody about hagar and keturah, and he said that all opinions are true .. (most charedim just stop there, with some passage from gemara that they claim says all opinions are true). He then justified himself by saying that in quantum physics, they could both be true, in 2 different universes. For example a cat can be dead and alive at the same time. I think he probably misunderstand quantum physics, or was afraid to admit that he couldn't answer the question, but really his answer takes the mick. And I don't think quantum physics was what the authors of the gemara had in mind or what they meant.
You keep saying "every Rabbi". I don't mean "every Rabbi". I mean a Rabbi who has used the 13 principles properly to derive his view.
-
You keep saying "every Rabbi". I don't mean "every Rabbi". I mean a Rabbi who has used the 13 principles properly to derive his view.
But this is not relevant here.
There is no case here of a rabbi using the 13 principles.
-
The folly in this Rabbis perspective
which rabbi? which perspective?
is nicely demonstrated when he is quoted from the softmore at YC.
no idea what you are referring to.
-
And we are not talking about relatavism here: We are talking about this:
.
. .
See the diagram. You must be able to see two sides and then see the "third" view which unites them both. This is a higher way of looking at the world than both relatavism and strict conservatism. It sees both philosophies as being expressions of the same Truth.
As far as whether Keturah and Hagar could be the same woman is you look deeper into the topic and study it further you WILL find that both opinions on that matter can be correct. I have not studied the hasidic philosophy on that particular topic but I can if you would like and get back to you and show you how neither opinion is really wrong.
But don't take the lazy way out. Study deeper before you reject one side.
-
The folly in this Rabbis perspective
which rabbi? which perspective?
is nicely demonstrated when he is quoted from the softmore at YC.
no idea what you are referring to.
I'm talking about the Rabbi who gave the shiur advertized on this thread.
-
I'm not blowing things out of proportion when I compare all Talmudic debate to Hillel and Shammai. Every Rabbi of the Talmud derived their views from one school of thought or the other.
-
The folly in this Rabbis perspective
which rabbi? which perspective?
is nicely demonstrated when he is quoted from the softmore at YC.
no idea what you are referring to.
I'm talking about the Rabbi who gave the shiur advertized on this thread.
It's ironic, Lubab, that in trying to disprove Rav Bar Hayim you end up showing us how correct he is. You are precisely what he is talking about. You are Post-Modern in your outlook towards Torah. You beleive that all opinions are equally correct and are just "true" or "false" in it's social context and time period.
You refer to Rav Bar Hayim's "folly". But if it is a folly, it is a folly shared by Maimonides, Nachmanides, the Maharshal, the Rif, the Baal HaMaor and pretty much every Rabbi that lived up until the time of the Beth Yosef. He is in good company.
I do find it ironic that you describe the classic way of studying Torah employed by all Tanaaim, Amoraim, Geonim and Rishonim as folly, while lauding your own Post-Modern view as correct and true.
It is precisely because many people think like you that they end up taking on a thousand foolish and unnecessary Humroth and because disillusioned with Judaism as a result. Since they think like you and cannot say that any opinion is incorrect, they just end up taking the stricter opinion in EVERY SINGLE Halakhic issue.
Then they twist themselves into a pretzel trying to be "Yoitzeh" all the views and make themselves miserable at the same time. Your view of Halakha, Lubab, which is unfortunately shared by many, is incorrect and leads to terrible results.
Think about the average Baal Teshuva having to endure a Chabad-style Pesah and you will see what I mean.
-
I'm talking about the Rabbi who gave the shiur advertized on this thread.
The discussion before, was about the 3 oaths and centered around some other shiurim.. (as I mentioned in an early post in the thread, as a footnote).
But the shiurim judea posted in this thread were a discussion about how when studying in yeshiva, you are taught to follow all the discussion in the gemara.
Then when studying at a higher level, for example to be a rabbi, you are told to just accept the positions of various poskim, and you are not taught how they get from the gemara to those halachic positions. So people debate positions in gemara, but not positions amongst poskim.
That would be a summary of the 2 shiurim judea mentioned in this thread.
from rabbi bar hayyim.
His point was a problem with the way studying halacha - from the poskim, is done at yeshivot
-
The 13 principles are for learning Tanach, but each opinion in the gemarah must be based on a pasuk from Tanach learned with those principles.
Not true.
Many opinions are Mesorah and Some are Sevarah.
Since anything derived from the 13 principles is ALSO considered D'Oraitha, all Rabbinic opinions would be considered D'Oraitha if they were based on a pasuk from Tanach learned with those principles, and they are not considered D'Oraitha so your statement unravels itself.
-
The folly in this Rabbis perspective
which rabbi? which perspective?
is nicely demonstrated when he is quoted from the softmore at YC.
no idea what you are referring to.
I'm talking about the Rabbi who gave the shiur advertized on this thread.
It's ironic, Lubab, that in trying to disprove Rav Bar Hayim you end up showing us how correct he is. You are precisely what he is talking about. You are Post-Modern in your outlook towards Torah. You beleive that all opinions are equally correct and are just "true" or "false" in it's social context and time period.
You refer to Rav Bar Hayim's "folly". But if it is a folly, it is a folly shared by Maimonides, Nachmanides, the Maharshal, the Rif, the Baal HaMaor and pretty much every Rabbi that lived up until the time of the Beth Yosef. He is in good company.
I do find it ironic that you describe the classic way of studying Torah employed by all Tanaaim, Amoraim, Geonim and Rishonim as folly, while lauding your own Post-Modern view as correct and true.
It is precisely because many people think like you that they end up taking on a thousand foolish and unnecessary Humroth and because disillusioned with Judaism as a result. Since they think like you and cannot say that any opinion is incorrect, they just end up taking the stricter opinion in EVERY SINGLE Halakhic issue.
Then they twist themselves into a pretzel trying to be "Yoitzeh" all the views and make themselves miserable at the same time. Your view of Halakha, Lubab, which is unfortunately shared by many, is incorrect and leads to terrible results.
Think about the average Baal Teshuva having to endure a Chabad-style Pesah and you will see what I mean.
If someone is taking on every chumrah possible that is also wrong, just for the record.
You need to have a Rov who decides on these issues definitely, but this is irrelevant to the question of whether another Jew with another legitimate Rov can be right. Why does it say "Aseh Lecha Rov"? Why don't we all just figure out which opinion is right and follow that one, according to your view.
But your Rov cannot just be what to you seems more logical. Because you must recognize and I'm sure you'll agree that these Rabbis of the Talmud were smarter and a lot more logical than all three of us put together? Wouldn't you agree with that? Or do you think you are in some ways smarter than people like Rashi?
I think the Rambam is on my side and I can prove it. What I'm saying is the exact same thing he says about the 3 groups who learn Torah. The third group which is correct contains and unites the views of the other two. That's the way it works.
-
The 13 principles are for learning Tanach, but each opinion in the gemarah must be based on a pasuk from Tanach learned with those principles.
Not true.
Many opinions are Mesorah and Some are Sevarah.
Since anything derived from the 13 principles is ALSO considered D'Oraitha, all Rabbinic opinions would be considered D'Oraitha if they were based on a pasuk from Tanach learned with those principles, and they are not considered D'Oraitha so your statement unravels itself.
You are correct some are based on sevarah or mesorah, I do agree with that but that doesn't contradict what I"m saying. A mesorah would be quoting someone else who must have used the 13 principles and sevarah is what is logical, but the thirteen principles really are the essence of logic so they are not really two separate things.
All valid Rabbinic opinions do in a sense carry Biblical weight because the Torah commands that we follow their directives "Lo Sasur Min Hadavar...".
-
If one learns properly (using the methods of the Yud Gimel Midos SheHatorah Nidreshes Bahem) you can find more than one interpretation of of Talmudic passage and they can ALL be 100% correct and this will NOT lead to the legitimization of Christianity, homosexuality or any of those philsophies G-d forbid.
Rabbi Yishmael's 13 (yud gimmel) rules , when applicable, apply logically and strictly..
Nothing to do with validating a sea of interpretations where anything not forbidden by the torah is a valid interpetation. These are strict rules with strict conclusions.
And AFAIK they are only applied to interpreting tenach.
Do you have any example of them being used to interpret a gemara?
They are certainly not used in the 3 oaths gemara anyway!!!
This does not mean one does not care about the Truth of the matter. Because in order to get to the truth of the matter you can't just say one opinon is wrong and the other is right. That is almost never the truth. When you find the Truth it will bring out the essence of both sides which at first appear contradictory but in truth are not contradictary at all.
<snip>
There is no logic in saying that in every case when 2 rabbis disagree, the truth is in between them.
And I don't know how this is relevant to an intelligent discussion.
Read carefully what I wrote about the source of machloket. Your answer is there. The Talmud itself states that "elei velue divrei elokim chaim" so if you say "there is no logic in saying that in every case when 2 rabbis disagree the truth is between them" you are calling the Talmud itself illogical. If we are not talking about legitimate Rabbis you are correct, but if we are talking about legitimate Rabbis who used the 13 principles of interpreting the Torah to get to their conclusion then yes there most certainly is truth between them.
Ludicrous.
That statement " Elu W'Elu Divre Elokim Hayim" was made about certain specific issues and points. extending that statement to encompass every statement in the Talmud is INSANE and is purely Post-Modern for it's own sake.
You conveniently leave out another common statement that the Talmudh is famous for saying while rejecting another opinion "K'Ashan L'Einayim uK'Homess L'Shinaim" This is like smoke to the eyes and vinegar to the teeth. You left it out because it is the exact opposite of your post-modern view of the Torah.
-
If one learns properly (using the methods of the Yud Gimel Midos SheHatorah Nidreshes Bahem) you can find more than one interpretation of of Talmudic passage and they can ALL be 100% correct and this will NOT lead to the legitimization of Christianity, homosexuality or any of those philsophies G-d forbid.
Rabbi Yishmael's 13 (yud gimmel) rules , when applicable, apply logically and strictly..
Nothing to do with validating a sea of interpretations where anything not forbidden by the torah is a valid interpetation. These are strict rules with strict conclusions.
And AFAIK they are only applied to interpreting tenach.
Do you have any example of them being used to interpret a gemara?
They are certainly not used in the 3 oaths gemara anyway!!!
This does not mean one does not care about the Truth of the matter. Because in order to get to the truth of the matter you can't just say one opinon is wrong and the other is right. That is almost never the truth. When you find the Truth it will bring out the essence of both sides which at first appear contradictory but in truth are not contradictary at all.
<snip>
There is no logic in saying that in every case when 2 rabbis disagree, the truth is in between them.
And I don't know how this is relevant to an intelligent discussion.
Read carefully what I wrote about the source of machloket. Your answer is there. The Talmud itself states that "elei velue divrei elokim chaim" so if you say "there is no logic in saying that in every case when 2 rabbis disagree the truth is between them" you are calling the Talmud itself illogical. If we are not talking about legitimate Rabbis you are correct, but if we are talking about legitimate Rabbis who used the 13 principles of interpreting the Torah to get to their conclusion then yes there most certainly is truth between them.
Ludicrous.
That statement " Elu W'Elu Divre Elokim Hayim" was made about certain specific issues and points. extending that statement to encompass every statement in the Talmud is INSANE and is purely Post-Modern for it's own sake.
You conveniently leave out another common statement that the Talmudh is famous for saying while rejecting another opinion "K'Ashan L'Einayim uK'Homess L'Shinaim" This is like smoke to the eyes and vinegar to the teeth. You left it out because it is the exact opposite of your post-modern view of the Torah.
You don't learn Torah. You learn only half the Torah, the half that you think is logical. That is really just a pursuit of worshiping your own brain, nothing to do with G-d or Judaism so let's just keep our facts straight.
To one who holds like Hillel, Shammai is indeed K'Ashan LeEnayim..." You must first grasp the contradiction fully before one can come along and show the third truth that is higher than them both.
I'm not saying that these Rabbis always at that time understood how their opinions were both true.. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. But certainly in the Torah of the Lubavitcher Rebbe it has been revealed how most all of these contradictions can be resolved so that we can look back and see how they didn't really contradict even if at the time they thought they did.
I'd like an answer to my earlier question: do you JNC think you or your Rabbi are in some respects smarter than someone like Rashi?
(You must if you believe you are the ones to decide whether one of his views should be rejected or accepted).
-
You are correct some are based on sevarah or mesorah, I do agree with that but that doesn't contradict what I"m saying. A mesorah would be quoting someone else who must have used the 13 principles and sevarah is what is logical, but the thirteen principles really are the essence of logic so they are not really two separate things.
All valid Rabbinic opinions do in a sense carry Biblical weight because the Torah commands that we follow their directives "Lo Sasur Min Hadavar...".
That Torah commandment applies only to a Sanhedrin. If it applied to every individual opinion then it would be a D'Oraitha commandment to put on tefilin on Shabbath because Rabbah Bar Bar Hana is certainly a valid source. It would ALSO be a D'Oraitha commandment NOT to put on tefilin on Shabbath because of the valid opinion of the Hakhamim. Perhaps a real Post-Modern philosopher can wrap his brain around that but I would rather go with the tried and true method of study described by the Ramban in his Haqdamah to Milhamoth Hashem, the Maharshal in his Haqdamah to Yam Shel Shlomo, the Rambam in his Haqdamah to Mishne Torah and all the great sages over the ages before this modern era.
-
As an aside: is this Rabbi Bar Chayim the same one as the one on mesora.org?
-
<snip>
A mesorah would be quoting someone else who must have used the 13 principles and sevarah is what is logical, but the thirteen principles really are the essence of logic so they are not really two separate things.
All valid Rabbinic opinions do in a sense carry Biblical weight because the Torah commands that we follow their directives "Lo Sasur Min Hadavar...".
mesorah is tradition.
and I assume sevarah means reasoning. Though I am not sure.
1) rabbi yishmael's 13 rules are Not logic.
infact, rabbi dovid gottlieb, former prof philosophy and PhD in mathematical deduction, said they are not logical.
I wouldn't put it like that.. They are just rules. Applied logically.
This is a book on formal logic. I am familiar with the professor that wrote it.
Proo f and Disproof in Formal Logic: An Introduction for Programmers (Oxford Texts in Logic) (Paperback)
by Richa rd Bornat (Author)
Rules like this are the essence of logic. And they can be written using mathematical symbols.
A--->B A
-----------
B
an example would be that
I believe that when A happens, B happens.
I believe A,
So I conclude B
That is nothing like the 13 rules.
The 13 principles are ways of deriving the encoded meanings that the author (G-d) encoded into the Torah. For example, a general statement followed by an emumeration of particulars e.g.
Don't steal, don't steal apples, oranges, pears.
Has a different meaning to
Don't steal apples, oranges, pairs, don't steal.
The rule that these are different, is not "the essence of logic". It's not logic at all.
It's just a rule, applied logically.
2)
Secondly, not every tradition is derived from the 13 rules, infact I think you'd find that very few are.
I don't think you'd be able to use the 13 rules to conclude that potiphera's testicles were crushed.
Or the tradition that Cain and Abel had a twin sister.
Yes, there is a superfluous word there (Et - direct object marker). But no rule to get from that to the tradition that he had a twin. It is a hint to the tradition. But the source of the tradition is not the superfluous word.
3) Rabbinical fence laws are in gemara too, and not derived from those 13. neither are rabbinical mitzvot. You won't derive purim or chanukah from the 13 rules.
Infact. I reckon very few of the laws in gemara are derived from the 13..
I think the malbim had 613 rules, but you still won't get about potiphera's damage, or cain and abel's twin sisters.
Here is an application of rules.. perhaps not of the 13. But you see it is not going to get you creative traditions, fresh stories , that are blatantly not derived.
This is an example of something derived, by rules like rabbi yishmael's. It is quite different to what you suggest. The conclusions cannot be as open ended as you posit. It's just not the ball game that you think it is.
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/holidays/Passover/TO_Pesach_Seder/Matzah_368/matzahfirstnight/matzahfirstnighttexts.htm
Mekhilta, Pischa 8 (Lauterbach)
One verse says "Seven days you shall eat matzah" and one verse says
"Six day you shall eat matzah." How can both of these verses be
maintained? The seventh day was included (in the first verse) but then
excluded (from the second verse). That which is excluded from a more
inclusive statement is meant to teach us about the whole statement. So,
just as on the seventh day it is optional (r'shut), so on all of the
other days, it is optional. Does this mean that it is optional on the
first night also? The verse "In the first month, on the fourteenth day
in the evening, you shall eat matzah" (Exodus 12:18) fixes it as an
obligation (hovah) to eat matzah on the first night.
-
As an aside: is this Rabbi Bar Chayim the same one as the one on mesora.org?
no
The mesora one is called Rabbi Moshe Ben Chaim. He is quite conservative except that he is very anti the more "out there" kabbalah, and very openly and unapologetically and unreservedly, anti chabad on his site.
This one is Rabbi Daweed Bar Hayyim
-
what do these phrases mentioned mean?
I have the translation for one of them.
"Lo Sasur Min Hadavar...".
"Aseh Lecha Rov"? make for yourself a rav
"elu v'elu divrei elokim chaim"
-
I'd like an answer to my earlier question: do you JNC think you or your Rabbi are in some respects smarter than someone like Rashi?
(You must if you believe you are the ones to decide whether one of his views should be rejected or accepted).
You make Rav Bar Hayim's point so well, I have to thank you, Lubab.
You and those who think like you feel that any Rav from a earlier generation is automatically greater than a Rav from a later generation. This an untruth, as the Rambam writes in his Haqdama to Mishne Torah that if the accepted explanation of the Talmud in one way and a later Beth Din explains it in a different way, we follow the opinion that make the most sense and reject the older explanation.
So, therefore the fact is that MANY Rishonim and Acharonim after Rashi openly disagree with some of his explanations of the Talmudh. I guess they were saying that in certain instances they understood something that Rashi did not or that they were smarter than him atleast in that issue. This may seem like heresy to YOU but it was not considered heresy to them.
The list is endless of Rabbanim who disagree with some of what Rashi says. The Tosafoth who include some of Rashi's grandchildren openly disagree with him on many issues and therefore claim to be smarter than him on that issue. The Rosh, the Tur, The Netziv. As an example, every major Ashkenazi Posek disagrees with his view on how many berakhoth to say on tefilin. I guess they were claiming they were smarter than him on that issue.
This is the way of Torah. A Rav needs to understand the Talmudh fully without just beleiving a certain source blindly. A Rav needs to have the tools and training to understand the Talmudh and everything that he learns must sit well with him. If he thinks Rabbenu Tam is correct on a certain issue and Rashi is wrong, then he needs to follow Rabbenu Tam until he is convinced otherwise. Only a Rav that can make up his own mind on an Halakhic issue is worthy of the Title. A Rav that simply regurgitates the Taz and the Shakh when asked an Halakhic question is not a Rav, he's a record player.
Inherent in your statement,(You must if you believe you are the ones to decide whether one of his views should be rejected or accepted).
is the idea that my Rav is incapable of deciding whether one of his views should be rejected or accepted. I reject and so does the Rambam this notion out of hand. If my Rav's explanation of the Talmudh makes more sense than Rashi's then we go with his explanation. That is purely and simply the truth according to the Rambam and I might add, all the Rabbanim that came before him.
-
You don't learn Torah. You learn only half the Torah, the half that you think is logical. That is really just a pursuit of worshiping your own brain, nothing to do with G-d or Judaism so let's just keep our facts straight.
If I am worshipping my own brain, so were all of the Tanaaim Amoraim Geonim and Rishonim.
Every insult you direct at me is directed towards them as well.
-
I think the Rambam is on my side and I can prove it. What I'm saying is the exact same thing he says about the 3 groups who learn Torah. The third group which is correct contains and unites the views of the other two. That's the way it works.
I don't believe this section of Rambam you refer to has any application to your point or the discussion at hand. If you are using it here, you have changed the meaning of the 3 types of groups he describes!
As I remember, the three groups are 1. the person who takes every single thing the sages say on the literal simple level and therefore dishonors them by making them out to be simplistic or foolish as in cases where what they say was not meant literally but taken literally would appear to contradict all logic and rational sense. 2. The person who openly denigrates the sages by saying that they spoke nonsense. 3. The person who will look deeper and in cases where something seems to contradict common sense/obvious reality, they will find hidden and/or deeper meanings in it that the sages had meant for us. The third person is the only one who does the sages justice.
But what does this have to do with your point where you say that you take rabbi 1's opinion, take rabbi 2's opinion, both as true and correct, then come to a higher truth that encompasses both - and do this in every single case in the gemara? I'm not sure how this is related or supported at all by the three types of people in Rambam, unless you refer to something else.
-
I think the Rambam is on my side and I can prove it. What I'm saying is the exact same thing he says about the 3 groups who learn Torah. The third group which is correct contains and unites the views of the other two. That's the way it works.
I don't believe this section of Rambam you refer to has any application to your point or the discussion at hand. If you are using it here, you have changed the meaning of the 3 types of groups he describes!<snip>
this is becoming a bit of a circus.
I have no doubt that lulab will not be able to quote the RAMBAM and show that every opinion is true. Or whatever he is trying to claim.
(though i'm sure he can quote the RAMBA)
But since a few people -here, are familiar with the RAMBAM to which lulab is referring,
is anybody here - lulab or anybody - able to quote the text ? or at least a reference. And then argue that blah is what it concludes.And not what lulab says.
I have hilchot yesodei hatorah here in english, so if it is from there then I could look it up and type it in.
-
Allow me to quote my source from the Rambam.
http://mechon-mamre.org/p/p0000.htm
Paragraph number 33.
33 So a town's residents are not forced to observe the customs of another town, nor is one court told to enact the restrictive legislations of another court in its town. So too, if one of the Geonim understood that the correct way of the Law was such and such, and it became clear to another court afterwards that this was not the correct way of the Law written in the Talmud, the earlier court is not to be obeyed, but rather what seems more correct, whether earlier or later.
Now, it is incumbent upon Lubab to quote the Rambam that he claims backs him up.
But as far as my quote, one can clearly see that the Rambam does not beleive in the Post Modern view of the Torah and Talmudh that Lubab embraces. It is clear that we follow the explanation of the Talmudh that makes the most logical sense without trying to "unify" or try to explain that the two interpretations are really not arguing.
The greatest problem with Lubab's approach is that if one interpretation says something is forbidden and another interpretation says it is permitted, Lubab would try to explain how they really both permit it or both forbid it. Either way, the attempt to discover the truth is abandoned from the outset and a creative person tries to explain away the truth. This approach simply leads to muddled and untrue Halakhic opinions. The best way is for a Rav to try on his own to understand the Talmudh and then decide which interpretation makes the most sense. That is in the end all human beings can do. Try to perceive the truth and act upon it.
-
Okay. There is so much to address since I came back and it is really too much to do in one post.
In these discussions I like to try to keep things simple and stick to the point.
I hope you will read all of this with an open mind.
What we have here is a fundamental disagreement about the nature of machloket.
I'd like to summarize my view on the matter.
I am a Lubavitcher Chassid. I have a tradition from my Rebbe (a Gaon Olam by all legitimate accounts) handed down and recorded in his sefer "Hayom Yom" that every written statement of Chazal from Moshe Rabbeinu all the way through and including the Shach and Taz are written with Ruach Hakodesh. This wasn't the Rebbe's original statement. It was a tradition passed down from his Rebbe passed down originally from the Alter Rebbe, author of Shulchan Aruch HaRav. So this statement comes originally from a great codifier of the entire sea of halacha in a work that I'm sure is respected by your Rabbi and every other legitimate Rabbi you can find today. I don't think anyone would really have the gaul to argue today that they know more about halacha and the nature of machlokes than the Alter Rebbe.
I would be amused to see someone make such a claim but I doubt you'd have the guts. It would be the ultimate display of arrogance and ignorance all wrapped into one.
So we really have a statement from the Alter Rebbe that in each and every statement between these sages, while they may hold different veiwpoints, both are really written with Ruach Hakoshesh. Both are really true.
I've tried my best to explain how this can be so.
It's not postmodernism. Rather the school of hasidic philosophy shows how this is possible. The school of hasidic philosophy can show how two seemingly irreconcilable views or things can be viewed from a third higher or deeper perspective and once we grasp that perspective (the OBJECTIVE TRUTH-that's why this is not post-modernism) you can see how both those views which you once thought contradict really are just different expressions of the same inner truth much in the way that kindness and severity are both tools to do the right thing.
So I'm not really arguing with you guys at all.
We have basically three groups of people here.
1. Those whom R' Bar Chayim is attacking who seem to learn with faith that both sides are really right and lose the fundamental belief that there is an objective truth in this world. But they can't really explain to you how both sides are true, they just believe it blindly.
2. You guys. You guys know there is an objective truth. But when faced with a view that appears to your logic to contradict it you reject it to preserve what you believe is the objective truth.
3. The School of the Thought of Chabad Chassidus. This is a third view that included the two above and it involves a three step process.
It first recognizes fully how the two view appear irreconcilble, then it seeks to find the inner truth that underlies both views. And then finally seeks to show how both those opinions which appeared irreconcilable are really just two ways of explaining that inner truth.
Now I said before this can be done retroactively. Even if at the times of the gemarah or even the Rambam they had not seen how their views really unite, we can see how they do with the revelation of hasidic philosophy that was revealed by the Baal Shem Tov.
Most people (if they are lucky) operate in their learning on one or all of the four levels of Pshat Remez Drush or Sod.
If we just learn this way, all the four views do not seem to unite.
Hasidic philosophy seeks the inner truth behind all four of those levels then comes back to explain how all those four levels unite and are really saying the same thing in different words.
I can show you many examples of how this works for anyone who is intersted.
But the proof is really in the pudding.
If the tradition of my Rebbeim about the truth of all those opinions is correct, I, or at least me with the aid of my teacher who is more expert than I in hasidic philosophy should be able to prove to you how any of these opinions do not really contradict upon further reflection.
So let's try this out.
Give me an opinion or a machloket or a certain view of a sage from the Shach and Taz or before that you think is truly irreconcilable.
Give me one opinion that you think must be rejected as invalid and I will with G-d's help try to show you how it really is valid. Logically.
q_q already gave me one about Hagar and Keturah. I hope to get back to him soon once I've spoken with my Rabbi about it.
-
Allow me to quote my source from the Rambam.
http://mechon-mamre.org/p/p0000.htm
Paragraph number 33.
33 So a town's residents are not forced to observe the customs of another town, nor is one court told to enact the restrictive legislations of another court in its town. So too, if one of the Geonim understood that the correct way of the Law was such and such, and it became clear to another court afterwards that this was not the correct way of the Law written in the Talmud, the earlier court is not to be obeyed, but rather what seems more correct, whether earlier or later.
Now, it is incumbent upon Lubab to quote the Rambam that he claims backs him up.
But as far as my quote, one can clearly see that the Rambam does not beleive in the Post Modern view of the Torah and Talmudh that Lubab embraces.
I believe the Rambam there is giving a directive for what people should do in the future which would include Rabbis after the Shach and Taz who I agree can be wrong as you will read in my above post. I'm staking my claim only over the views of the Shach and Taz and back.
-
And while I think the Rambam would be fully supportive of this way of learning this way of learning was really only really brought out and revealed with the advent of the Baal Shem Tov and hasidic philosophy so I wouldn't expect to find it spoken about openly by the Rambam although I have no doubt I could find some hints to it.
We should also point out that machloket is not the same thing as setirah. Machloket means a division from the word Chiluk. It does not by it's translation mean the opinion is "wrong". These words "wrong" or "incorrect" are unfortunate mistranslations of the word Machloket.
It means this guy took this path and that guy took that path. But I'm sure we all agree that two paths can lead to the same goal as long as it's the right path.
-
I think the Rambam is on my side and I can prove it. What I'm saying is the exact same thing he says about the 3 groups who learn Torah. The third group which is correct contains and unites the views of the other two. That's the way it works.
I don't believe this section of Rambam you refer to has any application to your point or the discussion at hand. If you are using it here, you have changed the meaning of the 3 types of groups he describes!<snip>
this is becoming a bit of a circus.
I have no doubt that lulab will not be able to quote the RAMBAM and show that every opinion is true. Or whatever he is trying to claim.
(though i'm sure he can quote the RAMBA)
But since a few people -here, are familiar with the RAMBAM to which lulab is referring,
is anybody here - lulab or anybody - able to quote the text ? or at least a reference. And then argue that blah is what it concludes.And not what lulab says.
I have hilchot yesodei hatorah here in english, so if it is from there then I could look it up and type it in.
I think that the three types of students were from Rambam on intro to perek chelek, but I don't have it with me.
-
I'd appreciate it if people don't go further with this until reading my post carefully at the top of the thread because I don't want to go in circles all day.
I've read you posts with care and I hope you will give me the same respect.
-
I'd appreciate it if people don't go further with this until reading my post carefully at the top of the thread because I don't want to go in circles all day.
I've read you posts with care and I hope you will give me the same respect.
I am of course reading your post with care, but I was asked a specific question by qq so I responded. I am not so much weighing in on this controversy, only responding to your use of the 3 types of students, which I think may have been mistaken or not applicable in this discussion.
-
I'd appreciate it if people don't go further with this until reading my post carefully at the top of the thread because I don't want to go in circles all day.
I've read you posts with care and I hope you will give me the same respect.
I am of course reading your post with care, but I was asked a specific question by qq so I responded. I am not so much weighing in on this controversy, only responding to your use of the 3 types of students, which I think may have been mistaken or not applicable in this discussion.
No problem. I wasn't even really addressing your post I just wanted to say that when I saw such a quick reply. The Rambam with the three groups is talking about a certain specific machloket and it may not prove my more global point which is why I did not rely on it in the post above.
-
lulab, you mention another source, the shulchan aruch.
for the idea that rishonim and all these rabbis wrote with ruach hakodesh and so all they wrote is true.
this is important, if you can find a reference that would be very useful.
note- I have read this view in an artascroll autobiography of the chazon ish. He also thought all the rishonim wrote with ruach hakodesh. And he i guess tried reconciling them. This view is certainly very common. So chabad is not alone here
But still, a source from the shulchan aruch would be very good..
Because that is widely accepted.
-
I don't think anyone would really have the gaul to argue today that they know more about halacha and the nature of machlokes than the Alter Rebbe.
I would be amused to see someone make such a claim but I doubt you'd have the guts. It would be the ultimate display of arrogance and ignorance all wrapped into one.
The Rambam clearly states:
So too, if one of the Geonim understood that the correct way of the Law was such and such, and it became clear to another court afterwards that this was not the correct way of the Law written in the Talmud, the earlier court is not to be obeyed, but rather what seems more correct, whether earlier or later.
Inherent in that statement is the idea that a later authority can be more correct than an earlier authority. Obviously it is possible that someone today can know more about the nature of machlokes than Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi. Or Rashi or even the Rambam. Or any earlier authority. I think that Rav Bar Hayim explanation of certain sugyoth in the Talmudh make more sense than the Rambam's and therefore according to the Rambam's own words, we should follow Rav Bar Hayim. Certain sugyoth in the Talmudh make more sense according to the Netziv than according to Rashi. Therefore we should follow the Netziv.I think that certain things written by the Chabad Rebbes on Halakhic issues make less sense than other authorities, therefore you must follow the other authorities.
Your ignorance and arrogance comment is ludicrous in light of the rambam's haqdama.
-
I don't think anyone would really have the gaul to argue today that they know more about halacha and the nature of machlokes than the Alter Rebbe.
I would be amused to see someone make such a claim but I doubt you'd have the guts. It would be the ultimate display of arrogance and ignorance all wrapped into one.
The Rambam clearly states:
So too, if one of the Geonim understood that the correct way of the Law was such and such, and it became clear to another court afterwards that this was not the correct way of the Law written in the Talmud, the earlier court is not to be obeyed, but rather what seems more correct, whether earlier or later.
Inherent in that statement is the idea that a later authority can be more correct than an earlier authority. Obviously it is possible that someone today can know more about the nature of machlokes than Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi. Or Rashi or even the Rambam. Or any earlier authority. I think that Rav Bar Hayim explanation of certain sugyoth in the Talmudh make more sense than the Rambam's and therefore according to the Rambam's own words, we should follow Rav Bar Hayim. Certain sugyoth in the Talmudh make more sense according to the Netziv than according to Rashi. Therefore we should follow the Netziv.I think that certain things written by the Chabad Rebbes on Halakhic issues make less sense than other authorities, therefore you must follow the other authorities.
Your ignorance and arrogance comment is ludicrous in light of the rambam's haqdama.
You didn't read my posts fully. I addressed that statement. I don't believe every Rabbi's statement is true. Just the the sages from the Shach and Taz and prior which is completely consistent with this statement of the Rambam which is a guide for what to do in the future until today when many Rabbis have said many things that are downright wrong.
-
Lubab, if you beleive that two opinions of Rishonim are both true and equally valid, how in the world could you ever give a psak halakha on any issue at all?
-
Earlier in the thread, some hebrew phrases were used, I asked what they meant.. I have now found translations. These may help people - besides myself - to follow the thread.
"Lo Sasur Min Hadavar...". - means you shall not go astray from that thing (the commandment)
"Aseh Lecha Rov"? make for yourself a rav
"elu v'elu divrei elokim chaim" from talmud Eruvin page 13b
these & these are words words from the Living G-d
Regarding "elu v'elu divrei elokim chaim", I cannot find eruvin 13b in english online. But, I did see a few articles discussing it. And they said that it says Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai's arguments are both Emet-Truth. And the reason why the law is according to Hillel, is because Hillel (or Beit Hillel?) they were kind and humble.. and mentioned shammai's view before their own..
"
We will study the proof-text for "an example of controversy for Heaven's sake," which comes from Talmud Eruvin 13b.
For three years there was a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, the former asserting, 'The law is in agreement with our views.' and the latter contending, 'The law is in agreement with our views.' Then a bat kol (a voice from heaven) announced, ' Eilu v’eilu divrei Elohim chayim ‘these and those are the words of the living G-d, but the law is in agreement with the rulings of Beit Hillel.'
Since, however, 'both are the words of the living G-d', what was it that entitled Beit Hillel to have the law fixed according to their rulings? Because they were kindly and modest, they studied their own rulings and those of Beit Shammai, and were even so humble as to mention the words of Beit Shammai before their own.(Eruvin, 13b)"
"
Of course..
a)do all debates in gemara boil down to beis hillel and beis shammai?
if so, then it seems this gemara is saying both are true.
b)But this only refers to Beis Hillel and beis shammai.
Not, to any rabbi between them and Shach and Taz.
For that, lulab claims a source from the shulchan aruch. A reference for it would be very interesting
-
Give me an opinion or a machloket or a certain view of a sage from the Shach and Taz or before that you think is truly irreconcilable.
Give me one opinion that you think must be rejected as invalid and I will with G-d's help try to show you how it really is valid. Logically.
Here's a question:
Does one say Birkath Hamazon after eating boiled vegetables or not?
Please show me how when the Hakhamim say "NO"
and rabbi Aqiva says "YES", they are really saying the same thing and please tell me who I should follow and why.
-
You didn't read my posts fully. I addressed that statement. I don't believe every Rabbi's statement is true. Just the the sages from the Shach and Taz and prior which is completely consistent with this statement of the Rambam which is a guide for what to do in the future until today when many Rabbis have said many things that are downright wrong.
Is it possible, Lubab, that one of the chabad Rebbes said something that was downright wrong?
Is that possible, Lubab?
-
I'd appreciate it if people don't go further with this until reading my post carefully at the top of the thread because I don't want to go in circles all day.
I've read you posts with care and I hope you will give me the same respect.
I am of course reading your post with care, but I was asked a specific question by qq so I responded. I am not so much weighing in on this controversy, only responding to your use of the 3 types of students, which I think may have been mistaken or not applicable in this discussion.
No problem. I wasn't even really addressing your post I just wanted to say that when I saw such a quick reply. The Rambam with the three groups is talking about a certain specific machloket and it may not prove my more global point which is why I did not rely on it in the post above.
Ok I see. I am mostly an observer here, but if there is ever a time (like that was) that my very limited amount of knowledge enables me to comment I will chime in. Otherwise just trying to understand and learn from the issues here in this discussion.
-
<snip>
You didn't read my posts fully. I addressed that statement. I don't believe every Rabbi's statement is true. Just the the sages from the Shach and Taz and prior which is completely consistent with this statement of the Rambam which is a guide for what to do in the future until today when many Rabbis have said many things that are downright wrong.
here is evidence that the RAMBAM did not hold by that at all..
This is a copy/paste from another thread where I quoted some maimonidean types.
"
Rambam follows R. Haaye Gaon... HaRambam has a famous teshuba where he
explains the entire history of his view of tefillim and how upon
seeing the version according to Ha'aye Gaon he threw away his old
tefillim from Spain.
"
-
<snip>
You didn't read my posts fully. I addressed that statement. I don't believe every Rabbi's statement is true. Just the the sages from the Shach and Taz and prior which is completely consistent with this statement of the Rambam which is a guide for what to do in the future until today when many Rabbis have said many things that are downright wrong.
here is evidence that the RAMBAM did not hold by that at all..
This is a copy/paste from another thread where I quoted some maimonidean types.
"
Rambam follows R. Haaye Gaon... HaRambam has a famous teshuba where he
explains the entire history of his view of tefillim and how upon
seeing the version according to Ha'aye Gaon he threw away his old
tefillim from Spain.
"
That is incorrect.
The Rambam's tefilin opinion is the opposite of rav Hai Gaon. He must have mistook rav Hai Gaon for rav Saadya Gaon.
-
If I can answer both questions about Hagar and Keturah and the machloket on cooked vegetables to your satisfaction will you all become Chabad Chassidim?
;)
I will research and get back to you on both these points. I don't claim to know how to do this myself with every machloket but I know where to find the people who do...
-
<snip>
You didn't read my posts fully. I addressed that statement. I don't believe every Rabbi's statement is true. Just the the sages from the Shach and Taz and prior which is completely consistent with this statement of the Rambam which is a guide for what to do in the future until today when many Rabbis have said many things that are downright wrong.
here is evidence that the RAMBAM did not hold by that at all..
This is a copy/paste from another thread where I quoted some maimonidean types.
"
Rambam follows R. Haaye Gaon... HaRambam has a famous teshuba where he
explains the entire history of his view of tefillim and how upon
seeing the version according to Ha'aye Gaon he threw away his old
tefillim from Spain.
"
That is incorrect.
The Rambam's tefilin opinion is the opposite of rav Hai Gaon. He must have mistook rav Hai Gaon for rav Saadya Gaon.
i'm glad you corrected that..
though if he did throw away a pair of teffilin that he thought went according to a wrong opinion, then the argument remains to lulab, amongst other arguments mentioned.
-
If I can answer both questions about Hagar and Keturah and the machloket on cooked vegetables to your satisfaction will you all become Chabad Chassidim?
;)
I will research and get back to you on both these points. I don't claim to know how to do this myself with every machloket but I know where to find the people who do...
most important, is the quote from the shulchan aruch that you claim is the basis for this idea that all opinions from post gemara to taz and shach, are true.
it would be interesting to see your responses to those objections mentioned though.
-
regarding hagar and keturah.
here is the source that some say same woman, some say different woman.
rabbi aryeh kaplan in "the living torah" , provides the sources.
It is online here
http://bible.ort.org/books/pentd2.asp?ACTION=displaypage&BOOK=1&CHAPTER=25
commentary on Gen 25:1
Keturah
A concubine (1 Chronicles 1:32). Some sources identify her with Hagar (Targum Yonathan; Bereshith Rabbah 61; Rashi). Others, however, maintain that she was a third wife (Bereshith Rabbah 57; Zohar 1:133b; Ibn Ezra; Rashbam; Ramban on 25:6). One ancient source states that Hagar was already dead at this time (Yov'loth 19:13).
-
If I can answer both questions about Hagar and Keturah and the machloket on cooked vegetables to your satisfaction will you all become Chabad Chassidim?
;)
I will research and get back to you on both these points. I don't claim to know how to do this myself with every machloket but I know where to find the people who do...
most important, is the quote from the shulchan aruch that you claim is the basis for this idea that all opinions from post gemara to taz and shach, are true.
it would be interesting to see your responses to those objections mentioned though.
No. I never said that was from the Shulchan Aruch. I said it was a tradition of the Chabad Rebbes going back to the Alter Rebbe (author of the Shulchan Aruch HaRav) and is codified in a book called Hayom Yom.
-
If I can answer both questions about Hagar and Keturah and the machloket on cooked vegetables to your satisfaction will you all become Chabad Chassidim?
;)
I will research and get back to you on both these points. I don't claim to know how to do this myself with every machloket but I know where to find the people who do...
most important, is the quote from the shulchan aruch that you claim is the basis for this idea that all opinions from post gemara to taz and shach, are true.
it would be interesting to see your responses to those objections mentioned though.
No. I never said that was from the Shulchan Aruch. I said it was a tradition of the Chabad Rebbes going back to the Alter Rebbe (author of the Shulchan Aruch HaRav) and is codified in a book called Hayom Yom.
ok.. interesting that the chazon ish had the same idea, of rishonim having ruach hakodesh.
anyhow, be interesting to see how you deal with the objections given, and maintain that in those examples asked of you, both opinions don't contradict each other, and are both true!
-
If I can answer both questions about Hagar and Keturah and the machloket on cooked vegetables to your satisfaction will you all become Chabad Chassidim?
;)
I will research and get back to you on both these points. I don't claim to know how to do this myself with every machloket but I know where to find the people who do...
most important, is the quote from the shulchan aruch that you claim is the basis for this idea that all opinions from post gemara to taz and shach, are true.
it would be interesting to see your responses to those objections mentioned though.
No. I never said that was from the Shulchan Aruch. I said it was a tradition of the Chabad Rebbes going back to the Alter Rebbe (author of the Shulchan Aruch HaRav) and is codified in a book called Hayom Yom.
ok.. interesting that the chazon ish had the same idea, of rishonim having ruach hakodesh.
anyhow, be interesting to see how you deal with the objections given, and maintain that in those examples asked of you, both opinions don't contradict each other, and are both true!
I have been very VERY busy today and have not been able to do the research. But I'm a man of my word and I want you to hold me to this. I WILL (G-d willing) research and get back to you on both those topics and see if we can figure out how both are true.
-
I have been very VERY busy today and have not been able to do the research. But I'm a man of my word and I want you to hold me to this. I WILL (G-d willing) research and get back to you on both those topics and see if we can figure out how both are true.
no urgency, in your own time. A forum is a fantastic medium for torah discussion.
-
I will research and get back to you on both these points. I don't claim to know how to do this myself with every machloket but I know where to find the people who do...
Meaning you find people creative enough to come up with some mystical or far-fetched explanation. But it doesn't mean that they have found the truth. It just means they're creative.
Here, I'll beat you to the punch.
Hita, the Hebrew word for wheat is similar to the word Het, the word for sin. Only difference is fourteen in gematria which is the word yad, hand. Hand represents Avodas Hashem in this physical word which turns even one's sins into klipas nogah, which can then be turned into pure kedushah. Wheat is klipas nogah because it can become both Hametz and Matzah. Since the birkath hamazon is based on the pasuk. "W'akhalta W'savata uverakhta al haaretz ha tova" We are blessing because of the land which is pure potential just like klipas noga so therefore we can only bless on wheat which is klipas nogah, pure potential. It is interesting that Rabbi Aqiva uses the term Yelek to describe vegetable which is 140 in gematria that ten times yad showing that it has purified through avodah and has acheived a level of perfection in all ten sefiroth that is why it is ten times yad therefore it has acheived a level beyond birkath hamazon which is said on potential therefore although Rabbi Aqiva held that making the birkath hamazon on it would acheive the greatest tikunim, the Hakhamim showed him that the Yelek was already perfected and the only bracha needed was borei nefashoth, a brakha that talks about souls showing that the yelek has acheived the spiritual tikun it needs without the birkath hamazon. Therefore it obvious that they were both saying the same thing and the same ultimate truth is in both.
Now, Lubab, did I reveal the ultimate truth here or did I just make something up?
-
nice one judea..
I just thought of one (I can make up) for Hagar and Keturah. How one opinion can midrash can say they are the same woman, and another that they are different women, and both be true.
Ketura is a reincarnation of hagar..
done. quite neat really, (could even be true by coincidence - though that's unlikely).
-
I will research and get back to you on both these points. I don't claim to know how to do this myself with every machloket but I know where to find the people who do...
Meaning you find people creative enough to come up with some mystical or far-fetched explanation. But it doesn't mean that they have found the truth. It just means they're creative.
Here, I'll beat you to the punch.
<snip example>
Now, Lubab, did I reveal the ultimate truth here or did I just make something up?
I once asked a really great chabad rabbi - rabbi yossi yaffe of connecticut, who was on askmoses in 2002, when I asked him.. He is no longer on there.
I was thinking about what books define judaism.. Obviously midrashic get obscure. Kabbalistic is broad and obscure..
And I was thinking of CLASSIC books, by that I meant, not just talmud and midrash. But any core text.
Not texts that involve speculation, or logical analysis.
New stuff.
We had the revelation at Sinai. But since then we have had new innovations.
In kabbalah. The Arizal. Claimed to have been taught by heavenly teachers. That's new.
The RAMCHAL. The Baal Shem Tov.
And I asked him, as he is a chabad rabbi. What allows somebody to come up with -new stuff - . I must have put the quetion well, better than that. But he was also a brilliant rabbi. And he answered, that in Chassidus, a Rebbe when he makes a (he gave some word for a shiur), is speaking/writing with something similar to ruach hakodesh, where all the Torah is seen as one. And they can come up with new material. But a chassid cannot.
That is of course internally consistent.. (though there is the problem of how would one know whether somebody has spoke to an angel or written with ruach hakodesh or similar).
We await lulab's answer, but Lulab still has an issue though, because if he asks this rabbi and this rabbi comes up with a completely fresh innovative answer, one that could be totally made up, such as judea's or mine, then how is that ok?
I know I didn't write with ruach hakodesh.
Would lulab be assuming that this rabbi he asks, answers with ruach hakodesh?
Remember also, that this rabbi lulab is asking, is not pre shach and taz. So what source would he be using to say that they have ruach hakodesh. And I am intrigued to know what was so special about the era pre shach and taz, that rabbis after them do not have ruach hakodesh?! And why in the heck would a chabad book talk about the shach like that, when the Shach hated chabad!!!!!!!! When asked what is the religion closest to judaism, he responded "chabad" !
-
Would lulab be assuming that this rabbi he asks, answers with ruach hakodesh?
If he wants to remain consistent, Yes.
Remember also, that this rabbi lulab is asking, is not pre shach and taz. So what source would he be using to say that they have ruach hakodesh. And I am intrigued to know what was so special about the era pre shach and taz, that rabbis after them do not have ruach hakodesh?!
Because the Shach and taz were right before the chassidic movement. Since many famous rabbis opposed that movement, Lubab cannot beleive they had ruah hakodesh because they opposed chassidism.
And why in the heck would a chabad book talk about the shach like that, when the Shach hated chabad!!!!!!!! When asked what is the religion closest to judaism, he responded "chabad" !
Two different people.
Lubab and I are referring to a great sage that wrote a commentary on the shulchan aruch called Sifthe Kohen which is abbreviated as Shach.
Your story is refer to Rabbi Elazar Menachem Shach, a Lithuanian Rabbi who headed the Ponevich Yeshiva in Bnei Brak who died in the early 2000's.
-
Would lulab be assuming that this rabbi he asks, answers with ruach hakodesh?
If he wants to remain consistent, Yes.
If he claims that, then I don't think he would even be being internally consistent. His chabad theological source would not say that this rabbi has ruach hakodesh. Not as he described it anyway.
Remember also, that this rabbi lulab is asking, is not pre shach and taz. So what source would he be using to say that they have ruach hakodesh. And I am intrigued to know what was so special about the era pre shach and taz, that rabbis after them do not have ruach hakodesh?!
Because the Shach and taz were right before the chassidic movement. Since many famous rabbis opposed that movement, Lubab cannot beleive they had ruah hakodesh because they opposed chassidism.
And why in the heck would a chabad book talk about the shach like that, when the Shach hated chabad!!!!!!!! When asked what is the religion closest to judaism, he responded "chabad" !
Two different people.
Lubab and I are referring to a great sage that wrote a commentary on the shulchan aruch called Sifthe Kohen which is abbreviated as Shach.
Your story is refer to Rabbi Elazar Menachem Shach, a Lithuanian Rabbi who headed the Ponevich Yeshiva in Bnei Brak who died in the early 2000's.
thanks again for the correction!
-
Ok. Here we go.
Re: the Macholoket about the cooked vegetables. How are they both valid? And how do we know which one to follow?
My Rabbi said he would need to look into that gemara to see exactly what they are arguing about but he gave me one possible example of how hasidic philsophy might view such a case in the way I described i.e.
.
. .
If the machloket is as you state it, both opinions agree on the basic principle and are only differ in how it should be applied. i.e. both agree that we only need to say Birchat Hamazon when we have satiation "VeAChalta Vesavaatah Uverachta".
Their difference might lie in what they consider satiation. There are different types of satiation. There is a satiation of the mouth (i.e. so a person is temporarily not hungry anymore..which cooked vegetables might give you) and there is satiation of the stomach (so a person is full in a way that he's really gotten all the nutrients he needs to have energy to do what he needs to do and it's a more permanent kind of situation).
In order to see the common ground here we need to look at the purpose of saying Berachot. It is to bring an awareness and a gratitude for the food G-d has provided for us. Some people are at the level where they are very spoiled and need to recognize that even small things (like the more temporary satiation, and in general all the smaller gifts we have in life) come from G-d and we need to be thankful for them. The other opinion speaks to those who are at an even higher level, where food and satiation has no real meaning to them unless it can be used to fulfill their mission in this world (for such a person Birchat Hamazon might be required only for the stomach kind of satiation).
Both opinions are certainly valid as both types of satiation are real and different people do need to appreciate G-d's gifts in different ways.
We pasken the halacha based on the rules of how we paskin halacah. Usually in these matters we would go by the Rov (who had the larger academy). The larger academy would be an indication that that is the level where most people are holding so that is the particular rule they need.
Re: Hagar and Keturah.
Obviously since we are dealing with a factual account only one of those two opinions is the one that actually happened. However the Torah can be learned at various levels. You can read it just for the facts, but it can also be read for the lesson or deeper meaning contained in the words e.g. even a fiction story can have a real life lesson and if one would just read a fiction for the facts and not pay any attention to the lesson you'd find it quite foolish, when in truth the reader is the fool.
So it's possible in this case that if Ketura really was Hagar, Hagar at that point was acting so unlike her usual self that she was really more like Keturah. Or alternatively, if she really wasn't Keturah, she was acting so similar to Keturah that their lives were basically a repeat.
Even poetry (Lahavdil) has more than one meaning and the fact that the Torah left it ambigious as to whether she was or was not Keturah signals to us that there is more than one way of looking at this. One literal, and one looking deeper at how the person was acting or what lesson we are are meant to learn.
P.S. JNC I got quite a laugh from your "beat to the punch". It's a lot easier to tear down the arguments you make for me than the ones I actually make so I understand where you are coming from there. I don't know who taught you how to learn like that but it obviously wasn't someone who really knew how Torah or Chassidut for that matter works.
-
P.S. JNC I got quite a laugh from your "beat to the punch". It's a lot easier to tear down the arguments you make for me than the ones I actually make so I understand where you are coming from there. I don't know who taught you how to learn like that but it obviously wasn't someone who really knew how Torah or Chassidut for that matter works.
My satirical explanation made about as much sense as yours did.
And the truth is that your whole view of the Torah shows that you don't understand how the Torah and talmudic system works. You still didn't explain to me how a person who thinks both opinions are right can possibly give a psak halakha other than just picking the more stringent view in all issues.
Listen to the second shiur.
According to the Rambam's principle, if you can disprove what Rav Bar Hayim says in those first two shiurim to my satisfaction, I'll become a Chabadnik.
-
P.S. JNC I got quite a laugh from your "beat to the punch". It's a lot easier to tear down the arguments you make for me than the ones I actually make so I understand where you are coming from there. I don't know who taught you how to learn like that but it obviously wasn't someone who really knew how Torah or Chassidut for that matter works.
My satirical explanation made about as much sense as yours did.
And the truth is that your whole view of the Torah shows that you don't understand how the Torah and talmudic system works. You wedidn't explain to me how a person who thinks both opinions are right can possibly give a psak halakha other than just picking the more stringent view in all issues.
Listen to the second shiur.
According to the Rambam's principle, if you can disprove what Rav Bar Hayim says in those first two shiurim to my satisfaction, I'll become a Chabadnik.
You obviously did not read my post.
I said how you pasken halacha. You generally go by the Rov. Further, if it is a deoratta we go lechumra if it is a derabbanan we go lekulah.
I think the explanation above is perfectly logical. If you don't think it is I'd like to know why SPECIFICALLY.
I will be happy to try and disprove that section and make you into a Chabadnik when I get a chance.
-
<snip>
Re: Hagar and Keturah.
Obviously since we are dealing with a factual account only one of those two opinions is the one that actually happened. However the Torah can be learned at various levels. You can read it just for the facts, but it can also be read for the lesson or deeper meaning contained in the words e.g. even a fiction story can have a real life lesson and if one would just read a fiction for the facts and not pay any attention to the lesson you'd find it quite foolish, when in truth the reader is the fool.
So it's possible in this case that if Ketura really was Hagar, Hagar at that point was acting so unlike her usual self that she was really more like Keturah. Or alternatively, if she really wasn't Keturah, she was acting so similar to Keturah that their lives were basically a repeat.
Even poetry (Lahavdil) has more than one meaning and the fact that the Torah left it ambigious as to whether she was or was not Keturah signals to us that there is more than one way of looking at this. One literal, and one looking deeper at how the person was acting or what lesson we are are meant to learn.
<snip>
nope.
One midrash says same person. The other midrash says different people.
Some rabbis say same. Others say different.
You have been claiming that all opinions from rabbis of that long period talmud to "the taz", even if they appear to disagree, are actually truth, and in agreement.
So how do you reconcile or explain that?
And do you hold this view on midrash too?
That both midrashim agree.
-
<snip>
Re: Hagar and Keturah.
Obviously since we are dealing with a factual account only one of those two opinions is the one that actually happened. However the Torah can be learned at various levels. You can read it just for the facts, but it can also be read for the lesson or deeper meaning contained in the words e.g. even a fiction story can have a real life lesson and if one would just read a fiction for the facts and not pay any attention to the lesson you'd find it quite foolish, when in truth the reader is the fool.
So it's possible in this case that if Ketura really was Hagar, Hagar at that point was acting so unlike her usual self that she was really more like Keturah. Or alternatively, if she really wasn't Keturah, she was acting so similar to Keturah that their lives were basically a repeat.
Even poetry (Lahavdil) has more than one meaning and the fact that the Torah left it ambigious as to whether she was or was not Keturah signals to us that there is more than one way of looking at this. One literal, and one looking deeper at how the person was acting or what lesson we are are meant to learn.
<snip>
nope.
One midrash says same person. The other midrash says different people.
Some rabbis say same. Others say different.
You have been claiming that all opinions from rabbis of that long period talmud to "the taz", even if they appear to disagree, are actually truth, and in agreement.
So how do you reconcile or explain that?
And do you hold this view on midrash too?
That both midrashim agree.
Both are valid. Yes. One might be valid at the level of Pshat the other at the level of Drush for instance.
And yes of course it applies to Midrash which is well before the Taz.
-
Look more closely at your sources. They don't both say they were or were not different people.
Look at the language "one is identified with Hagar" could easily be referring to the way she was acting.
She keturah could have been dead at that time yet Hagar was acting just the way she did so the Torah calls her by that name.
-
With this q_q you are hitting on a deeper discussion. Who are you? If we change your name does that change you in any way?
What if we change everything about how you act and talk but you keep your namewhat kind of effect would that have on how you define yourself?
We see an example of this when the sages say: Pinchas Hu Eliyahu. (Pinchas is Elijah). Is he actually the same person? No way! But they had the same kind of mission and the same kind of actions so we go by that which much more defines who a person really is than their name.
This unity of mission between people of different generations is really what the books on reincarnation are talking about, not the reincarnation of actual souls as most people believe because they never read the introduction to Shaar Hagilgilum.
-
Look more closely at your sources. They don't both say they were or were not different people.
Look at the language "one is identified with Hagar" could easily be referring to the way she was acting.
She keturah could have been dead at that time yet Hagar was acting just the way she did so the Torah calls her by that name.
The source I mentioned was
rabbi aryeh kaplan in "the living torah" , provides the sources.
It is online here
http://bible.ort.org/books/pentd2.asp?ACTION=displaypage&BOOK=1&CHAPTER=25
commentary on Gen 25:1
Keturah
A concubine (1 Chronicles 1:32). Some sources identify her with Hagar (Targum Yonathan; Bereshith Rabbah 61; Rashi). Others, however, maintain that she was a third wife (Bereshith Rabbah 57; Zohar 1:133b; Ibn Ezra; Rashbam; Ramban on 25:6). One ancient source states that Hagar was already dead at this time (Yov'loth 19:13).
Rabbi aryeh kaplan mentionining many sources. Let's look at one of them. Rashi.
He relies on one midrash.
He says on the pasuk(Verse) that says Avraham took a wife. 25:1
ZOH HAGAR - this is Hagar.
Rashi (based on one of the midrashim) is clearly saying Keturah and Hagar are the same person.
Do you agree, or do you maintain that "They don't both say they were or were not different people."
i.e. you're saying Rashi is not saying they were the same person and he is not saying they weren't. He is saying neither. ?
-
Read what I just wrote above your post about Pinchas and Eliyahu and you'll see a good example of what I'm talking about.
-
With this q_q you are hitting on a deeper discussion. Who are you? If we change your name does that change you in any way?
What if we change everything about how you act and talk but you keep your namewhat kind of effect would that have on how you define yourself?
We see an example of this when the sages say: Pinchas Hu Eliyahu? (Pinchas is Elijah). Is he actually the same person? No way! But they had the same kind of mission and the same kind of actions so we go by that which much more defines who a person really is than their name.
This unity of mission between people of different generations is really what the books on reincarnation are talking about, not the reincarnation of actual souls as most people believe because they never read the introduction to Shaar Hagilgilum.
I am glad that you like my reincarnation explanation - call it the reincarnation like in shir hagilgulim, which you say is reincarnated mission. Very good. But I made it up to agree with judea's point.
To take it seriously after I said I made it up, is ridiculous.
Do you think I have ruach hakodesh? and even though I said I made it up, it is still true?
I don't know where you are going there.
I tihnk the other line of discussion about what the sources say is more sensible. You seem to be saying that no source says they were or were not the same. Well let's see. I mentioned Rashi.
-
With this q_q you are hitting on a deeper discussion. Who are you? If we change your name does that change you in any way?
What if we change everything about how you act and talk but you keep your namewhat kind of effect would that have on how you define yourself?
We see an example of this when the sages say: Pinchas Hu Eliyahu? (Pinchas is Elijah). Is he actually the same person? No way! But they had the same kind of mission and the same kind of actions so we go by that which much more defines who a person really is than their name.
This unity of mission between people of different generations is really what the books on reincarnation are talking about, not the reincarnation of actual souls as most people believe because they never read the introduction to Shaar Hagilgilum.
I am glad that you like my reincarnation explanation - call it the reincarnation like in shir hagilgulim, which you say is reincarnated mission. Very good. But I made it up to agree with judea's point.
To take it seriously after I said I made it up, is ridiculous.
Do you think I have ruach hakodesh? and even though I said I made it up, it is still true?
I don't know where you are going there.
I tihnk the other line of discussion about what the sources say is more sensible. You seem to be saying that no source says they were or were not the same. Well let's see. I mentioned Rashi.
I didn't get that explanation from you I got it from the intro to Shaar Hagilgulim by the Arizal.
And it is true. That is what reincarnation is all about.
That does not mean you have Ruach Hakodesh.
-
It may be they don't specifically say they are or are not the same person or it may be they are saying it in the same way they say Pinchas Hu Eliyahu (reincarnation of mission/actions).
Now I hope you can see how two opinions that at first seem impossible to reconcile can both be valid.
-
Read what I just wrote above your post about Pinchas and Eliyahu and you'll see a good example of what I'm talking about.
you made up that it's a reincarnation. (of mission. Like the reincarnations (of mission you say) that the arizal describes in shir hagilgulim).
But hte arizal lists them and doesn't list hagar and keturah as being that situation.
You have invented your own idea that G-d sent keturah the mission of Hagar. Do you have ruach hakodesh?
And saying it's like those spoken of in the arizal. I guess you think the arizal missed it out.
Anyhow, Rashi did not mention anything of the sort.
You are clearly reading into rashi a completely different thing to what Rashi was saying.
He said ZOH HAGAR. This is hagar.
you're saying.. Well, actually rashi is saying it's not hagar, but it's somebody with the same mission as hagar..
That is not what rashi said.
-
The arizal claimed to have been taught by heavenly teachers, that's how he compiled such a list in shir hagilgulim.
You are not. So you can't justify adding hagar and keturah to the list.
And you certainly can't then claim that rashi was saying this. You can't even claim that the arizal was saying this.
-
Read what I just wrote above your post about Pinchas and Eliyahu and you'll see a good example of what I'm talking about.
you made up that it's a reincarnation. (of mission. Like the reincarnations (of mission you say) that the arizal describes in shir hagilgulim).
But hte arizal lists them and doesn't list hagar and keturah as being that situation.
You have invented your own idea that G-d sent keturah the mission of Hagar. Do you have ruach hakodesh?
And saying it's like those spoken of in the arizal. I guess you think the arizal missed it out.
Anyhow, Rashi did not mention anything of the sort.
You are clearly reading into rashi a completely different thing to what Rashi was saying.
He said ZOH HAGAR. This is hagar.
you're saying.. Well, actually rashi is saying it's not hagar, but it's somebody with the same mission as hagar..
That is not what rashi said.
No offense, but if you were a poetry student I would have failed you a long time ago because you don't seem able to understand that the written word the way you understand it is not always the only meaning it can possibly have.
Your question goes to the heart of how we define who a person really is: by their actions, or by their given name.
So the sages can say "this person is that person" and be referring to their actions or their mission and not their physical body.
Do you understand that?
-
You might say that rashi when quoting the midrash didn't know
they had reincarnated missions.
And that neither did the RAMBAN.. or even the arizal.
But then you have no basis for putting them in a list of people that had reincarnated missions.
It is just as made up as judea's. Infact, I made it up as an example of a made up explanation with no basis. And you went ahead and used it!
-
The arizal claimed to have been taught by heavenly teachers, that's how he compiled such a list in shir hagilgulim.
You are not. So you can't justify adding hagar and keturah to the list.
And you certainly can't then claim that rashi was saying this. You can't even claim that the arizal was saying this.
I'm simply giving you one possible explanation so you can see how seemingly contradictary opinons can both be valid upon further reflection.
There are many other possible explanations. I've given you one.
I don't know why you assume the Arizal's list is exhaustive, and I'm not sure why you're so sure they're not even in the list: have you learned the entire sefer?
-
Read what I just wrote above your post about Pinchas and Eliyahu and you'll see a good example of what I'm talking about.
you made up that it's a reincarnation. (of mission. Like the reincarnations (of mission you say) that the arizal describes in shir hagilgulim).
But hte arizal lists them and doesn't list hagar and keturah as being that situation.
You have invented your own idea that G-d sent keturah the mission of Hagar. Do you have ruach hakodesh?
And saying it's like those spoken of in the arizal. I guess you think the arizal missed it out.
Anyhow, Rashi did not mention anything of the sort.
You are clearly reading into rashi a completely different thing to what Rashi was saying.
He said ZOH HAGAR. This is hagar.
you're saying.. Well, actually rashi is saying it's not hagar, but it's somebody with the same mission as hagar..
That is not what rashi said.
No offense, but if you were a poetry student I would have failed you a long time ago because you don't seem able to understand that the written word the way you understand it is not always the only meaning it can possibly have.
Your question goes to the heart of how we define who a person really is: by their actions, or by their given name.
So the sages can say "this person is that person" and be referring to their actions or their mission and not their physical body.
Do you understand that?
Rashi was not writing poetry!!!!!
how many other ridiculous things could you read into any of rashi's commentary, with that absurd idea.
How about the RAMBAM in mishneh torah. My bet is that you will not say "I deny that the RAMBAM wrote poetry" or "I deny that any of the RAMBAM's own words are poetic". You probably Believe that hte wrote poetry in the mishneh torah, and that his own words were poetic.
-
What do you think it even means he was "taught by heavenly teachers"? Do you know what that means?
-
Read what I just wrote above your post about Pinchas and Eliyahu and you'll see a good example of what I'm talking about.
you made up that it's a reincarnation. (of mission. Like the reincarnations (of mission you say) that the arizal describes in shir hagilgulim).
But hte arizal lists them and doesn't list hagar and keturah as being that situation.
You have invented your own idea that G-d sent keturah the mission of Hagar. Do you have ruach hakodesh?
And saying it's like those spoken of in the arizal. I guess you think the arizal missed it out.
Anyhow, Rashi did not mention anything of the sort.
You are clearly reading into rashi a completely different thing to what Rashi was saying.
He said ZOH HAGAR. This is hagar.
you're saying.. Well, actually rashi is saying it's not hagar, but it's somebody with the same mission as hagar..
That is not what rashi said.
No offense, but if you were a poetry student I would have failed you a long time ago because you don't seem able to understand that the written word the way you understand it is not always the only meaning it can possibly have.
Your question goes to the heart of how we define who a person really is: by their actions, or by their given name.
So the sages can say "this person is that person" and be referring to their actions or their mission and not their physical body.
Do you understand that?
Rashi was not writing poetry!!!!!
how many other ridiculous things could you read into any of rashi's commentary, with that absurd idea.
How about the RAMBAM in mishneh torah. My bet is that you will not say "I deny that the RAMBAM wrote poetry" or "I deny that any of the RAMBAM's own words are poetic". You probably Believe that hte wrote poetry in the mishneh torah, and that his own words were poetic.
G-d forbid. The Torah is much deeper than poetry and has many more layers of meaning than any poetry could ever dream of having. But maybe if you practice on poetry be able to see how one thing can have more than one explanation and then you'll be ready for the big time.
-
The arizal claimed to have been taught by heavenly teachers, that's how he compiled such a list in shir hagilgulim.
You are not. So you can't justify adding hagar and keturah to the list.
And you certainly can't then claim that rashi was saying this. You can't even claim that the arizal was saying this.
I'm simply giving you one possible explanation so you can see how seemingly contradictary opinons can both be valid upon further reflection.
There are many other possible explanations. I've given you one.
I don't know why you assume the Arizal's list is exhaustive, and I'm not sure why you're so sure they're not even in the list: have you learned the entire sefer?
you are playing games here.
You are the one that is claiming they have reincarnated missions. The arizal has a list there.
And you clearly don't care if it is in his list or not!
If you are basing yourself on him having a list then the burden is on you to show it. But clearly you are not. and cleraly you don't care if it is listed or not.
So why ask me if it is in the list. I doubt it is. But you would maintain your opinion is correct even if it's not in the list.
You have to explain how you can create your own ideas like that, add people to the arizal's list. The arizal's claim to authority was a heavenly teacher. That is why his new stuff was accepted.
Even your chabad theology, which ascribes ruach hakodesh like powers to rebbes, does not ascribe it to you.
-
Rashi was not writing poetry!!!!!
how many other ridiculous things could you read into any of rashi's commentary, with that absurd idea.
How about the RAMBAM in mishneh torah. My bet is that you will not say "I deny that the RAMBAM wrote poetry" or "I deny that any of the RAMBAM's own words are poetic". You probably Believe that hte wrote poetry in the mishneh torah, and that his own words were poetic.
G-d forbid. The Torah is much deeper than poetry and has many more layers of meaning than any poetry could ever dream of having. But maybe if you practice on poetry be able to see how one thing can have more than one explanation and then you'll be ready for the big time.
you are mixing everything up. I am not talking about the Torah having many layers.
I am talking about A rabbi's words. Any rabbi. Do you think every rabbi . rashi for example, or RAMBAM, or RAMBAN, wrote his words to allow for people to treat them as poetic and read in whatever the heck they liked? And pretend that it's what the rabbi intended?
-
The arizal claimed to have been taught by heavenly teachers, that's how he compiled such a list in shir hagilgulim.
You are not. So you can't justify adding hagar and keturah to the list.
And you certainly can't then claim that rashi was saying this. You can't even claim that the arizal was saying this.
I'm simply giving you one possible explanation so you can see how seemingly contradictary opinons can both be valid upon further reflection.
There are many other possible explanations. I've given you one.
I don't know why you assume the Arizal's list is exhaustive, and I'm not sure why you're so sure they're not even in the list: have you learned the entire sefer?
you are playing games here.
You are the one that is claiming they have reincarnated missions. The arizal has a list there.
And you clearly don't care if it is in his list or not!
If you are basing yourself on him having a list then the burden is on you to show it. But clearly you are not. and cleraly you don't care if it is listed or not.
So why ask me if it is in the list. I doubt it is. But you would maintain your opinion is correct even if it's not in the list.
You have to explain how you can create your own ideas like that, add people to the arizal's list. The arizal's claim to authority was a heavenly teacher. That is why his new stuff was accepted.
Even your chabad theology, which ascribes ruach hakodesh like powers to rebbes, does not ascribe it to you.
You misundersand. I'm not basing myself on that list at all. I'm just saying the same way Pinchas could be called Eliyahu so too Hagar can be called Keturah becacuse she was acting like her. I've proven it's a way that the sages talk sometimes.
What is so difficult to understand about that?
-
The arizal claimed to have been taught by heavenly teachers, that's how he compiled such a list in shir hagilgulim.
You are not. So you can't justify adding hagar and keturah to the list.
And you certainly can't then claim that rashi was saying this. You can't even claim that the arizal was saying this.
I'm simply giving you one possible explanation so you can see how seemingly contradictary opinons can both be valid upon further reflection.
There are many other possible explanations. I've given you one.
I don't know why you assume the Arizal's list is exhaustive, and I'm not sure why you're so sure they're not even in the list: have you learned the entire sefer?
you are playing games here.
You are the one that is claiming they have reincarnated missions. The arizal has a list there.
And you clearly don't care if it is in his list or not!
If you are basing yourself on him having a list then the burden is on you to show it. But clearly you are not. and cleraly you don't care if it is listed or not.
So why ask me if it is in the list. I doubt it is. But you would maintain your opinion is correct even if it's not in the list.
You have to explain how you can create your own ideas like that, add people to the arizal's list. The arizal's claim to authority was a heavenly teacher. That is why his new stuff was accepted.
Even your chabad theology, which ascribes ruach hakodesh like powers to rebbes, does not ascribe it to you.
You misundersand. I'm not basing myself on that list at all. I'm just saying the same way Pinchas could be called Eliyahu so too Hagar can be called Keturah becacuse she was acting like her. I've proven it's a way that the sages talk sometimes.
What is so difficult to understand about that?
I don't need ruach hakodesh to say this. I'm just presenting what is a logical possiblity. You are free to accept or reject it but you can no longer come and tell me that the views are absolutely irreconcilable and one must be invalid.
-
You misundersand. I'm not basing myself on that list at all. I'm just saying the same way Pinchas could be called Eliyahu so too Hagar can be called Keturah becacuse she was acting like her. I've proven it's a way that the sages talk sometimes.
What is so difficult to understand about that?
very easy to understand, but one doesn't accept any idea that one can understand.
your ideas are not acceptable, because it's all made up to allow you to believe some nonsense that the rabbis never disagreed.
So what's your proof that sages refer to A with the name of B, when they act the same.
Anything other than the case of the arizal's list? In his list, A is referred to as B, because it's a reincarnation (of mission you say, ok). That's a kabbalistic thing, reincarnation of mission. Not a logical rule that if 2 people act the same then you can refer to A as B.
You just make things up here. Your mind is all over the place, like a bull in a china shop.
-
You misundersand. I'm not basing myself on that list at all. I'm just saying the same way Pinchas could be called Eliyahu so too Hagar can be called Keturah becacuse she was acting like her. I've proven it's a way that the sages talk sometimes.
What is so difficult to understand about that?
very easy to understand, but one doesn't accept any idea that one can understand.
your ideas are not acceptable, because it's all made up to allow you to believe some nonsense that the rabbis never disagreed.
So what's your proof that sages refer to A with the name of B, when they act the same.
Anything other than the case of the arizal's list? In his list, A is referred to as B, because it's a reincarnation (of mission you say, ok). That's a kabbalistic thing, reincarnation of mission. Not a logical rule that if 2 people act the same then you can refer to A as B.
You just make things up here. Your mind is all over the place, like a bull in a china shop.
My proof is Pinchas Hu Eliezer. Why do you think every instance of this must be in the Arizal's list?
Just because it's in kabbalah doesn't mean it's not logical. It's extremely logical anyone who doesn't think so dosn't know how to learn it right. It's talking about reality. The sages spoke this way about Elijah and we know as an empirical matter that a person's actions say a lot more about a person than their external given name who they may not live up to at all. So it's logical that the wise sages will often call a person by their "real name" the one that represents their behavior when appropriate.
So there's no reason not to say that might be what Rashi is doing here.
I can take horse to water but can't make it drink...if you don't want to accept it that's fine. But if you want to insist that there CAN BE NO RECONCILATION of these sources then you have a lot of work to do proving every possible way to understand what Chazal are telling us and showing how each one is incompible with the other.
Bottom line: if you are not willing to open your mind to the possiblity that these sources are compatible you won't understand. Will is higer than intellect and plays it like a puppet. If you are open to the possiblity you'll search and find the truth of each statement. What can I tell you? It's up to you.
-
I will tell you the truth, I did not scroll to the beginning of this thread to see what the disagreement was about but it its clear that lubab is being spoken to like he is a muslim or something. Its fine to have a disagreement but lets not make the atmosphere one which anyone in the discussion no longer feels comfortable.
-
I will tell you the truth, I did not scroll to the beginning of this thread to see what the disagreement was about but it its clear that lubab is being spoken to like he is a muslim or something.
yeah well you're wrong
-
I will tell you the truth, I did not scroll to the beginning of this thread to see what the disagreement was about but it its clear that lubab is being spoken to like he is a muslim or something.
yeah well you're wrong
I see him being respectful but people aren't being respectful to him. I am not directing this at anyone in particular, I am just talking about the aura this thread gives off.
-
<snip>
Bottom line: if you are not willing to open your mind to the possiblity that these sources are compatible you won't understand. Will is higer than intellect and plays it like a puppet. If you are open to the possiblity you'll search and find the truth of each statement. What can I tell you? It's up to you.
so you're willing to go against the plain meaning of what all these rabbis wrote.
suppose rabbi A says X. And you accept X.
Then as soon as Rabbi B appears and says something that appears to contradict rabbi A.
You then reinterpret Rabbi A and Rabbi B, rejecting the plain meaning of both of them.
If rabbi B had never said anything, or if you had not heard of RAbbi B, then you would have accepted the plain meaning of Rabbi A.
You look at everything as if it has been said by the same rabbi.
So. What if there is a time gap of 100 years.
Does that mean that all of Rabbi A's students take him for what he says. Then 100 years after, Rabbi B says something. And so descendents of students of Rabbi A have to reject their former view that they were taught, as they understood it.
The fact that you have to change your interpretation of Rabbi A each time another rabbi speaks on the subject, and then accept no rabbi for his plain meaning. Is just so blatantly irrational. It means you change your position the whole time.. You don't take any of them seriously.
side note-
Besides chassidic rebbes. Did all the rabbis that had this ruach hakodesh power live before the Baal Shem Tov?
'cos if they lived after then you'd have to reinterpret chabad teachings rejecting any plain meanings in light of those that have apparently contradicted accepted chabad teaching.
second side note- I know of no chabad rabbi that takes this extreme view tht you have.. that no rabbis between the talmud and the taz disagreed..
If you have an exact quote and reference, from that shulchan aruch harav that you mentioned.. that would be interesting , i could put it to some askmoses scholar. There are one or two good ones.
-
<snip>
Bottom line: if you are not willing to open your mind to the possiblity that these sources are compatible you won't understand. Will is higer than intellect and plays it like a puppet. If you are open to the possiblity you'll search and find the truth of each statement. What can I tell you? It's up to you.
so you're willing to go against the plain meaning of what all these rabbis wrote.
suppose rabbi A says X. And you accept X.
Then as soon as Rabbi B appears and says something that appears to contradict rabbi A.
You then reinterpret Rabbi A and Rabbi B, rejecting the plain meaning of both of them.
If rabbi B had never said anything, or if you had not heard of RAbbi B, then you would have accepted the plain meaning of Rabbi A.
You look at everything as if it has been said by the same rabbi.
So. What if there is a time gap of 100 years.
Does that mean that all of Rabbi A's students take him for what he says. Then 100 years after, Rabbi B says something. And so descendents of students of Rabbi A have to reject their former view that they were taught, as they understood it.
The fact that you have to change your interpretation of Rabbi A each time another rabbi speaks on the subject, and then accept no rabbi for his plain meaning. Is just so blatantly irrational. It means you change your position the whole time.. You don't take any of them seriously.
side note-
Besides chassidic rebbes. Did all the rabbis that had this ruach hakodesh power live before the Baal Shem Tov?
'cos if they lived after then you'd have to reinterpret chabad teachings rejecting any plain meanings in light of those that have apparently contradicted accepted chabad teaching.
second side note- I know of no chabad rabbi that takes this extreme view tht you have.. that no rabbis between the talmud and the taz disagreed..
If you have an exact quote and reference, from that shulchan aruch harav that you mentioned.. that would be interesting , i could put it to some askmoses scholar. There are one or two good ones.
There is no rejection of plain meaning going on here, just a recogniton that the plain meaning is not the ONLY meaning to a verse. Some of Chazal speak about the pshat of a pasuk and some talk about the Remez and some the Derush etc.
I think you do have an obligation to see if there is truly irreconcilable difference between the opinions before you reject one as invalid.
We need to recognize that these sages were a lot smarter than us and if we think one of their explanations is invalid it is almost certain that the flaw is in our understanding of the explanation, not with the explanation itself.
That's how you are supposed to learn. The alternative that is being suggested here is just throwing out SEEMINGLY inconsistent statements because they seem ILLOGICAL TO US. No attempt at reconciliation. No thought they maybe, just maybe these Rabbis meant something a bit deeper than what we understand from there words. It's a lazy way to learn and I'm not really sure it can be called
"Torah learning" at all because the student is looking for his own truth, not the truth found in the holy words in front of him.
-
P.S. JNC I got quite a laugh from your "beat to the punch". It's a lot easier to tear down the arguments you make for me than the ones I actually make so I understand where you are coming from there. I don't know who taught you how to learn like that but it obviously wasn't someone who really knew how Torah or Chassidut for that matter works.
My satirical explanation made about as much sense as yours did.
And the truth is that your whole view of the Torah shows that you don't understand how the Torah and talmudic system works. You wedidn't explain to me how a person who thinks both opinions are right can possibly give a psak halakha other than just picking the more stringent view in all issues.
Listen to the second shiur.
According to the Rambam's principle, if you can disprove what Rav Bar Hayim says in those first two shiurim to my satisfaction, I'll become a Chabadnik.
You obviously did not read my post.
I said how you pasken halacha. You generally go by the Rov. Further, if it is a deoratta we go lechumra if it is a derabbanan we go lekulah.
I think the explanation above is perfectly logical. If you don't think it is I'd like to know why SPECIFICALLY.
I will be happy to try and disprove that section and make you into a Chabadnik when I get a chance.
Go by the Rov of whom? Geonim? Rishonim? Achronim? All of the above?
That is ludicrous. The Talmudh is what decides the Halakha and if one interpretation makes the most sense, who cares how many other opinions disagree with it?
Your principle of going by the Rov when applied to hundreds of Hakhamim over thousands of years makes no sense at all.
-
P.S. JNC I got quite a laugh from your "beat to the punch". It's a lot easier to tear down the arguments you make for me than the ones I actually make so I understand where you are coming from there. I don't know who taught you how to learn like that but it obviously wasn't someone who really knew how Torah or Chassidut for that matter works.
My satirical explanation made about as much sense as yours did.
And the truth is that your whole view of the Torah shows that you don't understand how the Torah and talmudic system works. You wedidn't explain to me how a person who thinks both opinions are right can possibly give a psak halakha other than just picking the more stringent view in all issues.
Listen to the second shiur.
According to the Rambam's principle, if you can disprove what Rav Bar Hayim says in those first two shiurim to my satisfaction, I'll become a Chabadnik.
You obviously did not read my post.
I said how you pasken halacha. You generally go by the Rov. Further, if it is a deoratta we go lechumra if it is a derabbanan we go lekulah.
I think the explanation above is perfectly logical. If you don't think it is I'd like to know why SPECIFICALLY.
I will be happy to try and disprove that section and make you into a Chabadnik when I get a chance.
Go by the Rov of whom? Geonim? Rishonim? Achronim? All of the above?
That is ludicrous. The Talmudh is what decides the Halakha and if one interpretation makes the most sense, who cares how many other opinions disagree with it?
Your principle of going by the Rov when applied to hundreds of Hakhamim over thousands of years makes no sense at all.
I meant Rov i.e. the majority not Rov i.e. Rabbi.
-
The Talmud itself prescribes this method for deciding the halacha. Generally the academy that is larger wins, or in some cases the academy that is more expert in the field. It depends on whether it's dinei mamonos or dinei nefashos whether it's deoraitta or derabannan.
These are the basic principles of paskening halacha. It's the ABCs.
-
P.S. JNC I got quite a laugh from your "beat to the punch". It's a lot easier to tear down the arguments you make for me than the ones I actually make so I understand where you are coming from there. I don't know who taught you how to learn like that but it obviously wasn't someone who really knew how Torah or Chassidut for that matter works.
My satirical explanation made about as much sense as yours did.
And the truth is that your whole view of the Torah shows that you don't understand how the Torah and talmudic system works. You wedidn't explain to me how a person who thinks both opinions are right can possibly give a psak halakha other than just picking the more stringent view in all issues.
Listen to the second shiur.
According to the Rambam's principle, if you can disprove what Rav Bar Hayim says in those first two shiurim to my satisfaction, I'll become a Chabadnik.
You obviously did not read my post.
I said how you pasken halacha. You generally go by the Rov. Further, if it is a deoratta we go lechumra if it is a derabbanan we go lekulah.
I think the explanation above is perfectly logical. If you don't think it is I'd like to know why SPECIFICALLY.
I will be happy to try and disprove that section and make you into a Chabadnik when I get a chance.
Go by the Rov of whom? Geonim? Rishonim? Achronim? All of the above?
That is ludicrous. The Talmudh is what decides the Halakha and if one interpretation makes the most sense, who cares how many other opinions disagree with it?
Your principle of going by the Rov when applied to hundreds of Hakhamim over thousands of years makes no sense at all.
I meant Rov i.e. the majority not Rov i.e. Rabbi.
I know what you meant. And I was asking whether you go by the majority of the Geonim, Rishonim, Achronim or all of the above.
And also, Lubab if you can only pasken halakhic based on a number system ie. finding a majority of great sages who lived in the past, how can you possibly apply halakha to a new reality, a new situation that those Rabbis never had to deal with, ie test tube babies, cloning, fighting a civilian enemy in wartime, qorban pesah etc?
-
The Talmud itself prescribes this method for deciding the halacha. Generally the academy that is larger wins, or in some cases the academy that is more expert in the field. It depends on whether it's dinei mamonos or dinei nefashos whether it's deoraitta or derabannan.
These are the basic principles of paskening halacha. It's the ABCs, my friend. It's the stuff I learned in fourth grade gemarah class. If you don't know this stuff there isn't much room to discuss more complex matters.
Don't talk down to me. I'm speaking about the interpretations of that Talmudh. How do you decide whether Rashi or Rabbenu Tam's opinion is correct?
The difference is that Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel or Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yose were arguing about what the Halakha is and Rashi and Rabbenu Tam are arguing as to what the Talmudh is saying. Therefore only one of them can be right. Get it?
-
P.S. JNC I got quite a laugh from your "beat to the punch". It's a lot easier to tear down the arguments you make for me than the ones I actually make so I understand where you are coming from there. I don't know who taught you how to learn like that but it obviously wasn't someone who really knew how Torah or Chassidut for that matter works.
My satirical explanation made about as much sense as yours did.
And the truth is that your whole view of the Torah shows that you don't understand how the Torah and talmudic system works. You wedidn't explain to me how a person who thinks both opinions are right can possibly give a psak halakha other than just picking the more stringent view in all issues.
Listen to the second shiur.
According to the Rambam's principle, if you can disprove what Rav Bar Hayim says in those first two shiurim to my satisfaction, I'll become a Chabadnik.
You obviously did not read my post.
I said how you pasken halacha. You generally go by the Rov. Further, if it is a deoratta we go lechumra if it is a derabbanan we go lekulah.
I think the explanation above is perfectly logical. If you don't think it is I'd like to know why SPECIFICALLY.
I will be happy to try and disprove that section and make you into a Chabadnik when I get a chance.
Go by the Rov of whom? Geonim? Rishonim? Achronim? All of the above?
That is ludicrous. The Talmudh is what decides the Halakha and if one interpretation makes the most sense, who cares how many other opinions disagree with it?
Your principle of going by the Rov when applied to hundreds of Hakhamim over thousands of years makes no sense at all.
I meant Rov i.e. the majority not Rov i.e. Rabbi.
I know what you meant. And I was asking whether you go by the majority of the Geonim, Rishonim, Achronim or all of the above.
And also, Lubab if you can only pasken halakhic based on a number system ie. finding a majority of great sages who lived in the past, how can you possibly apply halakha to a new reality, a new situation that those Rabbis never had to deal with, ie test tube babies, cloning, fighting a civilian enemy in wartime, qorban pesah etc?
I think the way it works is in each generation the Rov makes the decision but they cannot overrule an earlier generations's decision unless their yeshiva is bigger. I believe that's the way it works. But there most definitely are rules about how to decide this stuff.
Modern decisions? Are a bigger problem. There are very few people who really know how to pasken these days but everyone does have an obligation to pick a Rov (Rabbi) and stick to their decisions. It says that when a Rov Paskens that becomes the halacha even if he might have made a mistake because G-d gave the decision making power over to the Rov (Torah Lo Bashamayim Hi).
Of course the Rov must have a valid semicha and shimush and the Rabbi who gave him Semicha must have had the same.
I know there was a break in the chain of Semicha but I think we've had some pretty great Rabbis that were worthy to give semicha in the past several generations and if someone got semicha from someone who got semicha from someone who got semicha from someone very authoratiative like I dunno...the Vilna Gaon. Then we can rely on such a psak.
If you're sephardic you'll obviously go to a Rov who follows the Beis Yosef.
If you're not you'll go to an Ashkenazi Rov.
The Torah scholarship in this generation is pretty weak but I wouldn't say the halachik system has "broken down" because a Psak by a legitimate Rov is given the stamp of approval by G-d when He said the Rabbis are the ones who must decide the halacha, not Me.
-
The Talmud itself prescribes this method for deciding the halacha. Generally the academy that is larger wins, or in some cases the academy that is more expert in the field. It depends on whether it's dinei mamonos or dinei nefashos whether it's deoraitta or derabannan.
These are the basic principles of paskening halacha. It's the ABCs, my friend. It's the stuff I learned in fourth grade gemarah class. If you don't know this stuff there isn't much room to discuss more complex matters.
Don't talk down to me. I'm speaking about the interpretations of that Talmudh. How do you decide whether Rashi or Rabbenu Tam's opinion is correct?
The difference is that Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel or Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yose were arguing about what the Halakha is and Rashi and Rabbenu Tam are arguing as to what the Talmudh is saying. Therefore only one of them can be right. Get it?
Well, no. It's not true that only one of them can be "right". They can both be right and we will paskin according to the principles about how we paskin. There are rules about it.
Sorry to have talked down to you I lost my cool there, will edit.
-
Re: "...And I don't know how this is relevant to an intelligent discussion."
Well...I disagree! 8;) :::D
-
The Talmud itself prescribes this method for deciding the halacha. Generally the academy that is larger wins, or in some cases the academy that is more expert in the field. It depends on whether it's dinei mamonos or dinei nefashos whether it's deoraitta or derabannan.
These are the basic principles of paskening halacha. It's the ABCs, my friend. It's the stuff I learned in fourth grade gemarah class. If you don't know this stuff there isn't much room to discuss more complex matters.
Don't talk down to me. I'm speaking about the interpretations of that Talmudh. How do you decide whether Rashi or Rabbenu Tam's opinion is correct?
The difference is that Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel or Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yose were arguing about what the Halakha is and Rashi and Rabbenu Tam are arguing as to what the Talmudh is saying. Therefore only one of them can be right. Get it?
Well, no. It's not true that only one of them can be "right". They can both be right and we will paskin according to the principles about how we paskin. There are rules about it.
Sorry to have talked down to you I lost my cool there, will edit.
Lubab, when the Talmud quotes three braitoth one after another to explain what a Huliah is (in reference to the tying of tzitzith.)
וכמה שיעור חוליא תניא רבי אומר כדי שיכרוך וישנה וישלש
Rambam, Rashi and many other Rishonim say that this first Braitha means that a Huliah consists of three wrappings and although Rebbi could have just said shalosh Krikhoth, he was just using a figurative lashon in this instance.
The Raavad says that if Rebbi meant three Krikhoth, he would have said so. Rebbi specifically used this lashon because he was refering to wrapping the white and blue together three times and then wrapping the white string one more time making a total of seven Krikhoth.
תאנא הפוחת לא יפחות משבע והמוסיף לא יוסיף על שלש עשרה הפוחת לא יפחות משבע כנגד שבעה רקיעים והמוסיף לא יוסיף על שלש עשרה כנגד שבעה רקיעין וששה אוירין שביניהם
Therefore the Raavad understands this next line that one should not make less than seven or more than thirteen as referring to how many Krikhoth in each Hulia.
Rashi and the Rambam understand that line as saying that one needs atleast seven Hulioth of three Krikhoth each and no more than thirteen Hulioth of three each in each corner of tzitzit.
The Raavad holds than one can have as many hulioth as he likes or as few as one.
תנא כשהוא מתחיל מתחיל בלבן הכנף מין כנף וכשהוא מסיים מסיים בלבן
Now Rashi interprets this braitha as referring to the Gedhil as a whole that at a minimum the first Krikha and the last Krikha have to be white and it can be all tekheleth in between like the Rambam or majority tekheleth like Rashi.
The Raavad interprets this braitha as referring each Hulia requiring each one to start with white and end with white and of course this statement is the lychpin of his shita since if you interpret this braitha as referring to the Gedhil as a whole, there is no reason to look at the second braitha as referring to the Hulia because the seven number makes less sense if there is no reason to begin and end with white.
Lubab, the authors of these braitoth had one thing in mind when they wrote those braitoth or gave them over to their students. It's either like Rashi and the Rambam or it's like the Raavad. The authors did not have two interpretations in mind.
Just because you can come up with some mystical explanation showing the "inner meaning" Behind each shita, does not mean that they are both right. It just means you're creative.
The fact is that either the Raavad is right or he is wrong. Or Rashi and the Rambam are either right or wrong. Or do you actually beleive that the intention of the original authors was for the braitoth to be read in two ways and they meant both interpretations?
-
The Talmud itself prescribes this method for deciding the halacha. Generally the academy that is larger wins, or in some cases the academy that is more expert in the field. It depends on whether it's dinei mamonos or dinei nefashos whether it's deoraitta or derabannan.
These are the basic principles of paskening halacha. It's the ABCs, my friend. It's the stuff I learned in fourth grade gemarah class. If you don't know this stuff there isn't much room to discuss more complex matters.
Don't talk down to me. I'm speaking about the interpretations of that Talmudh. How do you decide whether Rashi or Rabbenu Tam's opinion is correct?
The difference is that Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel or Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yose were arguing about what the Halakha is and Rashi and Rabbenu Tam are arguing as to what the Talmudh is saying. Therefore only one of them can be right. Get it?
Well, no. It's not true that only one of them can be "right". They can both be right and we will paskin according to the principles about how we paskin. There are rules about it.
Sorry to have talked down to you I lost my cool there, will edit.
I understand that when what two Rabbanim said is clear and it contradicts each other, they may both have good points and are right in some way even if we choose one as psak halakha. I know that.
What I am saying is when two Rabbis are arguing about what the Talmudh is saying, not their own opinion, but what the Talmudh is saying, they cannot be both be right.
-
The Torah scholarship in this generation is pretty weak but I wouldn't say the halachik system has "broken down" because a Psak by a legitimate Rov is given the stamp of approval by G-d when He said the Rabbis are the ones who must decide the halacha, not Me.
You said that you are a Rabbi. Therefore you are precisely the one to decide the halakha. If you feel unwilling or unworthy to do so, please stop calling yourself a Rabbi. A Rabbi gives psak Halakha to the people. If he can't, he should step down.
The Torah scholarship in this generation is pretty weak because the Halakhic system has broken down and because the search for the truth has been abandoned at the outset and then we go searching for some other way to make a decision.
And the scholarship is so weak because Rabbis are indocrinated in the idea that they can't possibly understand something in the Talmudh better than a Rishon or an older Acharon.
If you tell people over and over that they can't understand the Talmudh or come to their own conclusion on an Halakhic issue, SURPRISE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You get generations of Rabbis who don't understand the Talmudh and can't possibly come to their own conclusion on anything.
That's why the Torah scholarship is so weak. Listen to the second shiur especially the end part from 1:20:00 onwards.
-
I think the way it works is in each generation the Rov makes the decision but they cannot overrule an earlier generations's decision unless their yeshiva is bigger. I believe that's the way it works. But there most definitely are rules about how to decide this stuff.
I believe the concept you are referring to is from TB Megillah, that a Beth Din may only overrule another beth din if the latter beth din is yoter b'hachmah uv'minyan.
It has nothing to do with how big a rav's yeshiva is.
-
I said how you pasken halacha. You generally go by the Rov. Further, if it is a deoratta we go lechumra if it is a derabbanan we go lekulah.
No. This regarding an issue which is safeq, and you do not have someone to ask at that moment for clarification.
When rabbanim have the sources in front of them and delve into an issue and then rule on it, they are not ruling min hasafeq. They are clearing up the safeq.
-
safek means doubt. Let's translate the hebrew terms or expressions thrown in, so that jews that are not so familiar with hebrew, can follow the discussion.
-
safek means doubt. Let's translate the hebrew terms or expressions thrown in, so that jews that are not so familiar with hebrew, can follow the discussion.
Thanks for catching this.
I usually do. I just got caught up in the discussion, and figured that someone must have mentioned the English already. I'll try to remember for next time.
-
The Torah scholarship in this generation is pretty weak but I wouldn't say the halachik system has "broken down" because a Psak by a legitimate Rov is given the stamp of approval by G-d when He said the Rabbis are the ones who must decide the halacha, not Me.
You said that you are a Rabbi. Therefore you are precisely the one to decide the halakha. If you feel unwilling or unworthy to do so, please stop calling yourself a Rabbi. A Rabbi gives psak Halakha to the people. If he can't, he should step down.
Let me just deal with one thing at a time as time allows and first I'll deal with this because it was obviously meant to be incendiary.
I don't call myself a Rabbi. People call me a Rabbi that because I have have completed the course of study which gives me the title "yadin".
As you may or may not be aware there are different levels of Rabbis.
There's 'Yadin' and a 'Yadin Yadin'. A 'yadin yadin' can pasken halacha while a Yadin cannot. I can give you a ruling in Issur Veheter and Hilchos Shabbos. That's about it because that's what you need to know for "yadin". A yadid yadin needs to learn Choshen Mishpat and have at least one year of shimush (internship) under a practicing paskening Rov. It's similar to how there are B.A.s and PHDs. Different levels give you different levels of authority.
I don't know how it works in your yeshiva but that's how it works in Chabad and the Chabad tradition is rooted in a tradition going back to when before Chabad even existed. So there's no reason to correct people if they call me a Rabbi. Rabbi means teacher and I do teach Torah. When someone is a paskening Rov in my cicles we call them a "Rov" not a "Rabbi".
-
You are concerned that so many people have become convinced they can never understand something as well as a Rishon, Tanna etc. and therefore people today are not able to come up with their own ideas and you have a big problem with this.
Well first of all I don't think nobody is saying we should not try to reach that level of understanding. In the times of Moshiach we are told that we will understand things even better than the Rabbis of the Talmud so I'm not sure where you or your Rabbi is hearing this from but it certainly isn't from me.
At the same time we must recognize the danger in taking this concept too far.
The danger is as follows and is quite simple: some people may (because of their own ego or feelings of self accomplishment) be convinced that their learning is at the level of a Rashi, when in fact it is not.
Some people try to leave their imprint on the Torah. Others try to let the Torah leave an imprint on them. The latter is the proper way of learning and will lead to innovation automatically when someone studies hard. They won't even need to try to innovate because their understanding will be so clear that the innovations just come to them as a matter of course.
So you can run into a problem like this:
If you convince anyone or a person convinces himself that he understands a gemarah as good or better than someone like Rashi he might THINK he knows it better but in fact was so too absorbed in his own ego and his preconceived notions of what the gemarah means and therefore wasn't even really looking to understand Rashi's point of view in the first place. He never even gave Rashi a fair shot. So he misunderstood Rashi and now is going around saying he knows better than Rashi when in fact he's just making a mockery of himself and the Torah. I think this would qualify as the arrogance of ignorance that R' Kahane used to refer to.
I'm not saying you do that. I'm not saying your Rabbi does that. But I'm saying that attitude could lead to that and I have seen it lead to that and it's quite a sorry sight.
-
I also feel compelled to point out a major inconsistency in the way you are arguing with me here.
I gave you an explanation that contained a possible reconciliation of two views that at first seemed to you irreconcilable (re: saying Birchat Hamazon on cooked vegetables). My explanation was not "mystical" at all as you claim. Instead of saying one view is wrong I showed how both could be right and a different rule was better suited to a certain type of person or a certain generation.
It's on this thread for anyone to read and it's based on nothing but a relevant pasuk and some facts that are apparent to anyone living on this earth.
I never saw you once address the explanation specifically or point out why you think it's flawed in any way shape or form although you reject it.
So while with one side of your mouth you champion the right of the Torah student to be able to come up with his own innovation in Torah. I did (with the help of my Rabbi) exactly that and you derided me as just being "creative" (as if it's a bad thing!).
So is coming up with innovation in Torah a good thing or a bad thing?
Answer: it's good when you come to the conclusions that you like. But it's bad when you come to conclusions you don't like.
Which conclusions do you like? The ones that validate one opinion and throw the other to the dogs because this is the way you are convinced Torah should be learned.
The fact that you are able to with argue with such inconsistency only confirms what I've known since I first got into a discussion with you months ago: you are not really discussing with me. You are OPPOSING me. There's a big difference between those two things.
P.S. I see and understand your question about how the beraisa must have intened ONE thing. But if you agree with me that the beraisa was written with Ruach Hakodesh then I see no problem with saying that the beraisa (like a pasuk) was left intentionally ambigious to lend itself to two possible interpretations both of which are valid depending on the time, place, spritual level of the generation etc.
I gave you an example of how this can work with the cooked vegetable case and now you want me to show you how it could work in this case. I can do that but it won't help. First you need to recognize that more than one level of interpretation can both be true, both be intended by the author, and both be appropriate for different situations. Study the vegetable explantion to see how this works and just apply the same principle to any other dispute between Rishonim. Namely, find the underlying axiom that they both agree upon, and then look to see how they are applying the same axiom in different ways and then figure out for whom one opinion is valid and in what situation another might be valid. This is not easy stuff but this is the proper way to learn and it is a TRUE SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH to learn this way. If you throw out the other opinion you'll wind up with a half-truth and a half-truth is a whole lie.
Odds are likely that if you find yourself throwing out an opinion of someone of the stature of Rashi, that the problem is with your understanding of Rashi, not with the Rashi.
Could you be smarter than Rashi? Yes you could be if you learned as much in quantity and quality as he did and every student of Torah should be taught that they have that potential. But we also need to call a spade a spade and when someone hasn't even learned a thimblesfull of what Rashi knew we can't just let them go around deciding which Rashis he wants to reject and which ones he wants to accept.
-
regarding the hagar and keturah
you are ignoring the plain meaning of a rabbi that says regarding keturah "zoh hagar - this is hagar". But ok, I understand you -have- to ignore the plain meaning if it contradicts what another rabbi says.. Since you assume that all those rabbis opinions are true, and it's as if they came from the same sane consistent rabbi.
and since you don't have ruach hakodesh, you rightly said, your explanation is a -possible- explanation.
Though, as rabbi gottlieb said, "there's always an if". One doesn't really know 100% who one's parents are. Maybe they went to the hospital, found a baby that looked a bit like them, they weren't the parents but they convinced you that they were. It is remotely possible that the world was created 1 second ago. Is it possible that G-d doesn't exist ? Rabbi Gottlieb said, yes! There's always an If.
so the question you would have to ask regarding the explanations you come up with , is how likely is it that they are correct?
There are hundreds of creative explanations that rabbis without ruach hakodesh could come up with. All different. Not all correct.
So since you ignore the pshat of the words of rashi and ramban or of 2 midrashim , on hagar and keturah. You ignore it In favour of these poetic explanations that reconcile the 2. Then you really don't know if you are correct, or the other hundred creative rabbis(without ruach hakodesh) , with different explanations, are correct. And since all the explanations coiuld differ, it may be that only 1/100 of them are correct. Or 1/1000 of them. Or none of them, since there are another million creative explanations nobody had thought of yet, and one of those was correct.
An explanation that is invented, may be implausible.
What If blue elephants exist above your head.. You can't prove they don't. Maybe they do, there's always an If. Or, they may be plausible, simple explanations. But there may be millions of different ones that one could invent..
With this method, the likelyhood of anybody understanding -anything- of any rabbi of that era, is very slim.
Secondly.
Suppose rabbi A says X, and 50 years later, Rabbi B says Not X.
Both rabbis A and B lived in that ruach hakodesh era of rabbis.
Rabbi A 's students wre taught, and believed X. Do they then change their understanding 50 years later, when they hear Rabbi B?
It seems that you are claiming that at the end of that era, we know more about what the original rabbis of that era thought, than their original students. Because we are in possession of more facts, facts that they did not have.
And if you were correct about this idea that the reconciling explanation that reconciles - not just 2, but , say, 10 or 20 different rabbis is correct. Then surely, one would not have to think now for creative explanations to the most obvious problems. Rabbis would have been done already.. especially within that long period you mention, of ruach hakodesh..
one midrash says hagar and keturah were the same, another says not. There are rabbis writing on either side. So why are you the first person to come up with and write down, an explanation to reconcile it?
Why didn't these rabbis, with their ruach hakodesh, write an all encompassing explanation of how both are true..
If it was really the case then it would be absolutely fundamental
-
I don't know how it works in your yeshiva but that's how it works in Chabad and the Chabad tradition is rooted in a tradition going back to when before Chabad even existed. So there's no reason to correct people if they call me a Rabbi. Rabbi means teacher and I do teach Torah. When someone is a paskening Rov in my cicles we call them a "Rov" not a "Rabbi".
That distinction is quite modern, and probably started in America. In Europe, a Rav of a City gave psakim for anyone who asked him. This distinction of Rav and Rabbi is not a distinction made in any Halakhic source that I am familiar with.
-
regarding the hagar and keturah
you are ignoring the plain meaning of a rabbi that says regarding keturah "zoh hagar - this is hagar". But ok, I understand you -have- to ignore the plain meaning if it contradicts what another rabbi says.. Since you assume that all those rabbis opinions are true, and it's as if they came from the same sane consistent rabbi.
and since you don't have ruach hakodesh, you rightly said, your explanation is a -possible- explanation.
Though, as rabbi gottlieb said, "there's always an if". One doesn't really know 100% who one's parents are. Maybe they went to the hospital, found a baby that looked a bit like them, they weren't the parents but they convinced you that they were. It is remotely possible that the world was created 1 second ago. Is it possible that G-d doesn't exist ? Rabbi Gottlieb said, yes! There's always an If.
so the question you would have to ask regarding the explanations you come up with , is how likely is it that they are correct?
There are hundreds of creative explanations that rabbis without ruach hakodesh could come up with. All different. Not all correct.
So since you ignore the pshat of the words of rashi and ramban or of 2 midrashim , on hagar and keturah. You ignore it In favour of these poetic explanations that reconcile the 2. Then you really don't know if you are correct, or the other hundred creative rabbis(without ruach hakodesh) , with different explanations, are correct. And since all the explanations coiuld differ, it may be that only 1/100 of them are correct. Or 1/1000 of them. Or none of them, since there are another million creative explanations nobody had thought of yet, and one of those was correct.
An explanation that is invented, may be implausible.
What If blue elephants exist above your head.. You can't prove they don't. Maybe they do, there's always an If. Or, they may be plausible, simple explanations. But there may be millions of different ones that one could invent..
With this method, the likelyhood of anybody understanding -anything- of any rabbi of that era, is very slim.
I hear this question. I don't think you'll like my answer but it's the answer you need.
The answer is that G-d was kind enough to bless this generation with a Torah Scholar that merited not only Ruah HaKodesh but also the level of prophesy (a topic we can discuss later on another thread).
In any case if you are looking for highly authoritative treatment that reconciles seeming incompatibilities throughout Shas,Medresh, Rishonim etc. I would highly recommend that you invest in "Likutei Sichos", "Sefer Hasichos" and then eventually Toras Menachem by Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson (these can be purchased from Kehot Publications and many of the books are available in Hebrew...start with just one book if you can't afford the entire set..ask for a volume that has a lot of his "nigleh sichos").
Learn them with the footnotes provided and you will find more maginificant resolutions throughout Shas and Poskim then you ever dreamed possible. It will truly open your eyes to a whole new world of learning. I have not learned through all of these books myself. But I would venture to say that the resolutions to all these seeming contradictions between those of the "Ruach HaKodesh era" are resolved in these books implicitely if not explicitely.
The only downside is the Rebbe in certain talks often throws in kabbalistic terminology and if that ever holds you back from understanding I will gladly help translate those parts into plain english so you don't lose the flow.
I think if you start learning this stuff you'll never turn back.
If you're just looking for something easy in English I'd recommend the Gutnick Chumash with the Rebbe's commentary. Very watered down and not the Rebbe's exact words, but you can get a faint flavor for how he takes apart a Rashi, a Sforno, a Ramban and it looks like a total mess and then shows you the deeper meaning behind all of them and shows how they all make sense and ties them all together around a single point.
It''s something magnificent to behold.
-
why though only now and not during the "ruach hakodesh era", has somebody written reconciling all apparent disagreements between those rabbis.
it seems to me more likely that the idea that all these rabbis really agreed is a modern invention.
ps: thanks for the info.. I am currently learning hebrew so will eventually please G-d, get by without -needing- a translation. A great chabad rabbi on askmoses recommended the gutnick chumash to me once some time ago. I like to get through the pshat before commentators..
-
why though only now and not during the "ruach hakodesh era", has somebody written reconciling all apparent disagreements between those rabbis.
it seems to me more likely that the idea that all these rabbis really agreed is a modern invention.
ps: thanks for the info.. I am currently learning hebrew so will eventually please G-d, get by without -needing- a translation. A great chabad rabbi on askmoses recommended the gutnick chumash to me once some time ago. I like to get through the pshat before commentators..
I'm not sure where it is written...maybe someone can help me out..but it is written that Moshiach will come and reconcile all the apparent contradictions in the Torah...without getting into that debate about Moshiach...let it be known that the resolution of the contradictions is predicted by our sages and is supposed to happen in the modern era.
-
even if so
it still doesn't explain why - it seems- nobody tried before. I guess you could say that the ruach hakodesh they had was not sufficient.
But then why wasn't the fact that they all agree ever mentioned. (prior to shulchan aruch harav)
One could only conclude that they didn't know themselves that they were agreeing with each other, right?
Also.
Prior to the L Rebbe, there would have been those that believe as you do, that all opinions of that "ruach hakodesh era" agree. And attempted to reconcile under that belief. Presumably after the shulchan aruch harav. But why not earlier?
And of course, the shulchan aruch harav is a code of law.
What if it says one way is the law, and an earlier code says another way is the law. If you follow the earlier code instead, are you still following the shulchan aruch harav? After all, all opinions agree, right?
And what is a code that agrees with all the others? Some kind of compromise?