JTF.ORG Forum
Torah and Jewish Idea => Torah and Jewish Idea => Topic started by: Tag-MehirTzedek on February 15, 2013, 03:38:05 PM
-
Sefer Torahs of the 20th Century
Until now, when a person or a Shul would look into buying a Sefer Torah, it was a long arduous journey. First, prominent “Soferim” (scribes) would be interviewed, to find just the right person for the job. Each Sofer has a different handwriting, and the purchaser has his own expectations. The process usually takes at least a year, with many complications along the way.
The Torahs vary in price from about $30,000.00 to over $60,000.00. This is clearly out of the reach of most private people and even many shuls. The one who buys the $30,000 Sefer must be prepared to live with a much lesser quality Sefer than the $60,000 one. Additionally, Teffilen & Mezuzot are also priced very high. The average “Baal Teshuva” has a very difficult time accepting these prices, and it certainly will affect their decision to join the faith.
Unfortunately, many of our aged Sifrei Torah have brown letters and even missing or cracked letters and words from years of use. All too often, we disrupt our Torah reading due to corrections needed. When the prices are so high, we have no choice but to use any and every Sefer Torah available.
The Halachah states that every man should write his own Sefer Torah. Until now this commandment was almost impossible to achieve…
Sefer Torahs by Silk Screening
A new process was created to tackle an old problem. The Sofer starts by purchasing some of the highest quality “Klaf” (parchment). The Klaf is checked, tested, and cut to size. The “Sirtut” (engraved lines) is scored to the exact depth, thickness, height, and length. Silk screens are created with the exact lettering. Computers are utilized to achieve a perfectly balanced page using proportionate letters. No need for elongated or squished letters to reach the end of the line. The screens are placed on top of the Klaf in an exact position to meet the Sirtut. The Sofer then puts ink on the screen, and applies the ink by hand passing a squeegee across the Klaf. In a matter of seconds this Klaf has a full page written perfectly. The page is then dried. After the pages are all written, they are sewed properly and the new Torah scroll is ready to use. This is a combination of many patented and patent pending processes.
This project is completely under the auspices of Rabbi Yitzchak Abadi, originally of Lakewood, NJ and currently living in Har Nof, Jerusalem, Israel. Rabbi Abadi was the Posek in Lakewood for years and many of his students are Rabbis across the globe. The Rav has thoroughly reviewed every aspect of this process and declared it Kosher for “Mehadrin Min Hamehadrin.” The ability to control the perfection of the writing makes it a better choice than conventional Sifrei Torah. Many prominent Rabbis were consulted and were thrilled with the idea. When they were able to view an actual sample they agreed to the high quality and the Kashrut of this type of Sefer Torah. All writing will be done by hand by a prominent Rabbi and Sofer.
Now every person can have his own Sefer Torah!
Highest quality Seforim & Megilot are now affordable to all.
The writing is one of the finest available in the world.
Sifrei Torah can be written with special requirements to accommodate the different styles of writing.
Two different sizes are available, including smaller more portable Sifrei Torah.
With this technology, smaller sizes are as accurate and clear as the larger ones.
Sifrei Torah will take just a few months from start to finish
The cost will be less than ever imagined.
Financing will be made available to make the purchase even easier.
We have Sifrei Torahs available now in 2 sizes. The larger size 15" klaf Sefer Torah cost $18,000. The smaller mini Personal Sefer Torahs which are 9" tall is currently in the process of being made. We are taking orders for the small Torahs. They cost only $10,000. Contact us via email if you wish to place an order. Our goal is to accommodate the demand and to allow anyone who desires a Sefer Torah, to be capable of purchasing one.
E-mail:
Aaron Abadi
or
Rabbi Yosef Tesler
Sefer Torah Project
c/o Cong. Ohel Torah
P.O. Box # 385
Cedarhurst, NY 11516
Phone (516) 569-5211 x 123
Fax (516) 908-3817
http://kashrut.org/scrollproject/#
-
I would like to see some prominent Rabbis give their opinion on this process.
One question that comes to mind, is that the scribe is supposed to speak out each word before writing it and before writing one of the ten holy names of G-d, he has to say "for the sake of the holiness of the name".
The way you described it, it does not sound like this new process allows for what I stated above.
Also you have to check if your squeegee across the Klaf process is considered halachic writing.
-
Sorry edu, but Rabbi Abadi IS a prominent rabbi. He is highly esteemed, and this is the rare authentic Posek of our times who hearkens back to the great scholars of yesteryear - how poskim really were. This is true expertise and the motivations that our scholars have always had until the modern era - a credit to our heritage, not a busha. If you imagine that the scholars of old were similar to today's run-of-the-mill so-called experts of the "halachic system" you do a disservice to all those great chachamim of Europe and the middle east. If Rabbi Abadi is signed on to something, feel free to disagree, but to question the authenticity is a joke.
There have been so many artificial and unnecessary chumrot attached to our "halachic system" of today that it is in some cases unrecognizable. A real posek like this can see through all the fog and determine what is required and what is truly not. If you wish to hold yourself to every possible stringency and try to "cover every shita" then you don't have to follow guidance of wise scholars such as this. The questioning of whether it's in line with halacha is a complete joke however. If a posek such as Rabbi Abadi cannot decide what fits within halacha and what doesn't, then no one can. I don't know what Jewish pope you are looking for to decide the matter for you definitively, but where exactly does he get his authority if Rav Abadi or other poskim don't have any?
-
Sorry edu, but Rabbi Abadi IS a prominent rabbi. He is highly esteemed, and this is the rare authentic Posek of our times who hearkens back to the great scholars of yesteryear - how poskim really were. This is true expertise and the motivations that our scholars have always had until the modern era - a credit to our heritage, not a busha. If you imagine that the scholars of old were similar to today's run-of-the-mill so-called experts of the "halachic system" you do a disservice to all those great chachamim of Europe and the middle east. If Rabbi Abadi is signed on to something, feel free to disagree, but to question the authenticity is a joke.
There have been so many artificial and unnecessary chumrot attached to our "halachic system" of today that it is in some cases unrecognizable. A real posek like this can see through all the fog and determine what is required and what is truly not. If you wish to hold yourself to every possible stringency and try to "cover every shita" then you don't have to follow guidance of wise scholars such as this. The questioning of whether it's in line with halacha is a complete joke however. If a posek such as Rabbi Abadi cannot decide what fits within halacha and what doesn't, then no one can. I don't know what Jewish pope you are looking for to decide the matter for you definitively, but where exactly does he get his authority if Rav Abadi or other poskim don't have any?
Halachais not determined by a single Rabbi today. The position of the majority takes precedent over a single rabbis opinion. I side with edu on questioning this process. If there were other rabbis who approve of this technique then it would be more accepted. I, for one, would not want to question wheter the sefer Torah being read is kosher. Im quite amused you think that this is a joke though... ;)
-
Halachais not determined by a single Rabbi today. The position of the majority takes precedent over a single rabbis opinion.
The OPPOSITE is true. It is the majority of the Sanhedrin that the Halacha is decided and today their is no such thing as majority or minority.
I did check many of his other Halachot and did some reseach about him.
First off I had some Kashrut questions and Rav Bar-Hayim Shlitta directed me to him. And I saw the q's and answers from his site (managed by his (adult) children).
http://kashrut.org/forum/
I did some research about him and he was the Rav of Lakewood Yeshiva and in charge of Kashrut. Do you know THE Lakewood Yeshiva. He was sent by the Hazon Ish to Lakewood, some time ago and now he is back in Har Nof Israel.
I heard it was said that Rabbi Ovadia Yosef Shlitta does not stand for anyone except for Rav Abaddi Shlitta when he enters a room (out of respect).
Check their Q's and A's.
-
The OPPOSITE is true. It is the majority of the Sanhedrin that the Halacha is decided and today their is no such thing as majority or minority.
I did check many of his other Halachot and did some reseach about him.
First off I had some Kashrut questions and Rav Bar-Hayim Shlitta directed me to him. And I saw the q's and answers from his site (managed by his (adult) children).
http://kashrut.org/forum/
I did some research about him and he was the Rav of Lakewood Yeshiva and in charge of Kashrut. Do you know THE Lakewood Yeshiva. He was sent by the Hazon Ish to Lakewood, some time ago and now he is back in Har Nof Israel.
I heard it was said that Rabbi Ovadia Yosef Shlitta does not stand for anyone except for Rav Abaddi Shlitta when he enters a room (out of respect).
Check their Q's and A's.
So who, in your opinion, is the Pope of the Jews? There is no Rabbi who is the final posek on all questions. It is people like you and KWRBT who always point to one Rabbi and say his way is the only way. And I think you are confused about whether the decision goes by the majority or not. There is a famous Talmud tractate which demonstrates that even between Talmudic Rabbis that the decision goes by the majority.
Here is a commentary on this Talmud (Bava Metzia):
http://www.torahtots.com/parsha/devarim/nitzav3.htm
DOWN TO EARTH
The Talmud (Baba Metzia 59b) explains, "it is not in heaven" as follows:
After the Torah was given, it was no longer "in heaven." Hashem does not make Torah decisions in Heaven. Halachic (Torah law) decisions must be decided by human authorities following the guidelines given to Moshe at Har (Mt.) Sinai. It is Hashem's will that the Sages apply the laws of the Torah to the best of their human understanding. Decisions must reflect the opinion of the majority of a Bait Din (Jewish court), who are the final authority in all cases of Torah law.
The Talmud (ibid) brings this story to prove its point.
The Sages were debating whether or not a certain type of oven could become tamay (impure). The majority of the Sages ruled that it could. Rabbi Eliezer ben (son of) Horkenos held that it could not.
Rabbi Eliezer ben Horkenos, perhaps the most outstanding Sage of the generation, cited many proofs in favor of his position, but the Sages, who were the majority, would not accept these proofs.
Rabbi Eliezer ben Horkenos declared: "This carob tree will demonstrate that the Halachah (Torah law) follows my opinion."
A miracle occurred whereby the carob tree uprooted itself and replanted itself 100 cubits away. (some say, four hundred amot).
The Sages replied: "Halachah is not established on the basis of a carob tree.* "
[*Since Rabbi Eliezer was a very righteous man, the tree might have been uprooted at his command. This does not prove, though, that his ruling was correct.]
Rabbi Eliezer ben Horkenos declared: "This stream of water will demonstrate that the Halachah follows my opinion." The stream of water began to flow backwards against the current.
The Sages replied: "Halachah is not established on the basis of a stream."
Rabbi Eliezer ben Horkenos declared: "The walls of the Bait Hamidrash (House of Study) will demonstrate that the Halachah follows my opinion."
The walls of the Bait Hamidrash began to tremble and fall, and the Sages feared that any moment they would collapse.
Rabbi Yehoshua called out to the walls: "Why are you interfering in a Halachic debate among Sages?"
Immediately, out of respect for Rabbi Yehoshua, the walls did not collapse, but out of deference to Rabbi Eliezer, they did not return to their original upright position either. They remained slanted.
Rabbi Eliezer ben Horkenos declared: "The heavens will attest that the Halachah follows my opinion."
A bat kol (heavenly divine voice) proclaimed: "Why do you contest Rabbi Eliezer? The halachah always follows Rabbi Eliezer's teachings."
Rabbi Yehoshua rose and declared:
"It is written: 'It is not in heaven." ' (Devarim ibid).
What is meant by; 'It is not in the heaven'? Rebbi Yirmiah said: It means that we don't listen to a bat kol in matters of Halachah, for the Torah was already given to man at Har Sinai.
Rabbi Yehoshua continued:
"We don't listen to the bat kol because You (Hashem) already wrote in the Torah at Har Sinai (Shmot, Exodus 23:2) 'According to the majority (the matter) shall be decided.'*
[*R' Yehoshua understood this to mean that Hashem would never interfere with the judicial process through which the law is decided. Accordingly he interpreted the Heavenly echo to be merely a test of whether the Sages would hold their ground. And the next story proved him correct.]
Later, one of the Sages, Rabbi Natan met Eliyahu Hanavi (Elijah the prophet). He asked him: "What did Hashem say during this argument?"
Eliyahu replied to him: "He was laughing and saying (with satisfaction), 'My sons won me in the discussion.' "*
http://halakhah.com/babamezia/babamezia_59.html#PARTb
This article and the Talmud does not say 'Sanhedrin' it says 'Beit Din' which is just a court of Rabbis.
-
What I don't really understand is why you must accept one opinion before others have had a chance to respond (via the process of responsa) which occurs during every Halachic evolution. Halacha is not carved in stone, and the application of existing laws must be applied to modern devices. This is where 'responsa' comes in.
http://ohr.edu/judaism/survey/survey6.htm#SHUT
RESPONSA
* "Responsa" are the responses of Torah scholars to questions of Jewish law posed to them both by laymen and experts.
* These scholars apply the law and philosophy of Judaism to the changing circumstances of Jewish life; to technological and social innovations; to medical issues; and other aspects of contemporary living.
* Responsa literature provides insight into the workings of Jewish law and reveals the concerns of Jews around the world and throughout the ages.
-
1)So who, in your opinion, is the Pope of the Jews? 2) There is no Rabbi who is the final posek on all questions. 3)It is people like you and KWRBT who always point to one Rabbi and say his way is the only way. 4)And I think you are confused about whether the decision goes by the majority or not. There is a famous Talmud tractate which demonstrates that even between Talmudic Rabbis that the decision goes by the majority.
1)Their is none, nor should their ever be. The ideal and real system is the system of the Sanhedrin.
2) Their are a number, one can and should follow their Rav. If they are more knowledgeable and are able to delve into the sources better (with pro and opposing views they can make decisions based on info. given)
3) Nope. It was in response to someone knocking this or that Rav and questioning their credentials. No one forced you or anyone anything.
4) Majority is only in the case of the Sanhedrin and when their actually was an organized type of system. Today unfortunately their is none. Also who should be counted among this majority? These Rabbis have other Rabbis under them (their students and students students). Soo should all of them be counted as part of majority or not? This is also the case with many other people as well. For example do all the students of Rav Ovadia Yosef all together count as 1 vote or each get's a vote even some just stick strictly to his psak din word for word (or close to it). Should everyone with a title of "Rabbi" get 1 vote? And if his students (or R' Elyahiv's or some other "Gadol" then what about students of Rav Abadi? do all of them count as 1 vote or each separately? Tell me how to do this counting?
And if its just the "Gadolim" then who is a gadol? Who defines who is and who is not a Gadol? Is it some unified system or is it your opinion? And if your opinion then is your opinion better then my opinion or the opinion of the next guy?
-
Tag, I hear what you are saying and I don't want to argue about it. But that section from Baba Metzia was written after the destruction of the Temple and there was no Sanhedrin at the time. I believe all translations (and I don't have an actual Hebrew reference) say Beit Din when it talks about the majority. If you could provide a link with an explanation saying 'Sanhedrin' I will accept your opinion, but I have learned it was the 'Beit Din' which is not the Sanhedrin but any Jewish court making decisions of Halacha.
Here it is in a Daf Yomi:
http://dafyomi.co.il/bmetzia/points/bm-ps-059.htm
(c) (Beraisa): R. Eliezer gave all proofs in the world why it is Tahor; Chachamim did not accept them.
1. R. Eliezer: If the law is like me, this carob tree should show it. (The tree moved 100 Amos.)
2. Chachamim: We don't bring proof from a tree.
3. R. Eliezer: If the law is like me, the irrigation ditch should show it. (The water reversed the direction of its flow.)
4. Chachamim: We don't bring proof from an irrigation ditch.
5. R. Eliezer: If the law is like me, the walls of the Beis Medrash should show it. (The walls leaned to fall.)
6. R. Yehoshua (to the walls): We are arguing over Halachah. This is not your affair!
i. The walls stopped falling, to honor R. Yehoshua. To this day they remain bent, in honor of R. Eliezer.
7. R. Eliezer: If the law is like me, Heaven should show it.
8. (A voice from Heaven): Why do you argue with R. Eliezer? The Halachah always follows him!
9. R. Yehoshua: It (the Halachah) is not in Heaven.
(d) Question: What does this mean?
(e) Answer (R. Yirmiyah): Once the Torah was given on Sinai, we do not heed voices from Heaven. Rather, we follow the majority of Chachamim - "Acharei Rabim Lehatos".
-
Here is another Daf Yomi on this tractate.
http://dafyomi.co.il/bmetzia/insites/bm-dt-059.htm
2) TORAH IS NOT IN HEAVEN
QUESTION: The Gemara relates the incident of "Tanuro Shel Achna'i" and the miraculous ways in which Rebbi Eliezer attempted to convince the Chachamim that the Halachah was in accordance with his opinion. He miraculously uprooted a carob tree, had the waters of a river shift direction, and caused the walls of the study wall to lean inwards, and still the Chachamim did not change their mind. He then declared that Heaven should prove that he is correct, and a Bas Kol emanated and pronounced, "Why are you challenging Rebbi Eliezer, when the Halachah is like him?" Rebbi Yehoshua stood up and declared, "Lo ba'Shamayim Hi" -- "It (the Torah) is not in the heavens!" (Devarim 30:12).
TOSFOS (DH Lo ba'Shamayim) asks that the Chachamim had a different reaction to the Bas Kol which decided the question of whether the Halachah should follow the view of Beis Shamai or the view of Beis Hillel. The Gemara in Yevamos (14a) relates that when the Bas Kol declared that the Halachah should follow Beis Hillel, the Halachah indeed was established in accordance with the view of Beis Hillel. Why does the Gemara here say that the Halachah is not decided based on a Bas Kol?
The MAHARAM explains that Tosfos is not asking his question on the view of Rebbi Yehoshua, as the Gemara in Yevamos itself cites Rebbi Yehoshua who said there as well that we do not rely on a Bas Kol. The question of Tosfos is on the Gemara in Yevamos (and other places) which follows the view of Beis Hillel because of the Bas Kol. If the Gemara there follows the view of Beis Hillel because of the Bas Kol, why does the Gemara here not follow the view of Rebbi Eliezer because of the Bas Kol?
ANSWERS:
(a) TOSFOS answers that in this case, the Bas Kol contradicted the Torah's principle of "Acharei Rabim l'Hatos" -- "turn after the majority" (Shemos 23:2). In the case in Yevamos, the Halachah presumably followed the view of Beis Hillel, whose opinion was that of the majority. However, the fact that the students of Beis Shamai were sharper caused a doubt to arise about whom the Halachah should follow. The Bas Kol resolved the doubt when it proclaimed that even in this case the verse of "Acharei Rabim l'Hatos" applies.
(b) In another answer, Tosfos explains that the Bas Kol in the case in Yevamos was spontaneous, and therefore considered more "neutral." In contrast, the Bas Kol in the case of "Tanuro Shel Achna'i" was in response to Rebbi Eliezer's demand that "Min ha'Shamayim Yochichu," and therefore the Halachah does not follow its declaration. (Y. Montrose)
And some commentary @ http://www.torah.org/learning/olas-shabbos/5759/tazria.html
Kesef Mishneh (commentary on Rambam, ibid.) answers that there is a well known rule that, "the Torah is not in Heaven (Lo BaShamayim Hu)," (see Bava Metzia 59b). Namely, although the Torah is Hashem's, He endowed it to the Jews, at which point He "lost control" over the final outcome of halacha (Jewish law). When there is a matter of halachic dispute, Hashem, so to speak, has no say in the matter. All decisions are to be rendered by the Jewish Beis Din (court), even if they rule contrary to Hashem's own intent, to the extent that the Gemara concludes that even were a Heavenly voice to state that the halacha is according to a certain opinion, this would not change our outlook on the matter. (Indeed, it is this same principle that allows the "Heavenly Academy" to debate the matter with the Almighty, and which ultimately forced them to give over the final decision to Rabbah bar Nachmeini.)
-
Muman their is more depth to that story. They were talking about whether going to war with Rome or not. They did not want to tolerate any subordination and those not participating while other were. That is why they went very harshly against R' Eliezer. In the end as the Bat Kol says he was correct, they did not win the war, never-the-less this case needed the consent of the majority and everyone needed to participate in the war.
" but any Jewish court making decisions of Halacha."
That is the problem, their are many courts today and not 1 court. At their time they had a more unified system where they all answered to 1 court (perhaps 2) 1 in Israel and 1 in Bavel. Their majority had more credibility (if this did take place exactly). Today you cannot claim the "majority of the Gedolim" because you would need to exactly define who is and who is not a Gadol and 2) also realize that often those defining who is and who is not see it this way- those they agree with is a Gadol and those they do not often they do not (sometimes even belittle).
-
Muman their is more depth to that story. They were talking about whether going to war with Rome or not. They did not want to tolerate any subordination and those not participating while other were. That is why they went very harshly against R' Eliezer. In the end as the Bat Kol says he was correct, they did not win the war, never-the-less this case needed the consent of the majority and everyone needed to participate in the war.
" but any Jewish court making decisions of Halacha."
That is the problem, their are many courts today and not 1 court. At their time they had a more unified system where they all answered to 1 court (perhaps 2) 1 in Israel and 1 in Bavel. Their majority had more credibility (if this did take place exactly). Today you cannot claim the "majority of the Gedolim" because you would need to exactly define who is and who is not a Gadol and 2) also realize that often those defining who is and who is not see it this way- those they agree with is a Gadol and those they do not often they do not (sometimes even belittle).
Tag, I don't think that is the Tractate I am discussing... I believe the issue was whether a particular oven was pure or impure...
Could you find the reference to the tractate you are discussing...
Baba Metzia 59a
We learnt elsewhere: If he cut it into separate tiles, placing sand between each tile: R. Eliezer declared it clean, and the Sages declared it unclean;
59b
and this was the oven of 'Aknai.1 Why [the oven of] 'Aknai? — Said Rab Judah in Samuel's name: [It means] that they encompassed it with arguments2 as a snake, and proved it unclean. It has been taught: On that day R. Eliezer brought forward every imaginable argument,3 but they did not accept them. Said he to them: 'If the halachah agrees with me, let this carob-tree prove it!'
1) This refers to an oven, which, instead of being made in one piece, was made in a series of separate portions with a layer of sand between each. R. Eliezer maintains that since each portion in itself is not a utensil, the sand between prevents the whole structure from being regarded as a single utensil, and therefore it is not liable to uncleanness. The Sages however hold that the outer coating of mortar or cement unifies the whole, and it is therefore liable to uncleanness. (This is the explanation given by Maimonides on the Mishnah, Kel. V, 10. Rashi a.l. adopts a different reasoning). 'Aknai is a proper noun, probably the name of a master, but it also means 'snake'. ([G]) which meaning the Talmud proceeds to discuss.
And I do agree that observing Halacha is difficult because today we don't have any universally accepted 'Gedolim' who have sufficient power to influence the rest of those who count themselves as poseks.
-
T If you could provide a link with an explanation saying 'Sanhedrin' I will accept your opinion, but I have learned it was the 'Beit Din' which is not the Sanhedrin but any Jewish court making decisions of Halacha.
That is exactly the point! What Beit Din. How many Beit Din's did they have when they made their decisions?
And if you go by your words " but any Jewish court making decisions of Halacha" today then you would have to sometimes accept contradictory decisions and abide by both or all of them?
Soo for example you would be wearing and not be wearing Tefillin during Hol Hamoed? Or you would be voting in Israeli elections and not be voting in Israeli elections. Since One supposedly court says "Psak Din one must vote" and another such court says "Psak din one is not allowed to vote". go read the Paskelim plastered around Mea Shearim and other such places.
-
That is exactly the point! What Beit Din. How many Beit Din's did they have when they made their decisions?
And if you go by your words " but any Jewish court making decisions of Halacha" today then you would have to sometimes accept contradictory decisions and abide by both or all of them?
Soo for example you would be wearing and not be wearing Tefillin during Hol Hamoed? Or you would be voting in Israeli elections and not be voting in Israeli elections. Since One supposedly court says "Psak Din one must vote" and another such court says "Psak din one is not allowed to vote". go read the Paskelim plastered around Mea Shearim and other such places.
Yes, this is what I mean that it is difficult to abide by all the poseks. Which is why I agree with your point that one must choose a Rabbi and stick by his Halachic rulings rather than 'picking-and-choosing' which decisions to abide by.
But it is also true that often poseks will agree, or argue various points, all working to find the ultimate truth. This is why I don't immediately accept decisions which are so important (such as whether a Sefer Torah is 'kosher')... Once I see the responsa I can decide if the original posek thought of all the possible arguments...
I will check out that story of Baba Metzia which you sent...
-
Yes, this is what I mean that it is difficult to abide by all the poseks. Which is why I agree with your point that one must choose a Rabbi and stick by his Halachic rulings rather than 'picking-and-choosing' which decisions to abide by.
A possible problem becomes though if one is knowledgeable enough to make his/her own decisions and they know that the psak is wrong by their particular Rav on that particular decision. I do not believe the person would be allowed to follow their Rav on that exact decision. This is true even with the case of a full Sanhedrin (check Tractate Horayot which discusses cases where even the Sanhedrin made a mistake and a person who is knowledgable enough followed the wrong decisions he had to bring his seperate Korban, his mistake was thinking that he needed to follow the Sanhedrin in the wrong decision that it made).
-
Shalom Tag,
I find this very interesting and I learned something from the link you sent me. There is some question about where that interpretation is learned from because the Rabbi giving the talk said he learned it from his Rav, who was a very talented Talmid Chacham (which I believe is true). But beyond relaying that his Rav taught this interpretation I find no other mention of this interpretation (about the oven being a code for war with the Romans).
But I do learn the lesson which is being expressed, and I am somewhat perplexed by the conclusion.
Maybe we can talk about it in PM....
-
They have 2 sizes of Hamelech Megillas; ("Megillat Ester") a 15" size for $900 & a 9" size for $700
Both come with wooden cases.
They are currently in Lakewood and they can UPS or try to find someone going to your location
Let them know your location.
Call or email him if you have any questions
Rabbi Tesler
732-740-4011
[email protected]
-
Silk Screen Torah Scroll Process-English
www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvFED55xhv8
-
Halachais not determined by a single Rabbi today.
Did you invent this?
This is always how halacha is determined. You go to your rav and ask a shaila. And he answers. If he's not qualified to decide halacha, then you are asking the wrong person! Sometimes if they feel they need help from someone with greater expertise or more experience in that area if it's a really difficult question, they will refer it to someone else for guidance (even the greatest rabbanim do this at times), but generally it is one rabbi who knows you and knows the situation who decides the halacha.
And that is always how halacha was decided. Communities had a rav who decided matters of Jewish law.
The position of the majority takes precedent over a single rabbis opinion.
Majority of whom? There is no rabbinical governing body. There is no centralized authority, and there is no Sanhedrin. So exactly whose majority are you referring to?
Want to know what I think? I think you are confused by the Talmudic dictum which states, "halacha goes according to to the rov (majority)." That means the majority of the Sanhedrin, and it also refers to certain cases decided by the Talmud itself. It does not mean I go and take a poll of all known rabbis to determine if something is permitted or not in 2013. Rav Abadi does not need some other rabbi's permission to state Jewish law.
I side with edu on questioning this process.
At the risk of descending into the realm of ad hominem, which is not my intention, I can only say, Yes because you are so well versed in matters of Jewish law and the composition of the Sefer Torah, that you know better than Rav Abadi. LOL. Sorry dude, but you and I both know that no one here can believe that for a second. And I'll be the first to admit I am not an expert in Jewish law, but come on.
If there were other rabbis who approve of this technique then it would be more accepted. I, for one, would not want to question wheter the sefer Torah being read is kosher. Im quite amused you think that this is a joke though... ;)
I don't get you. You have some undetermined "problem" with his ideas, which you cannot put into words, but if several other rabbis (maybe with "names" you're familiar with) agree that his idea is "kosher" then it's acceptable to you? So what he says is wrong, but if lots of people agree with what's wrong, that makes wrong into right? Wow. I continue to be astounded!
-
The OPPOSITE is true. It is the majority of the Sanhedrin that the Halacha is decided and today their is no such thing as majority or minority.
I did check many of his other Halachot and did some reseach about him.
First off I had some Kashrut questions and Rav Bar-Hayim Shlitta directed me to him. And I saw the q's and answers from his site (managed by his (adult) children).
http://kashrut.org/forum/
How interesting. When I asked my yeshiva rebbe certain kashrut questions (about hashgachot in America, and so on), he also referred me to Rabbi Abadi's site. And he said that he trusts Rabbi Abadi is a definite expert in all things related to American kashrut issues and I can rely on his psakim and use his site for an easy/basic guide if anything comes up. He referred to that site because my rebbe is in Israel and does not keep abreast of all the American kashrut issues and knows more about what is in Israel. I got the impression from him that Rabbi Abadi is an esteemed posek. Then I read his site and the Q&A section and saw for myself that this is a scholar I respect and who is not afraid to state the halacha openly and honestly.
For example he declared that hebrew national hotdogs, now under supervision of Rabbi Ralbag (triangle K) are indeed kosher, even though in the past they might not have been. They are not glatt kosher, but they are kosher. And it is politics only which labels the triangle k of Rabbi Ralbag as "not acceptable" in the "veldt." If you want to keep glatt kosher, then you should not eat it. But if you are not machpid about glatt, then they are kosher. He addresses the facts of the issue and tells it straight. What a breath of fresh air.
I did some research about him and he was the Rav of Lakewood Yeshiva and in charge of Kashrut. Do you know THE Lakewood Yeshiva. He was sent by the Hazon Ish to Lakewood, some time ago and now he is back in Har Nof Israel.
I heard it was said that Rabbi Ovadia Yosef Shlitta does not stand for anyone except for Rav Abaddi Shlitta when he enters a room (out of respect).
Check their Q's and A's.
Wow, I didn't even know that stuff. That's pretty amazing.
-
So who, in your opinion, is the Pope of the Jews? There is no Rabbi who is the final posek on all questions. It is people like you and KWRBT who always point to one Rabbi and say his way is the only way.
Wrong. Liar. Fraud!
It is edu who called for a Jewish pope to give his signature on what Rav Abadi is doing! Or a collective Jewish popes.
And I think you are confused about whether the decision goes by the majority or not. There is a famous Talmud tractate which demonstrates that even between Talmudic Rabbis that the decision goes by the majority.
How did I know that you were going to confuse this issue into this discussion? See my post above where I explain your mistake here.
-
This article and the Talmud does not say 'Sanhedrin' it says 'Beit Din' which is just a court of Rabbis.
Sanhedrin was also referred to as Beit Din or at times Beit Din HaGadol. Don't believe me? THe Rambam himself refers to this in his introduction to Mishne Torah when he talks about the transmission of Torah from Moshe Rabenu down the line to Ravina and Rav Ashi, the last beit din. In terms of authority, and authority of the Talmud, Rambam considered the Talmudic sages to be stand-ins for the missing Sanhedrin.
Go and read that introduction. Please. Do it.
There is no beit din today in case you haven't noticed. If you refer to a neighborhood "beit din" that deals with civil cases or monetary disputes (or husband and wife, etc) then I don't know what to tell you except to say that they don't "decide halacha" in an exclusive sense, and we don't need to go in front of a beis din to ask a halachic shaila.
But why am I willing to bet that if say any old beit din, like Rabbi Bar Hayim's Machon Shilo beit din of himself and 2 other rabbis, came out for no apparent reason and gave official sanction to Rav Abadi (as if that was needed) you still wouldn't accept that? So what exactly are you saying?
-
For example he declared that hebrew national hotdogs, now under supervision of Rabbi Ralbag (triangle K) are indeed kosher, even though in the past they might not have been. They are not glatt kosher, but they are kosher. And it is politics only which labels the triangle k of Rabbi Ralbag as "not acceptable" in the "veldt." If you want to keep glatt kosher, then you should not eat it. But if you are not machpid about glatt, then they are kosher. He addresses the facts of the issue and tells it straight. What a breath of fresh air.
Yepp, indeed. Rav Bar-Hayim said this to me on this issue
"Regular Kosher" is kosher. Glatt is required by the Talmud Bavli, but not according to the traditions and Halakha of Eress Yisrael. This is why Ashk'nazim have always eaten "regular kosher".
I personally only eat Glatt, but now I have a better understanding at least on those who do or would be willing to eat it. Also if asked by some (like relatives or someone else) I'll be able to answer better.
-
What I don't really understand is why you must accept one opinion before others have had a chance to respond (via the process of responsa) which occurs during every Halachic evolution. Halacha is not carved in stone, and the application of existing laws must be applied to modern devices. This is where 'responsa' comes in.
??
Rav Abadi's site is a site of responsa. People ask him questions. He answers. And in some cases his sons answer on his behalf using his methodology, or transmit his opinion. It is YOU who do not trust the process of shaila's and teshuvas because you are trying to limit the ability of a rav or posek to give a suitable answer unless it is "sanctioned" by some unknown or unofficial body that no one knows about but apparently stands on behalf of the masses to determine what halachic opinions are kosher and what are not. There is no papal infallibility in Judaism. If someone wants to challenge Rav Abadi's opinion, go ahead and pose a kasha or write up some problem with it and let him answer. That was never the problem here. The problem here is with edu, and by extension, definitely you, who wish to say that no matter what Rav Abadi says, since it sounds a bit different to you or a bit out of the ordinary, it definitely needs some group of rabbis to come along and say 'we certify this is ok' and then it makes him trustworthy. But otherwise, he cannot be listened to or followed, I guess because the aguda didn't put him on a dais, or maybe the chassidic rebbes didn't declare him of the royal court. That's a bunch of baloney.
-
Yepp, indeed. Rav Bar-Hayim said this to me on this issue
"Regular Kosher" is kosher. Glatt is required by the Talmud Bavli, but not according to the traditions and Halakha of Eress Yisrael. This is why Ashk'nazim have always eaten "regular kosher".
I personally only eat Glatt, but now I have a better understanding at least on those who do or would be willing to eat it. Also if asked by some (like relatives or someone else) I'll be able to answer better.
Interesting. Although the chassidim are the ones who pushed for glatt even in the Ashkenazi community, so it's not all Ashkenazim (although you're right it probably was originally, the change is a modern one).
-
KWRBT,
You are one perplexing guy. You are the one who said that there is no point in asking whether this method is Kosher because your Rabbi whoever his name is (Abadi) says it is. You are the one who seems to take the opinion of a single Rabbi over the combined opinion of other Rabbis who are also poseks. And then you somehow twist what I am saying as if it is an attack on you and your Rabbi.
I said that I do not accept the opinion of one Rabbi who does not have support from other Rabbis in his position. There is nothing wrong with this practice and it is the way Judaism has evolved over the millenium. No one Rabbi has the power to say that a new innovation is kosher without others looking into the matter.
Sorry edu, but Rabbi Abadi IS a prominent rabbi. He is highly esteemed, and this is the rare authentic Posek of our times who hearkens back to the great scholars of yesteryear - how poskim really were. This is true expertise and the motivations that our scholars have always had until the modern era - a credit to our heritage, not a busha. If you imagine that the scholars of old were similar to today's run-of-the-mill so-called experts of the "halachic system" you do a disservice to all those great chachamim of Europe and the middle east. If Rabbi Abadi is signed on to something, feel free to disagree, but to question the authenticity is a joke.
There have been so many artificial and unnecessary chumrot attached to our "halachic system" of today that it is in some cases unrecognizable. A real posek like this can see through all the fog and determine what is required and what is truly not. If you wish to hold yourself to every possible stringency and try to "cover every shita" then you don't have to follow guidance of wise scholars such as this. The questioning of whether it's in line with halacha is a complete joke however. If a posek such as Rabbi Abadi cannot decide what fits within halacha and what doesn't, then no one can. I don't know what Jewish pope you are looking for to decide the matter for you definitively, but where exactly does he get his authority if Rav Abadi or other poskim don't have any?
And to respond like that to edus seemingly reasonable question seems to be out of line.
I would like to see some prominent Rabbis give their opinion on this process.
One question that comes to mind, is that the scribe is supposed to speak out each word before writing it and before writing one of the ten holy names of G-d, he has to say "for the sake of the holiness of the name".
The way you described it, it does not sound like this new process allows for what I stated above.
Also you have to check if your squeegee across the Klaf process is considered halachic writing.
The only 'benefit of the doubt' which I can give to you is that you took edu's response as a rebuke of Rabbi Abadi's response. I did not take it as such, just a reasonable question as to whether this process has undergone a review by other poseks...
-
??
Rav Abadi's site is a site of responsa. People ask him questions. He answers. And in some cases his sons answer on his behalf using his methodology, or transmit his opinion. It is YOU who do not trust the process of shaila's and teshuvas because you are trying to limit the ability of a rav or posek to give a suitable answer unless it is "sanctioned" by some unknown or unofficial body that no one knows about but apparently stands on behalf of the masses to determine what halachic opinions are kosher and what are not. There is no papal infallibility in Judaism. If someone wants to challenge Rav Abadi's opinion, go ahead and pose a kasha or write up some problem with it and let him answer. That was never the problem here. The problem here is with edu, and by extension, definitely you, who wish to say that no matter what Rav Abadi says, since it sounds a bit different to you or a bit out of the ordinary, it definitely needs some group of rabbis to come along and say 'we certify this is ok' and then it makes him trustworthy. But otherwise, he cannot be listened to or followed, I guess because the aguda didn't put him on a dais, or maybe the chassidic rebbes didn't declare him of the royal court. That's a bunch of baloney.
Ah the heart of the matter... You feel we were trying to question the Halachic authority of Rabbi Abadi. I speak for myself in saying that I have never heard of him, and I respect his opinion and think this is great work.... But I do not question his authority I would like to see whether other Rabbis who have reviewed this also concur that the process meets all Halachic requirements.
And KWRBT, do not take it as personally as it appears you are taking it... I know this has nothing to do with 'Chassidic Rabbis' versus other Rabbis... I hope you realize this...
-
Ah the heart of the matter... You feel we were trying to question the Halachic authority of Rabbi Abadi. I speak for myself in saying that I have never heard of him, and I respect his opinion and think this is great work.... But I do not question his authority I would like to see whether other Rabbis who have reviewed this also concur that the process meets all Halachic requirements.
Fair enough (as opposed to some thing said earlier). The thing is one cannot dismiss something brought forth and with the claim that he/she needs others Rabbis and also say this is wrong without even knowing or asking the opinions of those "other Rabbis" as well. You would need to look into it and make research before going against something? No?
-
Fair enough (as opposed to some thing said earlier). The thing is one cannot dismiss something brought forth and with the claim that he/she needs others Rabbis and also say this is wrong without even knowing or asking the opinions of those "other Rabbis" as well. You would need to look into it and make research before going against something? No?
Yes, and I never said I was against this innovation. I am just concerned whether a mistake was made and thus people may come to use invalid Sefer Torah (Chas VeShalom). I realize suggesting this may be taken to imply I have some doubt as to whether this ruling is correct, but as with all innovations I am slow to adopt them...
-
Yes, and I never said I was against this innovation. I am just concerned whether a mistake was made and thus people may come to use invalid Sefer Torah (Chas VeShalom). I realize suggesting this may be taken to imply I have some doubt as to whether this ruling is correct, but as with all innovations I am slow to adopt them...
Then you ask a Rav you rely upon and why he thinks yes or no, WITH EXPLANATION if he would be giving an answer.
-
Then you ask a Rav you rely upon and why he thinks yes or no, WITH EXPLANATION if he would be giving an answer.
Certainly. I am no expert in writing Sefer Torahs (nor am I satisfied that I could even begin to decide these maters).
-
Certainly. I am no expert in writing Sefer Torahs (nor am I satisfied that I could even begin to decide these maters).
Soo don't dismiss something you (as you say) know nothing about.
-
Soo don't dismiss something you (as you say) know nothing about.
Now you are saying I am dismissing something? I did not dismiss it, I simply agreed with edu in saying that there are questions about the process, and it would be better understood if other Rabbis would also look into the question. I rely on the decisions of the Rabbis, and don't accept any one Rabbis Halachic decisions. My primary Rabbi who I consult is Chabad, but I don't accept all Chabads opinions exclusively. I will also learn the other opinions before accepting any answer to a question by a Rabbi.
I have no comment on this particular Sefer Torah process. I just do know that Torah scrolls are expensive because it takes a great deal of work to create them. If there is a way to bring the price down then it is a great thing. I hope you understand that I am certainly not dismissing his decision.
-
KWRBT,
You are one perplexing guy. You are the one who said that there is no point in asking whether this method is Kosher because your Rabbi whoever his name is (Abadi) says it is.
I always have a hard time discerning whether you consistently miss my point or whether you are just very skilled at obfuscating. This was never what I said. I already restated my point 100 times in this thread in my previous comments. Since you insist upon misrepresenting what I wrote here, I'll have to repeat it again, in bold.
There is no papal infallibility in Judaism. If someone wants to challenge Rav Abadi's opinion, go ahead and pose a kasha or write up some problem with it and let him answer. That was never the problem here. The problem here is with edu, and by extension, definitely you, who wish to say that no matter what Rav Abadi says, since it sounds a bit different to you or a bit out of the ordinary, it definitely needs some group of rabbis to come along and say 'we certify this is ok' and then it makes him trustworthy. But otherwise, he cannot be listened to or followed, I guess because the aguda didn't put him on a dais, or maybe the chassidic rebbes didn't declare him of the royal court. That's a bunch of baloney.]
Please don't make false accusations and make me repeat this again. You only have to read it once to understand it. Did you even read it? Do you try to digest what I say before you lash out against it?
You are the one who seems to take the opinion of a single Rabbi over the combined opinion of other Rabbis who are also poseks. And then you somehow twist what I am saying as if it is an attack on you and your Rabbi.
This is so convoluted it doesn't even make sense. There is no way to respond to something written in a different language of which I'm not familiar.
-
No one Rabbi has the power to say that a new innovation is kosher without others looking into the matter.
LOL, so now I'm saying others shouldn't look into this matter? You are too much.
Now, have you ever considered the possibility that what causes the price of a sefer Torah to be $30,000 to 60,000 is the true innovation and actually not traditional? Practically no one could have afforded this kind of expense in the history of our people. And yet, it wasn't just the Moses Montefiore's of the world who were commissioning the writing of sifrei Torah. This new procedure looks like a step in the right direction, for sure, but I believe it's ahistorical to claim that it always cost this much.
-
LOL, so now I'm saying others shouldn't look into this matter? You are too much.
Now, have you ever considered the possibility that what causes the price of a sefer Torah to be $30,000 to 60,000 is the true innovation and actually not traditional? Practically no one could have afforded this kind of expense in the history of our people. And yet, it wasn't just the Moses Montefiore's of the world who were commissioning the writing of sifrei Torah. This new procedure looks like a step in the right direction, for sure, but I believe it's ahistorical to claim that it always cost this much.
KWRBT,
Why were you so upset, calling edus post a 'joke' just because he was interested in what other Rabbis have to say about the process? There is no need to get so upset, I am not attacking your position or besmirching your name. I enjoy debating and discussing the issues, I do not try to take things personally as I really believe we all are trying to reach the truth.
I did not claim that Torahs were 'historically' always this expensive. I do know that they are precious and involve a great deal of work on the part of the Sofer.
-
I think your misunderstanding comes from this allegation which I don't believe to be true.
definitely you, who wish to say that no matter what Rav Abadi says, since it sounds a bit different to you or a bit out of the ordinary, ... But otherwise, he cannot be listened to or followed, I guess because the aguda didn't put him on a dais, or maybe the chassidic rebbes didn't declare him of the royal court. That's a bunch of baloney.
Nobody, at least not myself, said Rabbi Abadi is not to be listened to and his opinion ignored. I do not think that your assessment of the situation is correct. I don't think edu, nor myself, ever implied that the Rabbis opinion is not to be taken. I simply joined in asking whether others have reviewed this case.
I apologize if it appeared I was impuning the Rabbis Halachic opinion. I just felt your response to edu was a bit harsh.
-
This is so convoluted it doesn't even make sense. There is no way to respond to something written in a different language of which I'm not familiar.
LOL, so now I'm saying others shouldn't look into this matter? You are too much.
:::D I'm having a blast.
And I did hear before that the current method's of writing are too much (involve too many humrot) for the Sofer to do. For example where would one today be able to write a Tefillin within a day? As opposed to back then when this was possible (this is an involved Gemarah on Tefillin during Hol HaMoed) but it seemed they were written much quicker perhaps without many of the humrot attached to them.
-
:::D I'm having a blast.
And I did hear before that the current method's of writing are too much (involve too many humrot) for the Sofer to do. For example where would one today be able to write a Tefillin within a day? As opposed to back then when this was possible (this is an involved Gemarah on Tefillin during Hol HaMoed) but it seemed they were written much quicker perhaps without many of the humrot attached to them.
Good for you.... But this is no laughing matter.
So what is it you are trying to say? That the Sofers are crooked and overcharging for Seferim.
-
Good for you.... But this is no laughing matter.
So what is it you are trying to say? That the Sofers are crooked and overcharging for Seferim.
NO! That perhaps the system is broken where many times good honest Sofrim are told that their work is not good enough unless they comply with all the nuances that are said for them to do which makes the processes longer and harder to accomplish and produces less of the products (Tefillin Mezuzot, Sefer Torah) for longer time.
-
NO! That perhaps the system is broken where many times good honest Sofrim are told that their work is not good enough unless they comply with all the nuances that are said for them to do which makes the processes longer and harder to accomplish and produces less of the products (Tefillin Mezuzot, Sefer Torah) for longer time.
So I agree that if there are artificial 'chumrot' which make the process more difficult then the system needs to be analyzed. This is what the Halachic Rabbis are charged with doing. But still I tend to go along with the majority decision of these authorities. If I were to follow a particular Rabbi I guess I would listen to his opinion over other opinions.
Again I apologize for all the confusion.
-
The following is a Quote from Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan's Handbook of Jewish Thought page 134
Since Every Torah must be letter perfect, it must be carefully copied from another scroll. It is forbidden to write a single letter without copying it from another Torah.
Sources for this rule: Megilla 18b; Menachoth 32b; Yerushalmi, Megillah 4:1 (28b); Yad, Tefillin 1:12; Yoreh Deah 274:2. Cf. Orach Chaim 691:2 in Hagah; HaGra ad loc.
Moreover, the scribe must repeat every word out loud before writing it down, so as to insure accuracy in copying.
Sources for this rule: Tosafoth Menachoth 30a, s.v. U'Moshe; Mordecai, Halakhoth Ketanoth 957; Sefer Chasidim 284; Yoreh Deah 274:2. Cf. Orach Chaim 691:2 in Hagah; HaGra ad loc.; Magen Avraham 32:42, 691:4; Mishnah Berurah 32:136.
This was the custom among the prophets, as we find "He pronounced all these words for me with his mouth, and I wrote them with ink in the book"(Jeremiah 36:18).
Sources for this rule: Menachoth 30a
-
I would like to see some prominent Rabbis give their opinion on this process.
This was the original quote.
Edu, your quote from Rabbi Kaplan's handbook and various sources are fine. Your questions are interesting, and I would also like to know Rabbi Abadi's answers to those questions about this process. I would learn a great deal about the production of a Sefer Torah by finding that information out. I would never have any problem with that sort of inquiry. There is no reason to have a problem with it.
It is your first statement which irks me and motivated my response to you. Your statement which says "I would like to see some prominent Rabbis give their opinion on this process."
This is a way of thinking which I simply don't understand. It's a mindset that I think holds us back. Certain participants here obviously think along the same lines as you. And maybe it's an unbridgeable gap that I simply cannot traverse with certain people no matter how much I try to elucidate this matter. The rigid defensiveness and superficial rebuttals I receive leave me unconvinced that any real consideration of my comments took place before the hasty attempt to score a layup on me. As such I'll simply leave the thread as is and not push on this point further (at least not in this thread). But I have yet to hear you reply on this point here. Muman has been doing on all the talking on your behalf. I'm interested to hear what you think on all this.
-
KWRBT,
I do not talk for edu, and I really begin to wonder whether you are really motivated by the desire to learn and teach, or just quibble about things. I will not allow you to say that I spoke for edu, as I clearly was speaking for myself.
I did first join this discussion because I felt your response to edu was uncalled for. My reason for this is because while Rabbi Abadi may be a great Halachic source, as I mentioned the Talmud and many other sources say that the majority of the Rabbis decide the law. If you keep by a particular Rabbi I can understand taking some personal insult from such a statement, but I believe you brought up the 'Jewish pope' idea which goes fully along with my point. Through Responsa and written arguments by the poseks, the matter will be decided.
edu brings several good questions about this process, and it would be beneficial to hear the answer to them.
-
For more than 500 years we have the printing press, but Rabbis have not been in favor of using it to mass produce Torahs, since they claim that using the printing press causes halachic problems.
In light of the fact, that Rabbis in the past have raised all sorts of halachic objections to using various modern technologies to mass produce Torahs, I wanted to know what other experts in the halacha (Rabbis) think about Rabbi Abadi's new process.
Does he solve in their opinion all the problems that the printing press has attached to it?
In any field that demands expert knowledge of a specialist if someone comes up with a revolutionary innovation that might have drawbacks it is only natural to ask what other experts in the field have to say about the innovation. There is no room for the accusation that turning to the other experts for peer review is, heaven forbid, creating new popes.
-
Firstly:
And KWRBT, do not take it as personally as it appears you are taking it... I know this has nothing to do with 'Chassidic Rabbis' versus other Rabbis... I hope you realize this...
Huh?
And now on to other matters...
-
KWRBT,
I do not talk for edu,
Mmm hmm. My reply comes with theme music. Please before reading what follows, click the following and play in the background:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1D5Sa2Yq-2g
Now, here we go ! I present you, ladies and gentlemen, the amazing Muman!
I simply agreed with edu in saying that
I don't think edu, nor myself, ever implied that the Rabbis opinion is not to be taken.
I just felt your response to edu was a bit harsh
And to respond like that to edus seemingly reasonable question seems to be out of line.
I side with edu
And yet, when I merely made reference to the fact that you spoke on behalf of edu (which obviously, as shown, happened about 500 times in this thread - and there is nothing wrong with that, anyone is entitled to speak on behalf of whomever they want) I get a "Muman the Magnificent Rebuke" as follows:
I do not talk for edu and I really begin to wonder whether you are really motivated by the desire to learn and teach, or just quibble about things. I will not allow you to say that I spoke for edu, as I clearly was speaking for myself.
What the he//?
You are like houdini but instead of handcuffs you use a keyboard. You are muman the amazing crescan with an intel processor.
Oh but wait, there's more!
I did first join this discussion because I felt your response to edu was uncalled for.
And thus you spoke on behalf of him or on behalf of what you thought his point of view was. That isn't an accusation, that's a fact. Is there something sinister about that? To speak on someone else's behalf - is that some kind of grave accusation to make against someone to say they spoke on someone's behalf and you felt your reputation was impugned by me referring to this ? I am honestly at a loss to understand what you are taking offense to.
My reason for this is because while Rabbi Abadi may be a great Halachic source, as I mentioned the Talmud and many other sources say that the majority of the Rabbis decide the law.
Yeah because Rabbi Abadi doesn't follow the Talmud, right?
as I mentioned the Talmud and many other sources say that the majority of the Rabbis decide the law
Repeating a mistake already corrected by multiple people in this thread.
If you keep by a particular Rabbi I can understand taking some personal insult from such a statement, but I believe you brought up the 'Jewish pope' idea which goes fully along with my point. Through Responsa and written arguments by the poseks, the matter will be decided.
I'm a hamster on a treadmill when I try to read and comprehend what you just wrote in this passage. Just going around and around in a circle but I'm not getting anywhere with it. I don't know what you are saying or how it's related to anything in the thread.
edu brings several good questions about this process, and it would be beneficial to hear the answer to them.
I JUST SAID THAT!
Don't believe me?
Here, I'll quote myself:
Your questions are interesting, and I would also like to know Rabbi Abadi's answers to those questions about this process. I would learn a great deal about the production of a Sefer Torah by finding that information out. I would never have any problem with that sort of inquiry. There is no reason to have a problem with it.
So how can you be arguing against me and at the same time repeating what I said practically word for word? Is it that you just can't stand the sight of me or Tag or anyone who agrees with Rav Bar Hayim or any rabbi that points out the flaws with Meshichist chabadniks and chabad rabbis? And so, you "quibble" with us? to use your choice of language. I purposely chose your word there because I believe you are projecting your own actions onto others by making these allegations of yours.
-
Firstly:
Huh?
And now on to other matters...
You suggested that edu, and I, questioned Rabbi Abadi because we only listen to 'chassidic rabbis'...
... But otherwise, he cannot be listened to or followed, I guess because the aguda didn't put him on a dais, or maybe the chassidic rebbes didn't declare him of the royal court. That's a bunch of baloney.
Otherwise I thought this topic was growing cold...
-
KWRBT,
What is wrong with you? You seem to have basic problems communicating.
I was not SPEAKING FOR EDU you dummy... I was stating my opinion. NOWHERE DID I SAY I WAS REPRESENTING WHAT EDU WAS THINKING.
When someone says you are speaking for someone else you are accusing them of saying that they think or feel something which they did or did not feel or say. You did accuse me of speaking for edu. When a person stands up against a perceived slight against another person that is not 'speaking for them', it is 'speaking for myself' and as I did in my first post in this thread.
You really need to relax because you are annoying at times...
-
You suggested that edu, and I, questioned Rabbi Abadi because we only listen to 'chassidic rabbis'...
Otherwise I thought this topic was growing cold...
Umm. You know that AGUDA is LITVAK, right?! Litvak, aka Lithuanian Jewry, aka haredi, aka Mitnagdim. Now read again and try to understand my point which was NOT what you thought it was.
-
Umm. You know that AGUDA is LITVAK, right?! Litvak, aka Lithuanian Jewry, aka haredi, aka Mitnagdim. Now read again and try to understand my point which was NOT what you thought it was.
I realize now that you were saying that because you felt we did not accept his decision because he was not 'approved' by any of the Rabbis of Litvish or Chassidish sects. But even understanding this I still feel you were taking what was being said in a way which was confrontational when what I read edu ask seemed completely innocent.
-
KWRBT,
What is wrong with you? You seem to have basic problems communicating.
I was not SPEAKING FOR EDU you dummy... I was stating my opinion. NOWHERE DID I SAY I WAS REPRESENTING WHAT EDU WAS THINKING.
When someone says you are speaking for someone else you are accusing them of saying that they think or feel something which they did or did not feel or say. You did accuse me of speaking for edu. When a person stands up against a perceived slight against another person that is not 'speaking for them', it is 'speaking for myself' and as I did in my first post in this thread.
Let me see if I get this. You equate "Speaking on someone's behalf" with "representing what the person is thinking."
For one thing, that doesn't necessarily mean the same thing. But even if it did, what is wrong with representing another person's thinking? That's called agreeing. By expressing agreement, restating an opinion, reformulating a statement, and so on, a person represents what the other thinks by expressing it himself. Is that an offense? If someone makes reference to this action, is it an insult? In what culture, exactly?
You did accuse me of speaking for edu
Accuse you? I didn't accuse you of anything. I stated a fact. The fact is: You spoke for edu. The serial quotes I put in the circus music post display that quite clearly. Why would that be an accusation? It's only referring to what happened. You said yourself in your own words: I don't think edu, nor myself, ever implied that the Rabbis opinion is not to be taken.
By saying that, you are speaking for edu (and for yourself). So were you "accusing yourself?" Or just saying something on edu's behalf because there isn't any crime involved in doing that. I don't know, you tell me. Maybe you were accusing yourself of something sinister. What exactly? Do tell.
-
One more thing, about 'speaking on behalf' of another person.
I take offense when I am accused of speaking for another person. I try to make it clear in every post I make that I am speaking for myself. When I defend a fellows position I am not doing it on their behalf, and I do not even begin to suggest I really know what their question or issue is. But I try to explain why I am saying what I am saying.
You still want to argue about the 'majority decision' of a beit din. According to all sources I have found on the Internet (and I am going to ask two Rabbis about it this Shabbat) the majority decision is not only in the Sanhedrin (which doesn't exist today) but it also is the way decisions in lower courts are made. If you would like me to review the reason you argue otherwise please provide a link, or a reference to the source.
http://www.torah.org/features/spirfocus/majority.html
The Sanhedrin, the highest court in Jewish law, makes its decisions by majority vote. Questions of life and death, war and peace, were decided by a majority of the 71 sages who sat on the Sanhedrin. But in Judaism majority rule is taken a cosmic step further: once the vote is taken, the minority is subsumed in the majority, and it is no longer the majority of the Sanhedrin, but the Sanhedrin as a whole, which has ruled. This principle applies to lower courts, councils and communities, as well.
Nor is majority rule limited to the judiciary. In Jewish law, the concept of majority rule has many and varied applications. When forbidden and permitted foods get mixed together, the status of the entire mixture may be determined by which is the greater quantity. For example, If one accidentally mixes forbidden and permitted food and the ratio of permitted food to forbidden food is 60:1, one is allowed to eat the mixture.* The lesser amount of forbidden food is subsumed into the greater amount of permitted food, and it no longer exists. As a consequence, any particle thereafter separated from the mixture retains the status of the majority ingredient of the mixture.
Video from Chabad on the topic @ http://www.chabad.org/multimedia/media_cdo/aid/1731277/jewish/Majority-Rule.htm
-
I don't think edu, nor myself, ever implied that the Rabbis opinion is not to be taken.
By saying that, you are speaking for edu (and for yourself). So were you "accusing yourself?" Or just saying something on edu's behalf because there isn't any crime involved in doing that. I don't know, you tell me. Maybe you were accusing yourself of something sinister. What exactly? Do tell.
So this is your 'logic'.... If I 'think' edu did not imply something I am speaking for edu. I don't know how to continue arguing this because it seems to me you are making a leap of reason, which doesn't exist.
If I say 'I think Obama knew about Benghazi' this means I am speaking for Obama? To me, as the one who said it, it is a simple statement of how I perceived edu's statement.
But enough of this... These kinds of threads lead to sinat chinam..
-
If Rabbi Abadi were to rule that electricity could be used on Shabbat, would you start using electricity?
I think any innovation regarding technology needs to be reviewed by the Torah greats of the generation.
-
If you say "No, I don't think edu meant that"
Then yes, you are speaking on edu's behalf, and yes you are "representing what he was thinking" (or trying to, at least) and no there is nothing wrong with this.
Good job though taking offense at something completely harmless. What's next? You will take offense at a suggestion that you like oranges? How about you take offense at the suggestion that you say things on behalf of Judaism and then use that to attack your perceived enemies on the forum? That would be just grand!
Let's get started. Muman sometimes says things and post things on behalf of Judaism.
Are you offended?