Breakdown of the Halakhic System - Two Earth-Shattering Shiurim - Exclusive

[Lubab]

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.

 

[judeanoncapta]

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.

[Lubab]

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.

[q_q_]

<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.

[Lubab]

<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.

[Lubab]

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.

[Lubab]

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.

[q_q_]

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.   ?

[Lubab]

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.

[q_q_]

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.

[Lubab]

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.

[Lubab]

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.

[q_q_]

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.

 

[q_q_]

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.

[Lubab]

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?

[q_q_]

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!

[Lubab]

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?

[q_q_]

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.

[Lubab]

What do you think it even means he was "taught by heavenly teachers"? Do you know what that means?

[Lubab]

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.

[q_q_]

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.

[q_q_]

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?

[Lubab]

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?

[Lubab]

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.

[q_q_]

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.