- This topic has 31 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 8 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
I know his father was Jewish, but I don’t see anywhere the status of his mother, so is he actually halachalichly Jewish?
why does the media emphasize this to show ukraine is not run by nazis Y”M; it is controlled by nazis google “AZOV battalion” and see where our taxpayer funded weapons are ending up.
Why does the media also claim Donald Trump is a nazi Y”M when DT’s daughter and son in law are jewish?
is it possible there is some double standard going on ?
Resident mortal,
My son said his rebbe said his mother is Jewish also
His mother is Jewish
goldpen, no one said that Trump is a nazi but by not speaking up he ends up giving them strength and supporting them.
One would need to check ancestry back to the the Russian Revolution (that would be his great-grandmother) and probably back to beginning of the “Haskalah” in the Russian Empire (another few generations earlier) which was in the mid-19th century. Unless someone is frum (meaning many hazakahs/presumption about yichus apply), or at least remembers when his family was frum, one should probably assume there is a safek, i.e. rescue him on Shabbos, don’t buy hametz from him after Pesach BUT don’t let him handle non-mevushal wine and don’t marry (with doing more research).
akuperma, yes on marriage, but I think handling non-mevushal wine is going too far on this type of sofek. I believe for public purposes that do not have lasting consequences, when you see someone behaving like a kosher Jew, you don’t have to inquire further. We check out a new kohen in shul not because we are concerned that he’ll read a wrong part of the Torah but because we don’t want people to conclude that he is a kohen if he is not.
I think that anyway you can’t have his wine, he is mechalel Shabbos – is there a heter for Tinok Shenishba? Also,i thought i saw somewhere that he baptised. I wonder perhaps even a tinok shenishba who is not considered a mumar, for being mechelel shabos etc. but if he rejects Hashem & His Torah by ‘converting’ he is probably a mumar. ANd besides, for being Christian, he is possibly an Oved Avoda Zara, in which case the heter of TShN certainly wont appy.
I have not checked any of this up (no time) but just pointing out and suggesting….Gotagoodpoint, a mechalel shabbos or mumar for avodah zara, or one who maintains forbidden hashkofos(even if they have “,rabbi” attached to their name) has the halacha of a goy for wine lechol hadayos. The chazon ish wouldn’t drink from the wine of a student who made a remark that chazal exaggerate about certain things.
Bishul akum is a machloles because some hold the issur is better of chasunos, and there’s no problem with marrying the daughter of one of the above
> I have not checked any of this up (no time) but just pointing out and suggesting
nice. I wonder whether gotaggodpoint is mechalel shabbos or stole anything lately, or maybe watches inappropriate movies. Just a though, no time check. < Hope for mod understanding >
@AveriaDeArah
Source for Chazon Ish story?
Avira, how is this Chazon Ish relevant to a Jew who was under soviet rule for 3 generations? Next, you’ll tell us we can’t read Megilas Esther because she was married to a non-Jew and had a private dinner with two non-kosher goyim.
The gemoro in a number of places (like tamid 29a) say that chazal exaggerated about things. The rambam in הקדמתו לפרק חלק talks about the important role guzma plays in divrei chazal.
yayin stam is mederbunun so sufek derabunun lekoola is the general rule but i would agree that as a mumar his yayin is passul even if he was a jew.
AAQ – not sure what you are getting at? The shaila is quite complex and needs serious research in the Halochos of Tinok Shenishba. Perhaps you know the halochos cold, or maybe you are OK with passing an opinion without too much thought, but to any balanced Posek, this is a comlex question – until what stage does the Kula of Tinok Shenishba apply? How far can one go and still be considered a Yid for all intents and purposes just because they were born into an ignorant family/community/culture.
The way i see it, that is the shaila we have with regard to Zelensky, is he a Yid who nebbech never knew anything, after 70 years of Soviet rule. Or, has he crossed a red line and is now Halachically defined as a mumar.
Any comments?Marx; it’s in maaseh ish, related by rav greineman
AAQ – a mechalel shabboa befarhesya isn’t being punished by not having the halacha of a jew, he simply does not have the status because being a jew is synonymous with keeping the Torah. We don’t know how Hashem will judge such a person, nor is it relevant – the issue is, does this person have the din of a yisroel or not? And if one harbors forbidden hashkofos, does not keep shabbos, believes in a rebbe as god, allegorizes chazal in ways outside of the mesorah, to again quote the chazon ish “those who say halel on 5 iyar and blame the gedolim for the Holocaust”, or any other manner of severe deviation from Torah, such a person loses his status and is halachikally treated as a goy.
Re, guzma – there are times that rishonim say such things. The chazon ish is referring to a cavalier attitude held by many(including one famous mechaber who I will not name because of kovod toraso) influenced by the haskalah to minimize spirituality, look at the world materialistically, and emphasize empirical knowledge over transmission. The rambam and others who occasionally interpreted agadatos that way were not under such influence. They also were not privy to kabalah, and ever since the times of the arizal, the overwhelming majority of baalei machahava, ranging from the maharal, maharsha, ramchal, gra, besh”t, chid”a, ben ish chai, etc…all go with interpreting agadatos metaphysically, not necessarily literally, but not allegorically either.
Besalel, that’s not how safek derabonon lekulah works. It’s efshar levrurei, able to be clarified; it’s not like you have 3 pieces of meat and don’t know which one is treif,.or if milk falls into chicken and you are unable to measure. That was the most dangerous line of this threat posred yet and one of the most shocking suggestions I’ve seen on here – not knowing it a known individual is Jewish would not allow us to treat it as a safek. Only if his status were unverifiable would we treat him as a safek,
Also, chazal added many chumros to yayin nesech far beyond ordinary derabonon’s.
“The rambam and others who occasionally interpreted agadatos that way were not under such influence”
Beir HaGra yoreh deah kuf ayin tes, yud gimmel:
הרמב”ם וכ”כ בפי’ המשנה לפ”ד דעבודת כוכבים אבל כל הבאים אחריו חלקו עליו שהרי הרבה לחשים נאמרו בגמרא והוא נמשך אחר
הפלוסופיא ולכן כ׳ שכשפים ושמות ולחשים ושדים וקמיעות הכל הוא שקר אבל כבר הכו אותו על קדקדו שהרי מצינו הרבה מעשיות …בגמ’ ע”פ שמות וכשפים אמרה איהי מלתא ואסרתה לארבא אמרו כו׳ (שבת פ״א ב׳ חולין ק״ה
והפלסופיא הטתו ברוב לקחה לפרש הגמרא הכל בדרך הלציי ולעקור אותם מפשטן וח״ו איני מאמין בהם ולא מהם ולא מהמונם אלא כל הדברים הם כפשטן אלא שיש בהם פנימיות לא פנימיות של בעלי הפלוסופיא שהם חצוניות אלא של בעלי האמת:Marx, the gra could say that; we can’t – for us it’s eili ve’eilu and the rambam’s torah is treated as torah, not as Aristotle. It’s like how rav huna criticized rebbe’s statement that dovid hadn’t been nichshal with an eishes ish and said he was motivated by the kovod of his alter zeideh – for us to attribute torah from chazal as anything but the pure, unadulterated transmission of torah misinai would be included in “mach’chish magide’ah” as outlined in the rambam’s list of heretical ideas – this is not my hagdarah, but rather that of rabbi yoshe ber soloveitchik, as many in his camp had gone the classical route of the maskilim (introduced by the rasha zechariah frankel) and attributed maamarei chazal to anthropology, their own character/midos and the common thinking of their time and place. They reduced hillel to *easy going nice guy” and shamai to “angry old man with a stick” afra lepumayhu.
For all of his faults and influences, he stayed within the mainstream on such essential matters and did a wonderful job at curtailing the more anti religious elements in his camp.
“Marx, the gra could say that; we can’t – for us it’s eili ve’eilu and the rambam’s torah is treated as torah, not as Aristotle.”
Source?
I am not familiar with Rabbi Soloveitchik’s work on this topic but there is a difference between an amora/tanna and a rishon.
Marx, rabbi soloveitchik had to say it; for everyone else, it was self understood.
One source for the above that comes to mind is the netzviv’s famous line about how even if the rambam would testify after techias hamaysim that he didn’t mean what various achronim write as pshat in his words, it wouldn’t detract from the truth of those achronim’s explanations, because once the rambam was written, it became a part of the continuum of klal yisroel’s Torah transmission and he is not the baal habayis on it.
I’ve seen that netzviv quoted in several places… I’ll try to find one for you bl”n
What you are bringing from the Netziv is not really relevant. It can be both true that the Rambam was influenced by Greco-Islamic philosophy and also true that once he writes something it becomes Torah.
Again, you said that the Gra can say the Rambam was influenced by philosophy but we can’t. What is the source for that?Ok, so I went looking for Rabbi Soloveitchik’s writings on this topic and I found a transcript of a speech he gave in 1975 on jewishlinknews about it which is what I think you are referring to. I didn’t have a chance to read the whole thing, however from just skimming it I see that it is talking about histocrizing halacha but its primary focus is on chazal, not rishonim or achronim. Here’s a key passage:
“The Rambam in perek gimel of Hilchos Teshuva, halacha cheis, «וכן הכופר בפרושה והוא תורה שבעל פה והמכחיש מגידיה כגון צדוק ובייתוס»[8]. It is very strange; I wanted to discuss it with my father zichrono leveracha. If he says that whoever denies the truthfulness or the authenticity of Torah SheBe’al Peh is a Tzeduki, why did he add והמכחיש מגידיה – «Whoever denies the authority of the scholars of the masora»? So apparently, the Rambam says that under the category of kofrim baTorah are classified not only those who deny, that for instance, nisuch hamayim is required or arava she’ba’Mikdash is required, or they deny the Torah SheBe’al Peh; there is no doubt about it, but moreover, even those who admit the truthfulness of the Torah SheBe’al Peh but they are critical of chachmei Chazal as personalities, who find fault in chachmei Chazal, fault in their character Rachmana litzlan, or in their behavior, in their conduct, say that chochmei Chazal were prejudiced, which actually has no impact upon the halacha – nevertheless, he is to be considered as a kofer. «וכן הכופר בפרושה והוא תורה שבעל פה והמכחיש מגידיה» – what does it mean «והמכחיש מגידיה»? He denies the perfection and the truthfulness of chachmei Chazal – not of the Torah, again, but of the chachmei Chazal as personalities, as real personae, as far as their character is concerned, their philosophy is concerned, their outlook on the world is concerned.”
Marx, I can’t see how those two aren’t contradictory, because torah bagoyim al taamin, and because if the rambam writes it and it therefore becomes Torah, does that mean that the foreign matter now is Torah? We should make a birchas hatorah on Aristotle? It doesn’t fit – torah is pure by definition and that’s exactly what the gra’s criticism was, that what he said isn’t Torah because it’s being influenced by philosophers. Comes the netziv and says that in a very similar way that rebbe’s statements regarding dovid are torah and one who accuses him of personal bias (as rav huna did in his time) would be guilty of mach’chish magide’ah, so too one who regards the accepted, torah valid words of rhe rambam as the product of foreign influence, would be in the same theoretical category – I’ll consent that I’m not sure kf such a person is halachikally a kofer as he is with chazal, but the same way we adopt the “tanaim vs amoraim” view of rishonim vs achronim, that we accepted on ourselves the profound magnitude of distance between our hasagos and that of the rishonim….at least the concept of mach’chish magide’ah would apply to rishonim (and achronim… we’re far beyond even the chazon ish ‘s era)
Concede* , not consent
Also, great detective work!! I would have said to find it in rav moshe meiselman’s “torah chazal and science”, where he discusses that statement (and others of the sort, re chazakos, tav lemaysav, etc) at length
I hear what you are saying, however I find it a bit diffucult to brand someone a kofer for following what the Gra says about the Rambam. If I recall correctly, there were some baalei kabbalah that felt that the Rambam had to mgilgal as a worm as a kapparah for some views in the Moreh Nevuchim. If someone would follows such a view, I would find it hard to label him a kofer.
Avira > find it in rav moshe meiselman’s “torah chazal and science”
??
It appears from position of R MM that his derech MIGHT be different from R Soloveichik. I am not accusing him of distortions, but it would seem one would be better off looking up R Soloveichik’s positions in the original to make sure he gets the correct picture.AAQ, rabbi soloveitchik had many faces, and I believe the level of “yeshivishkeit” depended on the talmid, but with certain things, like the above rejection of classic haskalah poison, he was steadfast to the mesorah of Torah that remained an inseparable part of his identity, no matter how many operas or lectures he attended.
Marx, i agreed that halachikally he might not be a kofer, but it’s not the way our mesorah teaches us to view the words of rishonim, especially the elites of the elites such as the rambam.
Avira, I am not questioning R Soloveichik’s positions, I am saying that you can’t know that you learned about his position by reading a quote from a source that tries to make an ideological point. You learned R MM’s interpretation, not R Soloveichik. I would even posit that reading original after you read a ideological interpretation is also difficult due to “crystallization” – original interpretation colors your further understanding. Maybe need to read several of the original sources to make sure you see him and not the interpreter.
AAQ, I don’t have an interest in the sermonizing reform-esque garbled ramblings of most of his students, the majority of which devote their energies to “parshanut” and “ethics”(read, Western liberalism) – I’d prefer to judge him favorably (if i am forced to judge him at all; that’s also something i have no interest in) and look at his genius level lomdus, and brisker methods
Avira,
I know some of his students and they are none of what you mentioned. Maybe I am in the wrong circles. Please keep in mind that this is similar to Chabad students – people who would otherwise learn nothing, learned from R Soloveichik, go to Chabad houses, etc. And while we should apply normal rules to those who become Rabbbis/leaders, among people who grew at modernishe day schools or went to Chabad houses, these are – in our times – not people who abandoned tradition in favor of modernity, but people who were already assimilated and then went to learn something, or sent their kids to learn something.Avira, I think you are missing my point. I am not talking about how we should relate to R Soloveichik, I agree here with you that this is beyond our level, but a methodological point: making judgment about his position based on a book that is written by a person who is critical of his positions in general. The author may or may not be correct, but you simply get a confirmation bias kick from reading sources that affirm your position. This is ain’t a way to learn.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.