Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Actually, chazal were greater than the neviim, because Chacham adif minavi, which means that a Chacham is bigger than a navi. That’s because a chacham has access to the dvar Hashem all the time, and a navi only has it when Hashem gives it to them.
Kuv – check the other threads on the subject. The aruch hashulchan, Maharal, rema, shulchan aruch, all say it’s apikorsus. Not the “ultras.” Anyone who said that about chazal were banned throughout history, from elazar min ha’adumim until nathan slifkin.
“Lots of jews” – yes, heirs to maskilim who convinced themselves that they’re frum “and” watch movies, frum “and” socialize with the opposite gender, “frum” and supportive of LGBT, the list goes on.
edited
Anon, but if chazal are merely transmitting Torah, then their “sayso” is no different than accepting their teachings in any other area – you don’t, for instance, say “chazal say that one should be happy with the amount of money he has, but i disagree, and i don’t think that mishnah in pirkei avos is an important enough part of yiddishkeit that I need to accept”
Once we get into deciding for ourselves what parts of Torah we believe in and what parts we don’t, we’re no longer orthodox. Denying one letter of Torah is denying the entire Torah, because it’s one infinite continuum. Denying a statement of chazal because “well they just say so and you need to prove it to me” is no different than saying “prove to me that ervah is patur from yibum”
Chazal do not have to prove themselves to you. They proved themselves to klal yisroel ages ago and were accepted as the baalei mesorah.
You can’t logically say the two statements of “Not believing it is not denying chazal,” and then say that you deny chazal because it’s just their sayso! That’s a complete contradiction.
And yes, it is important enough to have earned deniers cherem throughout the ages, and was deemed apikorsus openly by the leading poskim.
Did it occur to anyone that perhaps the hostages were released because their relatives davened to Hashem, and that He is a shomeah tefilah? Why make it into a Lubavitch centered thing? I guarantee that a heartfelt tefilah with השתפכות הנפש in a shul is better than mouthing words by a kever – any kever. Not that most people mouth words at kevarim, just that it isn’t the main thing. Also, i have no idea how many were released among those who went to the Lubavitcher rebbes kever. (I refuse to refer to him as “the rebbe” or his kever as “the ohel,” because i don’t think he was special among rebbes)
Similarly, the rescue of the last 2 hostages that were saved happened after their relatives took on mitzvos.
Square, potatoes are not a worse carbohydrate than wheat or anything else; it also has potassium, which other carbs do not have. French fries are worse because of the saturated far from the oil. Whole wheat has more fiber, which helps in digestion, but potatoes themselves aren’t horrible.
Peanuts are very high in protein; they have fat too, but fat content alone doesn’t add weight (they used to think that 30 years ago). Peanuts butter, however can have sugar, which is not good.
Sugary sodas are just a public nuisance; zero nutrition and lots of bad stuff; sugar, acids..
Eating before bed is tricky; there are studies that show that people who eat before bed are more likely to gain weight – but these studies have a huge flaw. They don’t ask people if they’re eating their supper before bed – many are simply saying that they eat additional food before bed, and additional food means more calories. Science hasn’t discovered a direct cause and effect system that makes you gain weight from eating before sleeping, but it’s not disproven…just it’s not anywhere near proven that there’s a cause and effect.
It’s a sakanah for Jews if a Palestinian state is made directly following October 7. It signals to the Palestinians that if they kill enough Jews, they’ll get what they want. Nothing to do with pride or not wanting to be defeated – it’s just putting more Jews in sakanah.
Anon – i have a question.
What’s worse: one who openly denied chazal, tanach, or anything else in Torah, and does not try to put their apikorsus on to the rishonim/achronim, but rather says “chazsl say this, and I say that”
Or someone who twists chazsl, rishonim and achronim into their apikorsus, thinking that it is Judaism’s own perspective that chazal were mistaken and/or ignorant of science.
You’re the former; i think there’s a lot more hope for you, because you admit at least that chazal say something about their knowledge of science. So if you’re mechazek yourself and perhaps are careful about the things chazal say are tied to emunah(chometz on pesach, chalav akum, anger, etc..) you’ll join the ranks of shlomei emunas yisroel.
For our other discussion partner, i believe it’ll be much harder; he has actual apikorsus dripping from his words and is skilled enough to know better.
Da, when i learned nefesh hachaim, it was the same year i learned tanya. I’m very glad i did it that way.
I came to a conclusion that some of the nefesh hachaims criticisms were from what the hamon am among chasidim would say and do, especially the idea that chasidus championed the idea of thinking about Hashem constantly while learning and that learning was to now play second fiddle.
I say this because in the early seforim which contain clear instructions to their chasidim, including chiefly the tanya(which is unique in its instructional clarity, especially in the second half of the sefer) neither of the above two things are advocated for. The baal hatanya, of course being one of the gedolei achronim in halacha(quoted constantly in the mishnah berurah) spoke frequently about the greatness of learning Torah and said that one is obligated to learn and know everything.
See shu”a harav’s hilchos talmud Torah, widely considered to be the “ba’al shmaatsa” of the sugya, even in litvishe circles. See also tanya perek 5 and 25 to see how he viewed learning.
You can do chesed with practically every job in the world; being a plumber lets people use the bathroom. If not for him, people would be in a very bad situation. You’re letting Jews also keep the mitzvah of bal tishaktzu.
If you’re in real estate, you’re helping people get homes. If you’re an accountant, you’re helping jews get tax refunds or allowing their businesses to function well.
The list goes on
Aa1, rav Moshe writes in a teshuva that not only is there no mitzvah at all in being a doctor, the motivation for those who do is almost entirely because of money. And he had a son in law who was a doctor.
It’s only the maskilim who praised doctors as some sort of angels, because they believed that they have the independent power to heal people. Maaminim believe that they’re merely shluchim.
Avi, do you think the rambam and shulchan aruch weren’t aware of that? Or the gemara that talks about eimah yeserah?
The answer is obvious. Taking anything to an extreme is a problem. Not letting a woman out of the house enough or not at all is taking the idea too far. Your answer is to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Aaq – for once you and I are basically saying something very similar. I was saying that it’s problematic in today’s society to stay at home all the time if not occupied with domestic responsibilities and sleeping, eating etc… because being idle leads to shigayon and zimah.
Not that i agree that there’s a mayloh in being in any particular field of work; doctors will not he higher in shomayim than plumbers.
“And while I’m not learned enough to know exactly where to find these Rambams and Shulchan Aruch’s that you quote without citing any siman or s’if”
I was responding to this.
👍🏻
Wife of Korach*
Mods, i don’t remember how what i said about the next words in the rambam being an insult – i generally avoid insults. I said that the next few words after “yesh limnoah” ehich are “,and he shouldn’t let her…” clarify the issue. The poster himself earlier said that he wasn’t trained in learning, so i was recommending that he seek the guidance of someone who is. If he said that then I will remove the comment.
Also without that, the next words are “and he should not be maniach/let her go out….” which clarifies any doubt as to his intention
Aseh, the word yesh is used by chiyuvim all the time in poskim… sorry, but this is where experience in learning comes in. You’re free to verify this with any kollel man or Orthodox rav who answers shailos.
Avi, Sarah was a navi. Hashem told Avraham that she was right in that one episode.
Many times women are right, such as the wife of Ohn ben Peles. However, often the wife is wronf, such as the wives of Korach, or Rebbe Elazar ben Arach(not to compare the two, but both were tragedies)
(877) 845-8455
Hotline for the Business Halacha Institute, led by Rav Chaim Kohn, a very well respected dayan.
Gadol, it’s far more than the mesorah “leaning” in that direction; there are clear halachos regarding the appointment of women in community posts. See rambam hilchos melachim 5:1, below:
אין מעמידין אשה במלכות שנאמר עליך מלך ולא מלכה, וכן כל משימות שבישראל אין ממנים בהם אלא איש
“We do not appoint a woman to be a ruler in kingship, as it says “(establish) on yourselves a king,” and not a queen. And similarly all appointments in Yisrael, we only appoint a man ”Re, not leaving the house; the ideals have not changed, but circumstances have led to the application of different factors. Yes, chazal say women should not leave the house often, codified in the rambam and shu”a
Rambam ishus 13:11
גנאי הוא לאשה שתהא יוצאה תמיד, פעם בחוץ פעם ברחובות. ויש לבעל למנוע אשתו מזה, ולא יניחה לצאת אלא כמו פעם אחת בחודש או פעמיים בחודש, כפי הצורך, שאין יופי לאשה אלא לשבת בזוית ביתה, שכך כתוב כל כבודה בת מלך פנימה,
It is inappropriate for a woman to consistently leave, sometimes outside, sometimes in the street, and the husband should prevent this…
However in today’s era, where women’s domestic responsibilities(which are halachik obligations, to take care of the house and children) often leave them with lots of free time(as well as empty nesters, single girls, etc) This must have been a typo of some sort – mod there’s another issue – chazal say idleness leads to a bigger lack of tznius! Not to mention insanity. So for women to not be outside can be problematic in our time through the lens of chazal, not modern thought.
Re, Israeli government; being involved in the government itself is a b’dieved situation and the gedolim who support being involved in it permit such activity despite the fact that the government is heretical and full of frei people, so dealing with women is just another part of that.
But should it enter your mind to say that nowadays rabbonim would allow women to be more involved in the world due to social changes, see shu”t seridei aish chelek 1 teshuvah 150
מ”מ הסכמנו כולנו, שבחירת הנשים היא נגד מנהג ישראל ונגד המוסר הישראלי בחיי הציבור, שהשתדלו תמיד לשמור על כבודה בת מלך פנימה, שהאשה הישראלית תשמור את ביתה ואת חינוך ילדי’ ואל תהי’ קולנית ויוצאנית, לפזר כוחה ולהרוס צניעותה, ולאבוד את חינה וטעמה על ידי ריב ומדנים פוליטיים וציבוריים”
The seridei aish, who was somewhat zionistic and was “in the middle” of both charedim and religious zionist rabbis, said that a woman being involved in politics and using her abilities for things other than her family and house will ruin her tznius and her chein, applying kol kevudah in this context.
Re, doctors; no one ever said a woman can’t have and be successful at a career of her choice, provided it does not interfere with her halachik obligations to her family. The idea that women used to be a prisoner amd and “now” can be “free” is a non jewish import. Women used to work from home and were sometimes quite successful, so much so that chazal said a woman can declare herself financially independent from her husband if she so chooses, to keep her wages in exchange for not being supported with food from her husband. Where it becomes a problem of heretical feminism is when that becomes an ideal that women should aspire to; it’s not, and rav moshe feinstein clearly writes that such ideas are forbidden.
The Avi Ezra clearly said he knew the gemara; it is not for people in our time and level to make definitive statements about rishonim; we would disintegrate from the kedushah of their Torah if we were to meet them.
Rav Chaim volozhiner wrote that the Gra once slept and upon awakening, told him that while asleep, he had learned 50,000 perushim in one pasuk, and was able to understand the meaning of every eiver of every living thing with the first of them.
And the Gaon was not as big as the early rishonim.
The maharshal didn’t say he was not familiar with basic gemara; such a person never would rise to any sort of rank in the Torah world – the simple baalebatim in litvishe towns knew shas and shulchan aruch… it’s preposterous. What the maharshal wrote was that he was not a basl talmud; he wasn’t outstanding, a master, of the gemara; but that’s for him to say. Would you likewise take as given the litany of insults the raavad wrote of the rambam? We’re not permitted to speak that way; it would be malig al divrei chachamim, which is a capital offense. Not that that seems to matter much to you in the pursuit of “truth”
You must have had zero chinuch in how we approach rishonim, achronim, and today’s Torah leaders; either that, or you choose to ignore that chinuch and draw your own conclusions.
כגון does not mean ‘for example ‘
It means “of the type/characteristic” from the lashon גוונא, color, type. Rebbeim, including myself, typically translate it as ‘for example’ to kids, but i always mention to them that it’s not what it really means, even though it’s a useful place marker for the way the term is generally used.
Just a follow-up to the slander against the Ibn Ezra regarding the mabul – the avi ezer writes on that pasuk that “chalilah to say that rhe Rav (ibn ezra) would say such a thing about chazal,” ge goes on to say that the ibn ezra used the word chaserei daas but meant to say shlilas daas, because they’re synonyms, and he meant to say that we pasken like reish lakish. He then quotes elsewhere where rhe ibn ezra says that not one word of chazal should ever be dropped.
Sechel, i believe this is the first time a Lubavitcher on here has admitted to hisgashmus haboreh r”l. Thank you for being honest.
The “problem” with saying that a person is god is that it is against the 13 ikarei emunah, pesukim, and chazal. The targum always translates pesukim figuratively when they use terms that connote physicality.
Case in point, in the pasuk you quoted, the targum says they saw the “yakara d’shem” twice, the honor of Hashem and the honor of underneath His throne. It’s a way of saying that they perceived the shechina.
Ilike most heretical beliefs, it’s also shtusim. Hashem is infinite and One, and if something is quantified in any way, such as having parts, physical or otherwise, it’s no longer infinite nor is it oneness.
This is the problem with the trinity in Christian theology.
As for the raavad, it’s not as if the raavad held of hagshama; he said that people might be misled by agados chazal and pesukim, so such a person, who makes a mistake in learning, the raavad holds is Innocent. The rambam, who all the other rishonim and achronim pasken like(as per the majority of halacha in general) holds that a “nebach an apikores is oich an apikores,” an unfortunate apikores is also an apikores – it’s just too bad. He should have consulted the gedolei yisroel.
So too here; the fact that one rabbi says something which was met with accusations of heresy from the rest of the Torah world that had heard it(many were unaware) should tell you something.
I only bothered to correct the most jarring part of that post; as the mods wrote, it’s just too much falsity to even begin to unpack
Clarification:
There were no “satmar chasidim” in 1900. The satmar rov was 13 at that time. His first position as Rav was in 1911 in Austria, where he was a rov, not a rebbeh with chasidim. He became rebbe in satmar in the late 1920s.
And of course, the claim that anyone ever thought he was moshiach is baseless. This “banner” was most likely the result of reading a word quickly and associating it with a word seen often before. This happens to me as well, for instance I’ll see the word “jewelry” and think it’s “jewish.” Having been exposed to messianic literature and signage for decades, CS probably misread whatever this banner said.
People gave titles to shabsai tzvi originally, too. It’s meaningless. The content is severelt problematic, and those familiar with it, such as the chazon ish, did not react to it lightly.
Shlomo, this is predatory. When someone’s suffering, they don’t need to be proselytized to and told that all of their problems will be solved with chabad and the Lubavitcher rebbe. Being exposed to radically different ideologies which might go against her family and chinuch is not helpful. This is shameless missionary work and it’s sickening. Utterly sickening. “Oh those litvishe are so judgemental, just go to chabad where no one judges you and they’re so open minded, they’ll show you “the rebbs” and all of your problems will be solved with tanya and offering prayers to our omniscient savior”
So you’re convinced of your understanding of both chazal, rishonim, and science enough to stake your olam haba on such a belief? That’s just not logical. It’s like someone who os convinced of hisgashmus haboreh, and has many proofs, and wants to rely on the raavad – he can’t. “But if it’s true it can’t be apikorsus,” is something every apikores since the beginning has said.
It’s a question of apikorsus. Those who said that chazal were mistaken were banned throughout the generations; that’s the “metzius.” Someone who has beliefs that are deemed apikorsus, even if based on Torah, are guilty of such. Their wine is assur, they lose their olam haba – it’s a pretty serious issue. And poskim are the ones who decide these things, such as the aruch hashulchan, the rabbonim who forbade the meor aynayim, and rav elyashiv, who forbade slifkins writings. They were quite familiar with the sources you brought; halacha doesn’t follow those opinions.
Instead, our job is to reconcile science with chazal, which is what gedolei yisroel have been doing for hundreds of years. Rav Belsky was a master of this, especially when it came to the places where chazal seem to be accepting spontaneous generation. What he said tied in an array of rishonim and gemaros.
But aside from apikorsus considerations, denying chazals statements has many other ramifications. Maybe their psychology was wrong, so we need to change אשה דייקה ומנסבה, אדם עשוי למשמש בכיסו בכל שעה, or hundreds of other psychological chazakos – the list goes on.
I think that about concludes my contribution to this discussion; if someone can reject the rema out of hand, we’re practicing two different religions. I am an Orthodox Jew, and this is the realm of proto-conservative/open “Orthodox”
Gedol,, stripped of verbage, you’re arguing with not only the aruch hashulchan, but the rema.
Re, rav saadya; my point is that this was not part of rav saadyas mekubal writings, like the tafsir, emunos vedeos, etc…it is suspect. It is missing language – maybe more words were added – have you seen a ksav yad of the original? The bigger the claim, the bigger the evidence is needed. You’d like that line because it came from carl sagan, not chazal, so it’s not archaic and you are probably more convinced by him than rishonim kmalaachim.
You decided that you can pasken in a shailoh that can cost you your olam haba based on your own understanding and online research (be honest, you didn’t just come across these sources on your own, and neither do i).
Were this a shailoh of hilchos shabbos, would you overturn the nosei keilim because you learned the sugya with geonim and a few rishonim differently?
I forgot to mention that the mechaber also holds you can’t argue with chazal about science/history etc…when meor aynayim came out, the shulchan aruch was extremely upset, and was working on a letter to put the book in cherem due to such content, but was niftar. His talmidim reported this.
So we have the rashba, rabbeinu tam, the gra, maharal, maharsha, rema, shulchan aruch, gedolei italia who put the meor aynayim in cherem, the aruch hashulchan, the gedolei yisroel in our time who put slifkins initial denial of chazal in cherem, and many others.
But because you found an unused ke’ta of a translated rav saadya gaon and an ibn ezra, you decided to overturn this clear mesorah. You have an agenda, something is clearly driving you to embrace this ideology, and can it in any way be coming from the yatzer tov? Do you not feel the freikeit in it? Does it perhaps make you feel more comfortable doing certain things you were taught in yeshiva not to do, but have invented justifications for? Does thinking that you know better than chazal not make you feel empowered
Your tone is exactly the same as those who mock chachamim, which I’m sure also makes you chuckle…the idea of being accused of heresy is laughable only to people who are guilty of it. I’ve seen that defense mechanism over and over among this sort of self styled philosophers. Rather than consider the possibility and the risk involved, you just go further and further.
Gedol, would you argue with a psak of the Rema too? Maybe you would, given what you seem to think is acceptable in halacha. Is the “beis medrash” you learn in by any chance the “beis medrash lerabanim” in Manhattan?
It had been several years since i was involved in this sugya, and while i remembered a long list of achronim and rishonim who pasken that chazal did not err in science issues, i forgot the mareh mekomos.
So i looked back and saw the rema in Torahs haolah (1:2) who says clearly that whatever chazal said about science is absolutely true.
Rabbeinu bachya in his hakdama to chumash says this as well, and says that all wisdom of the universe is in the Torah.
Chasam Sofer in beshalach,on the pasuk of “ki hi chachmascha ubinascha..” says that chazal knew all the chochmos of the world.
Gedol – now we’re getting somewhere. You’ve removed the veneer of a person still in the “koslei beis medrash” and put your cards on the table.
You wrote that Zucker is “considered reliable.” I did a quick search online, and i have to think you’re aware of who he was. He learned in the haskalah’s Israelitisch-Theologische Lehranstalt in Vienna, founded by total maskilim. He then taught at the conservative Jewish theological seminary (same name, just English) in the US. He was a conservative “Rabbi”
So why do we care what he says? It’s an untenable position, because the ibn ezra very often, so too speak, “argues” with chazal(again see chasam sofer and others who defend him consistently) but never, ever refers to them with anything other than rav, chachameinu, etc… he asks strong kashos all the time, why would this particular issue be so different, and why would he and he alone ever refer to chazal as anything but… Chazal. The only other example we have is the SAME pasuk, in rav saadya(which again, might have been a corrupted text- you haven’t addressed this at all. It’s missing pieces, and it’s not in the tafsir or other widely used seforim of rav saadya. Maskilim love using obscure sources to prove outlandish claims… This is just about example of that)
Also, if you think you’re able to argue with an acharon who clearly mastered shas and poskim(his sefer doesn’t require much emunas chachamim to acknowledge – it’s a veritable masterpiece) not to mention the fact that rav moshe said to defer to him over the mishnah berurah(of course, this likely means nothing to a maskil either), then i think we’ve hit an impass. You are going in your own way against the psak halacha of a major posek, without others to rely on but your own “research” into shitos that were not accepted in halacha.
It’s not just the aruch hashulchan. The fact that achronim, without exception, constantly defend chazals drashos and scientific statements should serve as a clear hadracha to you that you’ve veered from their path.
Similarly, once we have a zohar and an arizal, accepted by every group in klal yisroel, it becomes untenable to deny gilgulim and other concepts.
Unless you don’t believe that klal yisroel and its mesorah are divinely guided and it’s a hefkervelt for every person to decide these issues for themselves. In what way then are you different from the conservative clergymen you quote without hesitation, who do the same with halacha and allegorizing of most of Tanach?
It’s likewise untenable that the ibn ezra simply didn’t know of a gemara and several midrashim regarding rebbe yochanan. His perush quotes medrashim and gemara constantly. The maharshal doesn’t accuse him of not knowing shas; that’s your own insertion. You can’t put rishonim and achronim on the level of a heintigeh kanoi who we can assume would only have ad things to say about their opponents. The maharshal was mostly upset about the ibn Ezra’s arguing with chazal(though he does acknowledge the places where the ibn ezra writes “kol divreihem emes” numerous times) and his use of science/philosophy.
Re, rav
Gadol, Gez refers to “original” Lubavitch families from Russia, as opposed to other groups who became Lubavitch, BTs and gerim. As far as I’ve heard, there’s a strict hierarchy where non-gez people cannot marry gez families. BTs and gerim usually are in the same boat too. Whereas in the rest of the Torah world, this isn’t so; it’s not always a meritocracy, but it’s much closer to one.
Cs, please don’t try to hide the fact that there’s a HUGE determining factor in chabad besides those things.
The shtarkest BT will never, ever marry into a Gez family. Even a non-Gez will almost never marry a Gez. You know it, and it needs to change.
Modern, i addressed this issue above; please read the whole thread and not just pieces here and there
Re, the kusi – that was my mistake. I was going through medrashim quoted in an article and read it too quickly.
You didn’t address my other points on the ibn ezra/rav saadya. It’s unthinkable that they would refer to an amora as either “one of our nation” or “chasirei daas,” even when arguing. That’s never the case when the rishonim differ from chazal in pshat – they always speak respectfully, as chazal were chachameinu, our sages who gave over the Torah that we have.
My point about rav saadya being in Arabic is that the expressions used might not be very clear, plus the piece is missing words – maybe there were other errors that fell into its printing too? I also don’t know who the magiah is – do you?
You also haven’t addressed the clear psak of the aruch hashulchan and what gave you the authority to pasken on a sugya based on your own decisions, when the issue at hand is lf grave concern
Nom, i guess the pachad yitzchaks rebbe, the maharal, who devoted an entire sefer to the subject, the aruch hashulchan, and many others, weren’t “Benei Torah” in your world. Sorry, but grandstanding without making any coherent or sourced claims will only make your position look all the more foolish and arrogant.
Also, in your mind, what gave chazal the ability to codify “articles of faith”? And where would we even receive the idea of distinguishing between halacha and drashos, if not from chazsl themselves – and if so, where is that stated? The truth is that everything is mesorah.
Techias hamaysim min hatorah refers to a concept that’s medeoraysoh, which is the drasha of az yashir. I don’t know what makes you think rashi is referring to anything other than that; the mishnah would include one who believes it was taught by neviim to be in that category too, as that is not included in the term “min hatorah.” Rashi is clearly saying that denying that particular drasha makes one a kofer.
The radak calling something a taimah is no different than when tosfos asks a kasha on a gemara. No idea where you want to go with that.
Rav saadya gaons perush on chumash was written in Arabic. There are also parts before and after that sniper that are missing from our text.
And rav saadia was not the only one who criticized the belief that the mabul did not affect eretz yisroel, and he was not the sharpest in his expression; the Ibn ezra says that people who think that are chaseirei daas, they are missing in daas. There is obviously no way the ibn ezra would refer to rebbe yochanan as a chaser daas, chas veshalom. One of the meforshim on ibn ezra, rav shmuel matot, writes that the ibn ezra(and we can say rav saadya, as he does not mention rebbe yochanan by name, and doesn’t even call him a chacham, rather just one of the nation) is referring to people who say that the mabul didn’t affect eretz yisroel at all, whereas rebbe yochanan agreed that there was some effect. Many medrashim also say like rebbe yochanan, so it’s not just “one from our nation.”
Further proof that rebbe yochanan agreed that the water touched eretz yisroel was from his encounter with a kusi, mentioned in bereshis rabbah, who said that har grizim was not flooded, whereas other mountains, including har habayis, were. Rebbe yochanan could have said that har habayis also wasn’t, if he held totally that eretz yisroel was not touched.
I haven’t heard of this piece from the abarbanel, but that’s defective at best. He goes to lengths to defend the ramban and say that he was not arguing with chazal. Period.
Re, the rambam; what other people could he have used as examples? Tzadok and baysus actually did begin with non halacha drashos, as it happens, because their issues started with denying olam haba(al tehiu k’avadim etc…)
Regarding rav shmuel bar chofni Gaon – not familiar. Maybe he means that you’re allowed to explain the pesukim in ways additionally to the kabalos and drashos of chazal; just speculation. Where does he say that?
There is a mentally and spiritually healthy way to approach obesity and its relationship with shidduchim.
Men and women have certain issues that are viscerally tied to their feelings of self worth and image. If you knock a man’s torah learning or financial achievements, it is a dagger through the chest…with women, it is their appearance, their housekeeping, and child rearing which are the most vulnerable aspects of their self esteem.
Women who are overweight often look, ironically, to food as a comfort for their lack of self worth. Giving plans for dieting can often backfire…there is an appropriate time and place for such coaching, but it is extremely delicate. Reminding a woman that she will have a hard time getting married usually will only amplify those feelings of self loathing.
“We are not obligated to accept Chazal’s non-Halachic droshos”
Oh yes we are.
One who denies techias hamaysim min hatorah is a “kofer bedrashos” in the lashon of rashi, even if he believes it is stam a mesorah and not based on a pasuk.
The rambam clearly includes those who learn torah but are “machchish magideah,” deny those who passed it down, as apikorsim; he makes no distinction between drashos.
The ibn ezra, who often sounds like he’s arguing with chazal(and was, for that reason, completely rejected by the maharshal) elsewhere explains that he is trying to explain the pasuk on its pshat level, but “kol divreihem emes” the radak does this sometimes too, and the achronim, including the chasam sofer and many others, explain their kavanah as above.
See abarbanel in yeshuos meshicho where he defends the ramban who seemingly denied a medrash in his vikuach.
And of course, the “sechel” of someone from the gaonim is not the same as the muddled heads of online trolls.
We don’t find any of the later rishonim or achronim taking issue with drashos – quite the opposite. When the haskalah spread among people who wore fabric on their head and kept the sabbath, gedolim such as the malbim, the author of hakaav vehakabalah, rav hirsch, and many others, went to herculean lengths to explain the nom halacha drashos of chazal. That’s the mesorah – you’re on the side of the maskilim, unearthed by ifkin, who proceeded to brand a new yiddishkeit after his neo-haskalah musings.
I am sure that had you stayed in the koslei beis medrash you never would have heard of the concept of not accepting a word of chazal, or any of the above; chazal were chazal! We take every word of theirs as given. It is only the poison of haskalah that you’ve allowed to enter your bloodstream…perhaps it makes life easier to think that you’re more advanced, perhaps certain issurim which seem ‘archaic’ are more easily transgressed….after all, these are ancient rabbis working with outmoded thoughts…
Also, the entire point here is rhat chazal derived their knowledge of the physical world from the Torah. “Turn it over and over for everything is in it” “Hashem looked into the Torah and made the world,” and so on. This has nothing to do with the discussion of when and how to have secular education, and it has nothing to do with being “charedi” or not.
Square, I apologize for hurting your feelings.
Life is about learning.
It hit me hard to learn that zionism was a sham when i was 16, too; a large part of my Jewish identity was based on nationalism, and when i saw rav avigdor miller trash it it was very, very difficult.
Rabbi aryeh kaplan is not getting into the minutiae of every category of emunah in his well written and important books, but this is included in the belief in Torah shebaal peh, in the truth of all that chazal passed down, and in the understandings of what Torah is and how its masters were endowed in its infinite knowledge. He also was writing for people who are not frum and had no education – he had a lot bigger issues to teach than these finer points of the parameters of torah shebaal peh.
As it happens, he was not some sort of gadol hador or posek either, and he made some mistakes of his own, including accepting evolution on some level, when chazal clearly say that every part of creation was made as is, and did not develop. But he was a very holy person and had a tremendous amount of positive influence and Yiras Shomayim, so this is a side issue.
I don’t know where you came from, or who your teachers were, and i too would praise someone for amassing Torah knowledge – this is a finer point, which is, however, important, and discussed in poskim.
Chief among them in achronim is the aruch hashulchan. Not a chassidishe sefer or an obscure shailos veteshuvos sefer – one of the main sources for halacha in klal yisroel. And he says it outright that it is completely forbidden to believe that chazal erred in science issues.
This idea is in the gra, rav yonasan eybeshuts, maharal, maharsha…in rishonim it’s in the rashba, and the parts where chazal darshen pesukim – that would certainly be considered disbelief in drashos, “machchish magideah” in the lashon of the rambam, one who disbelieves in drashos chazal.
Of course, we’re not commander to be fools. We’re supposed to investigate and understand chazal, and we’re not necessarily supposed to ignore empirical scientific fact – the maharal and others routinely reconciled chazal with science…you never see achronim or rishonim just say that they were wrong.
the rebbe of the sefardi pachad yitzchak reprimanded the author severely for suggesting that chazal had erred in their understanding of lice not reproducing – and he was trying to be more machmir, and say rhat we shouldn’t be allowed to kill them because “now” we know that spontaneous generation – something chazal never even talked about, is not true. His rebbe sternly told him he was wrong, and he accepted.
Again, I’m sorry for the news coming as such a surprise. Feel free to read “torah, chazal and science” for a very clear, lengthy and well sourced position on the issue in its entirety.
Firstly, the rishonim don’t go with that explanation for refuos – the maharsha was fully aware of such shitos, as were ALL of the rishonim and achronim who followed, and they did not follow that shitah, to the point where they called it apikorsus. Just like the ralbags brias haolam shitah, or the shitos against gilgulim. One who accepts it may not have olam haba.
Tosfos says that the refuos don’t work because nishtana hateviim. That expression is used across the board in rishonim and achronim.
Do you think you can “refute” the maharsha – one of the gedolei achronim? Shame on you.
Learn the maharals beer hagolah. Get something into your head besides nathan slifkin and blogs.
And where did you get that the snake issue was wrong? Again, it’s a pasuk. It’s on US to understand it, just as any other drasha of chazal. It’s the height of arrogance for us to think we can approach them.
Re, bavel; you just need a map. It’s very, very clear.
Moreover, the physical world is not only known to chazal, but thsy controlled it with their understanding of Torah. If a besulah was born in an iber yahr, her beuslim are chozrim eveb though she’s physically 3 years old.
Some say that there were shitos (minority) in the geonim and rabbeinu Avrohom, because it was before hisgalus hakabalah, whereas afterwards, those statements of chazal were revealed to have been referring to levels of creation that are beneath the physical.
Aaq, the quote from rav hirsch is from a manuscript not written in his handwriting, discovered by a grandson and put into “collected writings.” Not only is it incongruous with rav hirsch in general(it’s the only place such an idea is expressed) but it’s also demonstrably false. Chazal darshened pesukim to identify the geographic location of bavel. They had a mesorah for the synodical month (necessary for halacha) and the gestation period of a snake(not necessary for halacha) – in both of these areas, pesukim and kabalos are recorded in shas numerous times.
See rabbeinu tam and the Gaon on the famous gemara in pesachim about the machlokes between the chachmei umos haolam and the chachmei yisroel; while they give a reason-based answer, the meforshim explain that they were communicating with goyim and could not teach them Torah, but they knew the truth from mesorah.
The rambam writes that klal yisroel had a mesorah for all forms of astronomy from Sinai (direct refutation of whatever maskil wrote that thing attributed to rav hirsch) but it was lost, so now(only now) we have to use the goyishe chachamim.
Regarding bavel on the map, see chasam sofer who writes that knowledge derived from the Torah is more true and real than that which is observed by the senses and scientific inquiry, this is why a pasuk was preferred.
The maharsha on the beginning of mi she’achzu writes that the gemara quotes refuos(which were relevent in their time) in order to show that chazal knew all the chochmos of the world and were not missing anything.
Mdd… Hashem created the world from the Torah. Everything that we see physically, is found in the Torah, and since chazal were its masters, they perforce knew everything about the physical world.
For example, chazal state that there are almost as many stars as what scientists today theorize, though in the sky you can only see a few thousand.
Chazal also identified the pituitary gland as the source for זרע, saying that a drop comes from the brain and causes it to form.
There are many, many observations chazal make which show an awareness of the world that can only be explained through their Torah knowledge.
Now, the apikorsim will bring many examples of things chazal say which don’t fit modern science – they ignore the fact that baalei machshava have used sifrei kabalah to explain these anomaliea for hundreds of years. There is not one mesorah in klal yisroel that didn’t do that until nathan slifkin decided he knew better. My rebbe rav Belsky would often give amazing answers to such questions, which are valid questions, but are not to be used as a means of justifying apikorsus.
Aaq, this is why i said the vast majority of rishonim and achronim. The maskilim pick up on one rishon, rabbeinu Avrohom ben harambam, – from who we received basically no halachos or hashkofos in the mesoros of ashkenazim, sefardim, etc.. – and made it into a valid shitah after it was rejected by the halachik process. In shabbos, you can’t dig up a rishon and follow it for halacha lemaysoh; heresy is a halacha too. Just as there are shitos in the ralbag which we pasken are apikorsus, there is a shitah of rabbeinu Avrohom – rishon and tzadik as he was – that we paskened against hundreds of years ago.
Halacha and hashkofa have a process and a mesorah. You can’t make up stuff on your own or think you know what chazal meant when the halacha is that we are obligated to believe that they did not err in scientific issues.
The fact that you supposedly read rav meiselman’s sefer and your takeaway was “well, rabbeinu Avrohom!” Means either you didn’t read it snd see the long, long list of those who disagreed, or you’re intentionally ignoring his message.
Gedol, the fact that you think it’s acceptable does not negate the psak din of the rishonim and achronim who rule clearly that it is forbidden to think such a thing. It is apikorsus. Take a look at rabbi moshe meiselman’s “torah, chazal and science” for an exhaustive list of sources. This is why rav elyashiv put nathan slifkins dribble in cherem.
“Numerous places” – have you looked at how meforshim reconcile chazald statements with science? They’re everywhere! The maharal wrote an entire sefer on the matter; beer hagolah. Ever heard of it?
Aaq, you’re conflating new ideologies with new solutions.
I have no issue with new solutions. Gedolim instituted them throughout history, including bais yaakov, kollel, requiring kabalah for shechitah, cherem rabbeinu gershon, and many others.
The issue is in ideology. Bais yaakov did not come and say “the mesorah is that girls learning Torah isn’t so important, but WE say it is” rather, they said “we need to address the problem of girls not having strong yiddishkeit, because the home isn’t enough anymore”
Rabbeinu gershom didn’t say “the Torah says it’s fine to have multiple wives but WE say it isn’t” rather, he said times are different and it is no longer feasible, people are irresponsible etc..
But rabbi kook, rabbi yoshe ber and the Lubavitcher rebbe changed ideologies, and the former 2 added in blatantly non jewish ideologies into their judaism, making what reb elchonom succinctly called “judaism mixed with avodah zara”
This isn’t a regular machlokes, it’s one side calling the other invalid, because they admittedly, openly grafted on non Jewish philosophy into Torah.
The Lubavitcher rebbe, did not openly inject outside ideologies, but his novel ideas are outside the mesorah – we don’t find them in any chasidishe group, including chabad, before he took over.