Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
“The absence of evidence not being evidence of absence (without other evidence demonstrating why evidence ought to be expected in this circumstance) is self-evidently true logical axiom”
I wasn’t weighing in on this point. Wolf already addressed it.
@benignuman
“No faith or belief in the world has lasting power without evidence. We may also have evidence against their claims, the evidence may be fabricated, or we may dismiss their claims because prior assumptions, but the claims themselves will have evidence to support them.”Really? Then you know something about christanity that the catholic church doesn’t. The hold that to believe the ikrai emmuna of their theology requires a leap of faith and is not evidence based. There staying power hasn’t suffered much due to the lack of evidence.
So does it follow that I can reasonably assert that everything is made out of invisible microscopic unicorns that are so small, light, and move so fast that they cannot be measured? Oh, wait…
What evidence do I have for this you ask? Who needs evidence. Absence of evidence after all is not evidence of absence. But I had a great vision in which the chief unicorn revealed to me the meaning of life. One you just take a leap of faith and believe that my vision is true everything else will make perfect sense. You don’t even have to take my word for it. Come stay for a month at the unicorn temple, eat some mushrooms, meditate, and you will experience for yourself a higher level of existence…
The absence of evidence is the genesis of every false faith in the world.
If we say about any issue that times have changed and the Torah therefore means something different, than there is absolutely nothing absolute in the Torah. Why can we not say that Kashrus, Shabbos or any other mitzvah is irrelevant today (or means something totally different than what Judaism traditionally explains it to mean,) since times have changed? The only true response to that is that the Torah transcends time and was written to all generations.
You do understand the difference betweeen keeping kosher which involves the fulfillment of actual Mitzvos and disciplining children which is a means to an end…
I know a couple that when they first got married took an example from a very chashuv family that using petch as a form of discpline was the excepted norm. Now, these very special people are the epitome of Torah and Chessed. I don’t think I ever saw the father raise his voice or so much as lose his calm. There approach was right for them. To make a long story short The newly married couple should never have adopted this approach. They do not have the same midos. As it has already been pointed out above, hitting another yid when a constructive chinuch purpose is not being served is a Torah prohibition. It’s an act of violence. A person who has not successfully overcome the mida of anger and is not able to remain totally calm in a stressful situations should not potch.
But to say that “it’s NEVER ok to hit a child” and to consider petch as categorically abusive is just adopting current Western ideologies. Nebach.
Rashi sichos taught me to appreciate the depth of Rashi
This is a very important point. It is critical to learn Rashi on Chumash with a super commentary that brings out the depth of Rashi.
The Mizrachi, Maharal, and Livush are classics and their seforim are widely available. I wouldn’t try learning them all at the same time though. The Maharal is especially excellent but one has to get used to his unique writing style.
@ Joseph
“That’s exactly what was said in the very first post the Rambam was cited on this thread. So the context was here right from the beginning”
Sigh…
I knew this was coming.
There are 2 contexts that are at issue here:
1) The context in which the Halacha was cited which leads to an erroneous conclusion regarding how the Torah views women.
2) The context of how to properly understand this specific Halacha in light of all the other relevant Maamrai Chazal dealing with the issue at hand.Nobody misunderstood the specific Halacha itself and context has nothing to do with it.
Also,
Yes, it is extremely important to fight against acculturation to Western values. At the same time we have to be ever mindful to not allow our position to become determined by our adversaries. We have to be ever vigilant lest in our righteous war against Western values we adopt anti secularist positions that are rooted in non Jewish philosophy / theology. This is an insidious form of acculturation and an easy trap to fall into.
It should be clear at this point that given the context in which you cited the Halacha it came across as making the point that the life of women is worth less then that of men and that women are inferior. I could give you lots of other absalutely true statements made by Chazal and Rishonim that when read out of context would point to the same conclusion. But we all (I hope) agree that doing that would be a perversion of the Torah because such a conclusion is DEAD WRONG. So….
Why not just acknowledge that while the Halacha you stated is true given the context in which you stated it created an impression which is clearly false.
“I don’t understand this- you are saying that Leah was not a tzadekes because she was a BT?
How was she different from her sister Rochel who grew up in the same home as she did?“There is the “Tzadik Gamur” and the “Baal Teshuva” This does not end with Rachel and Leah it is a theme that continues through the unique Avodah of the Bnai Rachel and Bnai Leah (Yosef and Yehuda) down to Shaul and Dovid and beyond (ultimately to Mashiach Ben Yossef and Machiach Ben Dovid. I recently read a nice work elaborating on this subject.
@ chabbadshlucha
“but this kind of way of reading halacha as seeing women the way the Arabs do, and twisting halacha to defend it is really inexcusable.“
I’m with Chabbadshlucha on this one (though I definitely didn’t need to learn Chassidus to get there) 😀
It is astounding that Gedolhadorah, Sam2 , and Binyanadead think that they can simply shlug up the Mishnah Brura and Chatam Sofer based on their own interpretation of the Gemora and Shulchan Aruch.
1. The Gemorah and Shulchan Aruch are discussing the fact that women have an obligation to fulfill the obligation of lighting menorah because they where included in the nes. What does that have to do with the fulfillment of the households unit of mhadrim min hamihadrin l’daat haRambam?
2. The Mishna Brura was reporting the normative custom he was not being mchadish it. The M”B (and the Chatam Sofer) where giving an explanation for the widespread practice of women not lighting. Widespread practice when upheld by the Gedolim Sets Halachic precedent. The chidush is to have women and girls light. If you follow accepted Poskim who held they have enough of a Halachic basis to break with the normative custom (Rabbi Solovaichik quoted above) fine but don’t try to revise reality.“Unless you’re talking about “power walking” at a very high intensity. And even that doesn’t exercise all of your muscle groups.”
There are actually 4 types of “high intensity” walking
-Power walking (around 4 mph)
-Speed walking (is an actual Olympic event and can get up to 9 mph for long distances.
-HIIT (High intensity interval training) where you change up walking, jogging, and sprints
-Farmers walks, where you walk for short durations while carrying heavy weightsBut I was just talking about using moderate intensity walking as a form of active recovery on non lifting days to achieve and maintain adequate levels of cardio fitness that will not ruin your strength gains like high intensity cardio will.
What you wrote does not contradict what I wrote. The SAID (specific adaptation to imposed demand) principal bears out your point. Yes, the cardiovascular adaptation to long duration cardio is specific to that demand. And the adaptation to high intensity cardio is specific to that demand. You cannot dance at all weddings at the same time as the adaptations are not compatable beyond very basic fitness levels. For most people a well designed strength training program combined with walking on non lifting days for active recovery yields the most useful adaptations
-increased strength base
-increased bone density
-adequate cardiovascular adaptations for non long duration athletes
-adequate mobility and balance for non dancers / gymnastsExercise tapes, live aerobics style classes, training on cardio equipment, etc are largly a waste of time. Yes, if you are totally unfit you will see improvement but you could get the same from a consistent walking program. Long term the above cardio based programs will make you weaker and hungrier. Most people use them as a misguided way of purging calories.
Sorry this Is a bit late but this subject is close to my heart.
For under $700.00 (one time cost) you can get a Oly barbell, iron plates, and a squat rack. Get a competent Strength coach to teach you how to perform the basic barbell lifts safely and put together a simple program built around progressing the basic lifts.
Walk on your non lifting days
No gym required. In fact the above is more effective for your health then most anything else you can do in a gym. Not to mention most efficient from a time management point of you.
Why o why does this have to be so complicated.
1. Evidence based medicine requires…
wait for it…EVIDENCE!
2. There are currently 2 biasis in evidence based medicine
A. The scientism bias (segula based methods disregarded)
B. The profit bias (methods that cannot be monitized disregarded)
3. There will always be people willing to believe in things for which there is no evidence. They are not “retards”. In fact, in one of Rabbi Kelleman’s excellent shiurim he points out that all the members of the heavens gate cult where educated, well adjusted people with no history of mental illness.So you have 2 choices:
1) you can go with evidence based medicine warts and all.
2) you can believe in leprechauns@ gadolhadorah
This poster has constantly fawned on degrees and advanced degrees…
It’s funny but my wife who runs a babysitting service out of our home
– makes more money then many of her friends with degrees
– provides a part time parnassa for her 2 assistants
– has control of the environment she is in on a day to day basis
– has more social interactions throughout the day then she did at her (very boring) office job
– we get an awesome deduction on the majority of the home expenses which is being used by my wife’s business.@chamistabra
To Avi K:
So I guess Rambam and all of the other Rishonim who embraced Philosophy were MOThis really just demonstrates how little of the Rambam’s philosophy you have studied.
This. 100%
I tried pointing this out above but it’s way more fun to discuss if RSC ever listened to secular music or if Rav Ovadia did.
Let’s ignore the facts if they contradict ones dillisions. Cognitive dissonance anyone?
I heard once Rabbi Gottlieb say bshem the Hazon Ish
“Some people have 613 Mitzvot and some people have 613 challenges…”@ AviK
Did you really use the GR”A as an example to make your point?! Please see the introductory to Chai Adam written by the Gaons son in law. Also see what his sons wrote in their intro to Shulchan Aruch.
As for the Rambam. You are aware that he was supported by his brother for years while he sat and learned Torah FULL TIME. This. Ended when his brother perished on a business trip and the Rambam lost this means of support. See the Rambams letter to Rabbenu Yonitan M’Lunil that secular studies where never regarded by him as more then handmaidens to the Torah.
This is an open and shut case…
@ Joseph
“Now if he brings proofs against Satmar Rov/Debrecener Rov/Rav Vozner’s Psaks AND those proofs are deemed adequate by a majority of contemparary Poskim, then there might be something to talk about.”
You are 100% correct. At that point (don’t hold your breath) their opinion would be nidcheh and we would consider someone who is machmir a chossid shotteh and a hedyot. Until them it remains a machlokis.
@ iacsrmma
“For those who are makpid on CY, your rants that CS is equivalent to CA are not accepted by those who eat/drink CS.”I am makpid to use only CY.
“There being other poskim who hold differently absolutely does not permit members of those kehilos to shop and use Psaks opposite of their own Psak.”
I never said that it does. They should most certainly follow the Psak of their Rav.
@ Joseph
“If one is a member of a community or congregation that holds that Cholov Stam is Cholov Akum mamish, then eating CS is absolutely no different than eating CA, and carries the same negative spiritual consequences”
Sorry. Halacha does not exist in a bubble. Even if a particular Posek is machmir for himself and his congregation. Even if he thinks HaRav Moshe’s Psak is an error. The issue remains categorically a dispute among the Poskim (about a din d’rebonon by the way). He can disagree but he cannot pretend Rav Moshe’s psak doesn’t exist.
Now if he brings proofs against Rav Moshe’s Psak AND those proofs are deemed adequate by a majority of contemparary Poskim, AND it becomes the prevalent custom, then there might be something to talk about.
Until such time that Rav Moshe’s Psak becomes nidche (don’t hold your breath) nobody has the right to say that someone who is eating chalav Stam dairy products is eating trief mamash.
End of the sentence got cut off. Should read:
Relying on the psak of the Posek HaDor can hardly be construed as going against the Will of Hashem
And yes I am aware that the issur of consuming non kosher is unique (its mitamtem halev, causes our very selves to become defiled, etc.
@ Joseph
Eating Cholov Akum definitely causes negative spiritual consequences. And many hold that which is called Cholov Stam is Cholov Akum mamish.
Going against the will of Hashem causes negative consequences. Not just spiritual, ultimately in the olam hagashmi as well. Relying on the psak of the Posek HaDor can hardly be construed as going against th
You do know that there is Halachic basis for assuring most dairy products in America today (including the chalav Yisroel ones. This is why we have Poskim.
@ Slominer
This has been “getting worked out” for the past almost 25 years since the Lubavitcher Rebbe zichrona tzaddik l’vrocha’s petira. I don’t think giving it more time will much change the disputed dynamics.These things take time, 25 years is but a drop in the bucket. Eventually there will be closure on this issue. It’s not up to us how much time to give it.
Notice that DY said “you thought I was questioning his integrity.
Is this the offending post where DY questioned The Lubavitcher Rebbes integrity?
MoshiachChat, I honestly didn’t read what you quoted. What are you trying to convince me, that he called himself a navi, moshiach, and infallible?
Let’s say you convince me that he called himself all of the above. My conclusion would be the rational one – that he was a megalomaniac.
You’re trying to convince us that the Rebbe was a cult leader, yet you want us to accept your beliefs as normative Judaism. It’s not very reasonable to think that we will.
Seems that he was opposing the same erroneous interpretations of the Lubavitcher Rebbes words as you yourself do. He was making an effort (I don’t know why) to show MC the rational conclusion people would arrive at if they took his interpretations seriously.
@SH
If you can question the Rebbes integrity, I can question Rav Shachs as well. If you won’t question his integrity, but will only give criticism, I’ll do the same.
I was under the impression that Gedolim weren’t infallible, and questioning their integrity was not off limits.There is a Halacha that prohibits you from questioning the integrity / motives of a Tamud Chacham. How does the fact that someone else does it make it permissible?
Also, why do you keep equating not being infallible to a lack of integrity. This is an overt error in logic and you just repeated it twice.
opposition to Yidden learning Torah solely because of who the initiator was brings into question the motives of his machlokes, whether it was a machlokes Lsheim Shomayim or not.
The Halacha is that when one is judging the actions of a Talmud Chochom one is obligated to judge his motives favorably. HaRav Shach was a Gadol by any standard we have. You are therefore obligated to judge his motives favorably. The fact that he was not infallible is besides the point. You are welcome to quote Gedolim who disagreed with his position but you do not get to question his integrity.
There are 2 paths here.
Path One. The Talmudai Chochamin among Chabbad will interpret the teachings of Lubavitcher Rebbe in a way that is in line with normative Judaism. They will do this even when it means saying an interpretation which is forced. They will also guide their talmidim to a more integrative approach with the rest of Klal Yisroel. They will do this because they are true Talmudai Chochamim, are amailim B’Torah, and we know that in the end the light of the Torah will bring them to good.
Path 2 is self evident to anyone who has been following this thread.
While this is getting worked out there is going to be good, sincere people who will be honestly confused.
@RSo
Glad you o see your back. I want to apologize again for taking such a condescending tone in my response to your earlier post.@Slominer
You haven’t addressed my question to you, above, regarding the Satmar Rebbe and Rav Hutner.Please see my response to SH
@ SH
And Rav Vosner, who was the Gadol HaDor at least in the Chassidishe velt
HaRav Vosner was regarded as a Gadol in the whole of Klal Yisroel. Are you aware of any Litvish Rav or Rosh HaYesiva who did not consider HaRav Vosner a Gadol?
@SH
My point in bringing Rav Vosner was to show that when people say “all the Gedolim” that is absolutely false.This is a textbook case of a straw man argument. Who, in the context of our discussion said “all the Gedolim”?
Re: what you wrote:
You named several names. I demonstrated that one was mislead, and two we have proof to the contrary.You demonstrated nothing of the sort. It is pure conjuncture on your part to say that HaRav Aaron Feldman was mislead. There is nothing in his letter indicating how many or how few elohistim there are in Chabbad. Also, as already mentioned, his name was not on my list as he did not come out against the Lubavitcher Rebbe in that letter. I have no Idea What his opinion is regarding the Lubavitcher Rebbe.
Proof to the contrary? Hardly. At best you can call me out on that I did not bring evidence for their positions. In the case of the Satmar Rebbe his opinion is regarding the Lubavitcher Rebbe is expressed in writing in Divrai Yoel on Parahas Tzav. If you want to disregard what I said regarding HaRav Hutners position because I did not bring written proof for his position that would is OK with me. But know this. It is not called proof:
1. When a Gadol can be shown to hold the Lubavitcher Rebbe in high regard at some early point in their life when there is evidence that they later changed their opinion.
2. To claim that if the Gadol did not hold of the Lubavitcher Rebbe we would know about it in Chabbad. This supposition is absurd. If a Rav makes his opinion know to his talmidim yet chooses not to publicize his views or launch an all out war against Chabbad it would not be known to Chabbad. This in no way impeaches the reliability of his students testimony regarding what they heard from their Rebbe.@SH
While we’re talking about different Gedolim, I want to add, that one of the major Poskei Doreinu, the Shevet HaLevi, Harav Hagaon Rav Vosner z”l, was an admirer of the Rebbe and Chassidus Chabad in general.We wher not just talking about different Gedolim. You asked for a list of 3 Gedolim who opposed the Rebbe. This was provided.
What is the relevance of this post of yours other then smoke and mirrors? You appear to be attempting to deflect the fact that there where Gedolim who came out against the Lubavitcher Rebbe by quoting a Gadol who held of him.
@ CS
The difference is Yiddishkeit is true, everything else takes a point of Yiddishkeit and mixes in garbage. So you can usually convince an open-minded person to this effect.but the basis of Yiddishkeit needs to be emuna.
An adequate response to this would really go well beyond the scope of this forum. Suffice it to say that Emuna does not mean choosing to believe based on emotion and then using the mind to rationalize that belief.
When you made this point and used it as the Yesod for believing in the teachings of the Lubavitcher Rebbe there where other posters who attacked this as irational. I’m inclined to agree which that (sorry). It is likewise irrational to use personal miricles, success in kiruv, rapid expansion of Chabbad, and their many good works as a Yesod for the belief in the Lubavitcher Rebbes teachings.
What I did was to show that it is eminently rational and appropriate for Lubavitcher Chasidim to follow the teachings of their Rebbe for the reasons that I have already explained earlier.
Which is why I am at loss how you could possibly write the following…
If you say that we can’t believe something the Rebbe said, then how can we believe anything he says? And the frierdiker Rebbe says,as he was his successor? Etc until the Baal Shem Tov? And as these people were holy tzaddikim, how can you believe any Torah authority? Maybe they’re wrong too? May as well just be a tzeduki or reject torah altogether cvs.
I wrote:
” It was (and is) and disagreement regarding what you is the best meathod of Harbatzas Torah.”You responded:
Not really. Both are necessary. Many leaders of klal yisroel focused on a specific segment of klal yisroel and engaged in one or the other.The Rebbe, as Nossi hador, was responsible for the wellbeing of every Jew, so engaged in both our whatever was necessary.It may well be your contention that both are necessary. And I will even grant you that this is not uniquely a Chabbad position. Other Gedolim have certainly expressed support and admiration for the Shluchus program. But it is a matter of FACT that there where (are) others who:
1. Disagree with such an approach altogether for multiple reasons.
2. Hold that regardless of if such an approach is correct or not available resources should be channeled to the other approach.I mean HaRav Yaacov Weinberg
Also, I do not agree with what you wrote regarding The Satmar Rebbes and HaRav Hutners position. Their opposition is well publicized. Anyone who is so inclined is welcome have a look and decide for themselves.
Can you please tell us what these controversial psokim are?
And who argued with them.Are you truly not aware of any psokim and teachings that where unique to The Lubavitcher Rebbe and where viewed as controversial that you are asking me this question?
I said that I am not aware of any Gedolim who supported etc. Not arguing and supporting are 2 different things. Surely you realize this.
many of the Lubavitchers here (and elsewhere) use the comeback that “well, the early Chasidim were opposed and the Rambam was opposed early on, and this is the same type of opposition to Lubavitch’s current doings
It’s actually not logical to make the comparison at all In all those cases there where also Gedolim on the other side who supported the other POSITION. I put emphasis on the word position because while there where (and are) certainly Gedolim who held it the Lubavitcher Rebbe I’m not aware of any Gedolim who supported his more controversial psokim and teachings. And certainly there aren’t any Gedolim who supported (or support) the idea that the Rebbe was Moshiach, was bchezkas Moshiach, or that it is acceptable to say such a thing. If I’m wrong about this please cite an example and I will be happy to stand corrected.
Gedolim who opposed the Lubavitcher Rebbe (in no particular order)
The Satmar RebbeRav Hutner
Rav Aaron Kotler
Rav Shach
Rav Weinberg
Rav Ruderman
Now it’s also true that there where Gedolim who held (and hold) the Lubavitcher Rebbe in high esteem.
Harav Belsky Ztl as quoted in Mishpacha
Present-day Chabad has become a personal cult centered on the previous Lubavitcher Rebbe. Everything they do from beginning to end, revolves around this. They constantly project his image, talk about him and how great he was, how smart he was, how he was a better strategist than all the generals, that he was Mashiach. etc. This is the way people talk about a cult figure. There’s no room in Yiddeshkeit for a personality cult in which an individual is deified and glorified. Whether he was great or wasn’t great is immaterial. There have been many great people in Judaism. The personality cult of glorifying an individual person, giving him unique titles, elevating the shape other building he was active in. etc., has
Link removed
This is a link to Harav Aaron Feldman’s letter to Gil Student. Anybody who wishes (and understands Lashon HaKodesh) can read it and see if you think SH accurately portrayed Harav Feldman’s position.
@ SH
Did you see the list Ysrbius123 provided? There are more names but you did only ask for three.
So the video.
1. Notice that a portion of the testimony (re: who the other Rabbi was) is contradicted by the speaker himself.
2. What he is trying to infer / imply by the use of the title HaGaon HaChasid is laughable to anybody with even a smidgon of familiarity with the Torah of the GR”A and his Talmidim.
3. Even if we where to suspend all reason and accept this as testimony and polite that every word attributed to the GR”A was actually spoken by him it would actually prove the opposite of what you are trying imply.
4. The Baal HaTanya attests himself (in letter quoted in Baal HaTanya u Bonaire Doro) that The GR”A considered his (The Baal HaTanyas concept of Tzimtum A”Z
5. The published works and derech of the GR”As talmidim do not demonstrate the acceptance of Chassidus in general and Chabbad Chassidus in particular. Quite the contrary.
I wouldn’t, because Halacha as brought in Rambam clearly doesn’t hold like that Deah.
You are putting the wagon before the horse. We know to accept the Rambams psakim because (following initial controversy) The Rambam was recognized as one of Klal Yisroels greatesty sages by all competent Halachic authorities throughout the generations. See Rambams intro to Mishna Torah that this is the same principal that makes the Shas itself binding.
@SH
All of your arguments are based on the myth that somewhere in Halacha it says that Moshiach cannot be min hameisim, or have an early Techiya.Nowhere in any of my posts have I stated that the Halacha says this. Nowhere in any of my posts have I used it as a premise for anything I did say. You are either misunderstanding or misconstruing what I did write.
Re: Rabbi Berger. Not sure why his openly discussing a struggle he had in his youth is relevant.
Rabbi Yaacov Emden wrote an autobiography. I don’t think it says anything negative about him. Do you?
Re: Poskim, Talmidai Chochamin and Tzadikim.
What criteria would you propose we use forRe: Brisk Meaorah
You did not witness this personally. Did you see / hear a recording of this yourself? Did you at least hear first hand testimony from someone who did?Who said it’s not? Secondly a family mesora is just that, a family mesora.
It is reasonable to expect that such a mesorah would make a roshim in Bais Brisk in there yechs to chassidus in general and to Chabbad in particular. That would constitute collaborative evidence that it is true. Now if we had direct or public testimony from The RAV that would be something. Do we have that??Or because he wasn’t Yeshivish maybe you don’t accept his word?
C’mon now. Do you speculate that I am MO because I CITED Rabbi Berger or Yeshivish because I questioned the Ravs alleged testimony?Rabbi Berger is a Rabbi and a Professor. Hence his titles Rabbi Doctor
I didn’t make any claims about whether or not many Gedolim and Rabbonim agree with Rabbi Berger. I said many Gedolim and Rabbonim came out against the Lubavicher Rebbe. Surely you aware of this.
Please see the Ramchal regarding interpetIons of Agadah. There are Agados that are not to be taken literally for example. It is not a free for all when anyone can interpret as they see fit as long as it doesn’t contradict a Halacha. And even if we somehow know to take it literally we still have various ways of interpreting it as you saw In the beginning of the thread. Would you accept an argument based on a different Chazal that would deny that Moshiach is coming altogether? What about proofs from Chazal that there is no problem playing an organ in Shul on Shabbos? What about women getting called up to the Toarah? All of these are deviations from normative Jewish beliefs and practice. Halachic process dictates that innovations to Jewish beliefs and practice are to be initiated or, in the event that they arise spontaneously, be sanctioned after the fact by the Gedolim of the generation. That has not happened in this case and therefore contradicts normative Halachic process. Whether a Tanna or Ammorah did or did not historically hold this position is not relevant.