Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Answers like “it was rejected” or “it’s philosophy” are ones that will not stand the test of honest and earnest research. Ramban did not reject it. He wrote a famous letter in defense. He did not claim familiarity with it. But he did state that before one could even make such claims against it, one should first consult with Rambam’s son, whom he considered one of the greatest of his generation, for clarification of the issues people had with it. As far as philosophy, Rashba, in his famous letter against the study of philosophy explicitly extolls the study of the Moreh. Anyone who is a decent student of historia would know that Rashba’s letter was against the study of the secular philosophy. Further, it is well known, and you can confirm with Rav Avraham Yehoshua Soloveitchik, Shlita, that Rav Chaim Brisker, as well as the Brisker Rav learned the Moreh. In fact, talmidim of Rav Chaim quoted him as referring to it as “Der hailiger Moreh.” The bottom line reasons it is not generally studied in Yeshivos are: 1. Historically it was too difficult. Written in Judeo-Classic Arabic and originally translated by R’ Yehudah Ibn Tivon into lashon hakodesh, he needed to construct new words to do so. He included a glossary of his invented words at the end of the Sefer. However, there are two more recent translations that Talmidei Chachomim familiar with the Arabic felt were highly accurate and not anti-kabbala agenda driven: the English one by Prof. Pines, published by CU Press and the new one in modern Ivrit, by Michoel Shwartz, published by TAU Press. 2. The second reason it was not studied in Yeshivos was because to study such a Sefer properly requires real dedication. Every good mechanech knows that something that requires dedication to truly grasp cannot be curricularized.
Joseph- In an anarchy, the recognized right to civil disobedience comes with no legal consequences. In a democracy, as in any civilized society, civil disobedience comes with legal consequences such as arrests and forced removals. Your “logic” regarding civil disobedience is hilariously flawed. Your conflation of civil disobedience with freedom of expression belies a grossly inadequate background in basic legal principles and civics. Civil disobedience is illegal behavior. Period. It may not be felonious conduct, but it can and does easily land people in jail all the time. Even just to protest requires a permit. Without a permit, there is no right or freedom of expression. In the U.S., the governmental entity with the police power over the locale at which one wishes to demonstrate must provide permits, but they may enact rules regarding where, when, and how the demonstration may take place. It is safe to assume the same sort of system is in effect in Eretz Yisrael. Joseph, your enthusiastic willingness to share your abysmal ignorance with all of us in the coffee room inspires me to advise you of the dictum: bimuflah mimcha al tidrosh.
Joseph – the bochur pushed the female soldier from behind her; hardly a defensive move. Democratic right to protest within the bounds of societal decency. There are rules for when, where, and how to protest. Further, you obviously didn’t watch the videos of these protests. If you are too religious to watch those videos, then what, pray tell, are you doing on the internet in a chat room? These bochurim are walking, screaming, and fighting chilulei Hashem. And, btw you really should learn how to spell bologna if you are going to try to use it as a way to make your flawed arguments.
Joseph – those are only false strawmen if:
a. they are false facts and
b. you don’t expect that the gedolim who told them to protest are not capable of being ro’eh es hanolad.
But those stories are true: they attacked, pushed, and spit on women. They blocked traffic causing untold gezel zman, not to mention Stam gezeilah.
And gedolim are Chachomim. Aizehu Chochom? HaRo’eh es haNolad.
I leave it to the smart people in this coffee room to complete the syllogism and draw the correct conclusion.