- This topic has 43 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 8 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
In one of the recent threads one of the posters wrote something which is actually apikorsus. He stated that in good old days people entering Yeshivos would end up doing “something for Klal Yisroel” like become Roshei Yeshiva, Rabbonim etc. This implies that if one only learns forever, he does not benefit Klal Yisroel. This is clearly apikorsus as per Gemora in perek Cheilek in Sanhedrin.
Also, some people wrote that Kollelim is a new invention. This is not true. The understanding of the value of Torah study was always there, just the financial resources were not available in Europe. (If you want to say that we can not afford for ever man to be in Kollel forever even nowdays — I agree.)
Then I guess the mods let Apikorsus be posted.
I expect pashkevils to be going up this weekend banning the Coffee Room.
He stated that in good old days people entering Yeshivos would end up doing “something for Klal Yisroel” like become Roshei Yeshiva, Rabbonim etc. This implies that if one only learns forever, he does not benefit Klal Yisroel.
I don’t think that that statement implies that at all.
This is clearly apikorsus as per Gemora in perek Cheilek in Sanhedrin.
Cite? Are you talking about “Mai ahanu Li Rabbanan?” The quote obviously did not mean that since he was talking about people who don’t become rabbannan.
The Wolf
Every word of torah learnt is mikayim the world. i think kiyum ha’oilam is a pretty hefty contribution. R Aharon also says in mishnas R Aharon that due tot his its also the highest form of chessed
Wolf: From its context, the Gemara of ‘Mai Ahanu Lan Rabanan’ is not referring to Rabbonim, Roshei Yeshiva etc. that disseminate Torah. It is referring to men that just sit and learn Torah like Kollel men nowadays who then do not necessarily go on to take up any position. That is why the Apikorus says ‘They are learning only for themselves’ and that is the Apikorsus referred to by the OP.
WIY: Yes, but serious masmidim who learn through Sha”s are accomplishing the ultimate purpose. It’s irrelevant if they end up contributing to the Klal in a practical way or not. This is what the Gemara in Chelek means to imply.
This implies that if one only learns forever, he does not benefit Klal Yisroel.
I believe you owe me K’nas. I did not say that, and explained later that your point was not true. How about actually reading the whole thread, or it that too hard for you?
Every word of torah learnt is mikayim the world. i think kiyum ha’oilam is a pretty hefty contribution.
I completely agree.
Here are the posts, in case you asked.
mdd, I await your apology.
I think there can be little doubt that even one who learns but doesn’t become a Rov or posek, as long as he is doing it lishmo, is indeed doing something for klal yisroel, in fact for the entire world. It isn’t a matter of IF something is being accomplished, but HOW MUCH. And what is the opportunity cost? Could this person accomplish more by learning part time and working part time? Could he then be able to give more tzedokoh, or end up supporting someone who would become a rov or a posek?? Could he take some of the burden off of his wife, and make a more cheindik environment for his kids to grow up in, thereby bringing the potential for a gadol from his own family in the future? These are the questions which demand answers, and I don’t think asking them is apikorsus, If it is, then you would be calling the Rambam an apikorus.
“Also, some people wrote that Kollelim is a new invention. This is not true. The understanding of the value of Torah study was always there, just the financial resources were not available in Europe. “
MDD: No one is disagreeing about the Torah VALUE. But as the other poster wrote, the idea of a Kollel is a fairly new invention. The first kollel was the Kovno Kollel that started in 1877. However, this kollel was not like we have today. The Kovno Kollel required each student to separate from their family all week except on Shabbos and there was a FOUR YEAR LIMIT that a student can be in the Kollel. R’ Aron Kotler and R’ Shach modified the philosphy of the Kovno Kollel to its current state.
So the poster is correct, until R’ Kotel & R’ Shack Ztl, there was no such thing as a full time kollel where you spent time with your family. You actually learned Yomom V’Layla without interruption. But even then, there was a time limit.
Finally, being Motzi Shem Rah on another person is worse then being what you called him. He could change and be a ben torah, if he was an apikores, however, the fact that the Motzi Shem Rah will now live forever in cyberspace will be an everlasting avayrah. Please be careful with what you post.
GAW, firstly, I indeed often do not have the time to read very long threads. You should have been more careful with what you said. The onus is on you.
Shtus V’hevel! You accuse someone, and then agree that you did not read what he said (especially if I admitted there that I could be misinterpeted)? I await you asking Mechila.
If you want to discuss that post
1: Ask mechila
2: Do so in the other thread.
All, can we please stop tossing around the “A” word every time someone says or posts something we don’t agree with? MDD, people who hold different shitos than you do, or even people who are mistaken in pshat are not apikorsim. You are being motzei shem rah on good Jews who simply have a different outlook than you do or, at worst, are simply in error.
Raphael Kaufman
I second what you wrote. The A word has a specific meaning (which most people dont know unless they learned the Rambam in depth) so lets stop tossing it around.
please keep in mind, mdd, that in the mishna the halacha most often went according to Rav Meir. Many tannoim disagreed with him on many issues though. It is befeirushe there too. That didn’t make them apikorsim.
I did not write that GAW is an apikores — I wrote that his statement is apikorsus.
That is true.
And it is not just my opinion, it is an open Gemora!
It is not. Even you said it was only your own implication.
I am still waiting for an apology.
Even if it’s an open gemara, that does not make it apikorsus either.
For example, if I were to say that R. Shimon ben Gamliel (instead of R. Yochanan ben Zakkai) told Vespasian that he was going to be the emperor, is that apikorsus? I would venture to say that it’s simply an incorrect statement and nothing more. Is 2+2=7 an apikorsus statement (since, I’m sure somewhere the gemara must add up two sets of two items each to come to a total of 4, such as by tefillin)?
In short, not every statement that disagrees with an open gemara is apikorsus. Wrong != Apikorsus.
The Wolf
About the apology — I do not believe, I owe you one.
You do realize that placing the comma between “believe” and “I” makes them independent clauses and that you just said that you *do* owe him an apology, right?
The Wolf
Mdd:
Since I didn’t say that, and something for Klal Yisroel doesn’t mean no benefit from learning. That was your own incorrect implication, which, had you read the next post, you would have known was not correct. You should reconsider.
I expect an apology and/or a retraction.
GAW never said there was NO benefit to learning unless you contribute something substantial to the k’hal (though even if he did so, I very much doubt that would be apikursus – just wrong). He simply said that in the good old days, learners did not expected money, and workers were not expected to help support people’s learning unless those people where using their studies to prepare for a position that tangibly contributes to the k’hal through rabanus, dayanus, teaching, and psak.
RSRH: I didn’t even go that far (although that could be argued).
What I did say is that we need Yeshivos that are specificly geared to creating those who “tangibly contributes to the k’hal through rabanus, dayanus, teaching, and psak”, and to not allow in those who will not “tangibly contributes to the k’hal through rabanus, dayanus, teaching, and psak”.
mdd: None the less, incorrect. Don’t make a Diyuk where there is none, unless you think I’m on the level of a Rishon (In that case, you honor me greatly, and I accept).
I seriously don’t understand the argument here. It’s an open Gemora in Sanhedrin Perek 12 that anyone can look up that somebody who says that people who just sit and learn don’t contribute to the klal are apikorsim. Not just mistaken, not just a little skewed or left-wing in hashkofa but the big A word. Apikorus. No chelek in Olom haba. And nobody argues on that shito. Too extreme? Don’t like it? Don’t agree with the Gemara? Then don’t light Shabos candles and don’t put strange black straps on your arms and head daily. Then find another branch of Judaism that discards the words of the Chazal like Reform or Conservative.
Well said, on the ball.
It’s an open Gemora in Sanhedrin Perek 12 that anyone can look up that somebody who says that people who just sit and learn don’t contribute to the klal are apikorsim.
I highly doubt it’s in Perek 12.
In any event, I repeat my request from above and ask for a cite. In other words, please advise where the gemara is (the daf and side would be helpful).
The Wolf
Sorry Perek 11 daf 99b towards the end of the page
Sorry Perek 11 daf 99b towards the end of the page
OK, very well. Thank you for the citation.
The Gemara there clearly talks about Rabannan. It does not talk about regular people who are sitting and learning. It talks about a case where someone questions “Mai Ahanu Li Rabbanan.” It does not talk about someone who says “Mai Ahanu Li HaLomdai Torah.”
The Wolf
Don’t agree with the Gemara? Then don’t light Shabos candles and don’t put strange black straps on your arms and head daily.
On the broader argument which you mention, however, I still maintain my point… that a statement made in contravention to an open gemara* is not necessarily apikorsus. Stating that 2+2=7 is not apikorsus (despite the fact that it goes against an open gemara). It’s just plain wrong, period. Being incorrect != stating apikorsus.
In addition, I find your attitude disturbing. Your advocating the complete abandomnent of mitzvos for someone who disagrees with an open gemara (whether they are an apikorus or not) is simply wrong. Please cite me where an apikorus is no longer obligated to do mitzvos (that you so casually tell him not to do so anymore).
The Wolf
* Excluding the case at hand since it explicitly mentions being an apikorus.
Wolf:
“The Gemara there clearly talks about Rabannan. It does not talk about regular people who are sitting and learning. It talks about a case where someone questions “Mai Ahanu Li Rabbanan.” It does not talk about someone who says “Mai Ahanu Li HaLomdai Torah.”
No on the contrary. Rabanan there clearly refers to regular people sitting and learning. For the avoidance of doubt I will quote the Gemara and Rashi there and I believe it is then self-evident.
‘Who is an Apikorus? Said Rav Yosef, those that say ‘What use are Rabanan to us – they read (Scripture) for themselves, they learn for themselves’ Says Rashi: ‘And they don’t realise that the world remains in place due to them’
Clearly this doesn’t refer to Rabbonim, Roshei Yeshiva and other disseminators of Torah who obviously and directly are benefiting others otherwise these people aren’t Apikorsim – they are simply blind or stupid and Rashi’s comment that the world remains in place due to the Rabanan (and the Gemara following this with a quote from Abaye) is a little puzzling and superfluous. The Gemara and Rashi’s comment indicate unequivocally that the reference is to someone just sitting and learning.
Wolf:
“On the broader argument which you mention, however, I still maintain my point… that a statement made in contravention to an open gemara* is not necessarily apikorsus. Stating that 2+2=7 is not apikorsus (despite the fact that it goes against an open gemara). It’s just plain wrong, period. Being incorrect != stating apikorsus.”
I never said disagreeing with a Gemara constitutes apikorsus. I don’t believe the OP did either. We both are simply referring to the Gemara in Sanhedrin as per above post that calls somebody that says ‘ Mai Ahanu lan Rabanan’ an Apikorus.
“In addition, I find your attitude disturbing. Your advocating the complete abandomnent of mitzvos for someone who disagrees with an open gemara (whether they are an apikorus or not) is simply wrong.
Obviously I would not advocate that anybody abandons Torah and Mitzvos. My sentiments were just a stark way of stating that as believing orthodox Jews you cannot pick and choose which Chazal you agree with and which you don’t like the Reform and Conservative do.
“Please cite me where an apikorus is no longer obligated to do mitzvos (that you so casually tell him not to do so anymore)”
Ok, here are 2 similar examples of this way of stating things in Tanach:
1) Yehoshua Perek 24 – the words of Yehoshua – ‘ And if you do not see fit to serve Hashem, choose for yourselves today who you will serve, either Hashem that your fathers over the river served, or the gods of the Emori in whose land you are dwelling, while I and my household will serve Hashem’
2)Melachim 1 Perek 18 – the words of Eliyahu – ‘ How long will you jump between 2 opinions? If Hashem is the G-d follow Him and if the Baal, follow him.’
GAW, I thought I could be medayek be’dvarecha.
That’s OK. As I pointed out later in that thread, I used words that could have been misconstrued, and I explained myself later on.
Thank you for thinking well of me.
GAW, a Talmud Chocham does not have to pay defence budget taxes because he protects himself. He also protects others. Not tangible?
Of course it is (as per the gemorah). What it doesn’t do is contribute to the continuity of the Klal, by having Poskim, Rabbonim, etc.
Without question (and my Rov agrees), our first priority should be the continuation of Yiddishkeit, and that is only possible if we have Gedolim & Rabbonim who are critical to the continuation of the Klal.
Just to add fuel to the fire, mdd wrote, “…I do not believe, I owe you one,”
The comma creates two independant clauses, the first of which, “I do not believe” actually is apikorsus.
Mdd also said, “I did not write that GAW is an apikores — I wrote that his statement is apikorsus.” That strikes me as a distinction without a difference.
Mdd also said, “I did not write that GAW is an apikores — I wrote that his statement is apikorsus.” That strikes me as a distinction without a difference.
It does, because later on he agreed it was an inference (Diyuk) that he thought he could make in my Holy lashon, based on my stature as a Rishon, or at least a Talmid Chochom (of which I am neither). Since I admit the inference is incorrect, that makes his OP an incorrect interpetation (which is allowed, this is the CR). And I already said my words could have been misinterpeted.
LOL, its all good in my book.
gavra: I don’t intend to be caustic, but I think often your brief comments are open to misinterpretation.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.