- This topic has 78 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 6 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Laskern, the Maharal didn’t really take out Machn8sei Rachamim either. He gave a few reasons to explain it. And, he isn’t decided about the concept of directly asking them to intercede.
I explained why they put a red band on a baby. We make a proclamation through symbolism that we recognize that we are sinners (a sin is reflected in red), so the child should not be punished because of us.
Anyway, in the ten days, Hashem is close to us and we don’t need the malochim to intercede for us. The Rosenfeld slichos that I say for Austria Hungary does not have the pizman malachei rachamim.
Laskern, there is a machloket regarding whether of not a red band is a red band is darchei Emori (Tosefta Shabbat 8:4). Certainly thinking that the band itself brings salvation (as I once read claimed) is a’z.
The Mahrik says that if there is an explanation, bechukasehem does not apply, since we are not following them blindly. So if there is an explanation a’z does not apply, as anyway, I said that the red band is a symbolism.
A vi K, it is not darchei ho’emori, it is Judaism, and denying it is Protestantism. The Torah itself says mezuza protects, and says not a word about having to know what’s in it. The gemara says that even a non-Jew is protected by a mezuza, and that “road warriors”, who rarely slept under their own roofs, would carry a mezuza with them and put it up in their hotel room each night, and this would protect them even though they were not fulfilling the mitzva.
The psak of the overwhelming majority of klal yisroel and of gedolei hamekubalim is that we *do* say machnisei rachamim, and we directly address the thirteen midos and ask them to intercede for us, and it is *not* a problem.
The Zohar says explicitly that we *should* ask the dead to intercede for us, and that it is *not* doresh el hameisim, because “meisim” refers to resha’im, even when they are alive, and not to tsadikim even if they happen to be dead.
mentch, the Kitsur says what he says, but he contradicts an explicit Zohar.
Milhouse,
1. Rabbi Eliezer ben Tzaddok says it is. Do you consider him to have been a Protestant? You obviously have no idea what darchei Emori is nor do you have an idea what Protestantism is.
2. The Torah says that about many mitzvot. It is the merit of the mitzva. However, it can be overridden by an aveira. You are making the same mistake Elisha ben Abuya made (Bavli Haggiga 66a, Yerushalmi Haggiga 2:1).
3. Please cite the Gemara that says that non-Jews are protected by it.
4. Who says that it is the pesak of the “overwhelming majority of klal yisroel and of gedolei hamekubalim”? BTW, the Chatam Sofer says (Responsa OC end of 51) that someone who mixes Halacha and Kabbala makes kilayim.
5. So what if he contradicts the Zohar (please cite the place)? Many poskim do not pasken according to it. For example, the Zohar says ( Parshat Chayai Sarah page 132 and Bamidbar page 20) to put on the hand tefillin while seated but Ashkenazim stand.Milhouse
I did not mean to imply that this isn’t a machlokes
I’m aware of other sources
I just felt someone misquoted the kitzurRebbe sent a Mezuza to Anteninus for a protection.
Oh, it’s Aggada, so it’s meant to be disregarded.
Milhouse, in all cases we should pray to Hashem to command the malochim or midas horachamim to intercede in our behalf.
HaLeiVi, it should not be ignored but also should not necessarily be taken literally. Obviously Rebbe meant that Antoninus should keep the sheva mitzvot and thus be protected., Keep the seven, go to Heaven.
Laskern, why does He need them to ask Him to do something He has already decided to do?
Avi K, Hashem wants to merciful but also just. Yaakov Avinu asked the sar of Aisov to accept the Brochas of Yitzchok Avinu. We need that the malochim should not be מקטרג, accusatory and allow Midas Horachmim to rule.
HaLeivi, Rebbi sent the mezuza to Arteban, not Antoninus.
No, Laskern, the nusach, which the overwhelming majority of mekubalim and of klal yisroel endorse, is to address the malachim and the middos directly. Those who opposed these nuschaos were a small minority and their opinion is rejected.
AviK, the Zohar is the piece that is printed in Maaneh Loshon. And Klal yisroel has accepted the authority of the Zohar and of Kabbalas haAriZal. Any psak that was made in ignorance of the kabala is automatically outdated, since if the posek had known the kabala he would have ruled differently.
When you claim that Rebbi didn’t really mean the mezuza would protect Arteban, you are just making things up. There is not even the slightest hint that he “really” meant for him to keep the 7 mitzvos. He said “You sent me something that I must protect, but I sent you something that will protect you”. There are not two ways of understanding that.
AviK, I know exactly what darchei ha’emori is, and what R Elazar B”r Tzadok said about it, and I accuse you of making up your claim that he regarded the belief that a mezuzah protects to be darchei ha’emori. Your entire position that it’s the kavana that protects is made up, and it is motivated by your refusal to accept that mitzvos actually achieve something in this world, or that physical objects can have inherent kedusha, which is essentially Protestantism.
Oh, and your view of Acher’s mistake is also made up. Acher’s mistake was to insist that “lemaan yirbu” is an absolute guarantee of long life in *this world*, so that even a single instance of it not working is proof that it’s false. The answer to his dilemma is that in this world there are no foolproof guarantees, protection does not mean absolute immunity, and that there is another world where all the Torah’s promises will be fulfilled, if they were not in this one.
AviK, suppose I have a mezuzah up on my door, and I know what it says and am constantly thinking of it, but there’s one little problem: it’s possul. One letter is missing, or there’s an extra letter, or a letter is malformed, or has split, etc. Leshitoshcho, why does it no longer protect me? Why, when we have problems, do we check our mezuzos and tefillin, to see whether an unknown psul might be responsible? After all, you claim it’s not the mezuzah, or even the mitzvah, which protects, but only the kavanah, and my kavanah can’t be affected by a psul of which I’m not even aware.
This proves that it’s not the kavana but the mezuza itself (or the mitzva of putting it up) that protects. If the mezuza is possul then no mitzva has been done, despite the greatest kavonos, and therefore the promised protection doesn’t come. And of course whatever protection comes from the physical mezuza cannot come from a posul one.
Milhouse, what does it hurt to daven to Hashem rather than directly to malochim that could hurt. He could be ovar on שם אלהים אחרים לא ישמע על פיך See the Minchas Elozor not to say the names of the malochim by shofar aloud, where some is incorrect. See Korban Nesanel at the end of the first perek in Tractate Rash Hashana about the stanza midas horachamim. Could you give me the source that their opinion is rejected.
For a discussion of tefila to malochim like midas horachamim and its adjustments see Encyclopedia Otzar Yisroel under malochim.
The Magen Avraham 25 paskens that halacha supersedes kabalah e.g. when it comes to put tefillin on the hand sitting down or standing as our gemora indicates that mitzvas should be done standing as the implication of bekomo, bekama which is an accepted rule by the ashkanazim and certainly the brocho should be said standing. So, the paskim rule that we should not daven to malochim see Maharam Shik 293.
Milhouse,
1. I wrote that there is an opinion that red strings are darchei Emori not mezuzah.
2. If you are shogeg then maybe you get an “E’ for effort. On the other hand, you are lacking the full merit of the mitzva (that is also a protection). In any case, we do not know how these things work. It may be that someone was protected in this world but loses what he would have received for the merit in the next.
3. My interpretation of Rebbe’s intentions is at least as good as yours.
4. You are simply not correct that Am Yisrael has accepted the Zohar and Arizal’s pesakim. Rav Ovadia, for example, generally opposed paskening according to them where they contradicted the Mechaber. Ashkenazi poskim very rarely even mention them. The <a href=”http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14520&pgnum=23
“>Tzitz Eliezer has a long teshuva on this topic. Rav Yaakov Emden and the Chatam Sofer believed that Rashbi did not write most of the Zohar. See “Rabbi Berel Wein – How Authentic is the Zohar?” online.Laskern, there is a big debate about the place of Kabbal in Halacha. The Gra says that there is no machloket between the Gemara and the Halacha except one – whether or not a person may walk past someone who is davening on the side (the Gemara is meikal but the Zohar is machmir). However, this sometimes requires interpretation. For example, the Zohar says very harsh things about people who shave. Rav Chaim of Volozhin says that that only refers to someone who uses a razor.
AviK, red strings מאן דכר שמייהו? Red strings are definitely not a mitzvah, and there is no reason to suppose they give any protection, except that people have been saying so for at least 1500 years. A superstition doesn’t become true just by surviving for a long time. But mezuzah is a mitzvah, and every source from the chumash through the shulchon oruch says it protects.
Milhouse, the questions are how and to what extent. I contend that it is the merit of the mitzva, that the protection is not necessarily in this world and that it can be overridden by demerits.
avi k.
i will rewrite my drasha.tosfos in soteh referes to the gmara about kalev kipshuto. it connects it to another gmara in taanis dealing with hanhaga lemaase.
תענית דף ט”ז ע”א למה יוצאין לבית הקברות פליגי בה….וחד אמר כדי שיבקשו עלינו מתים רחמים
not the gmara or rashi or tosfos in both places have a problem with this.plus: rashi in parshas shlach brings this gmara about kalev. rashi explains peshat. rashi says many times “ani lo basi lefaresh ela peshuto shel mikra”.
plus” the rashbam in shlach also brings the gemara about kalev and says ” hagada nir’is peshat”.מהרי”ל הלכות תענית אות יח אל ישים מגמתו כנגד המתים השוכבים שם.
the pri megadim brings the maharil and says:
ובסידור מענה לשון יש תפלות מה שאומרים על הקברים משמע קצת שמבקשים מאת הנפש שיליץ טוב בעדנו.מנחת אלעזר חלק א’ סימן סח ודאי כוונת המהרי”ל דלא ישים מגמתו שהמת יושיעו באיזה כח דזהו בודאי עון פלילי אך כשמבקש מהמת שימליץ טוב בעדו להשי”ת בשמי מעלה בודאי גם המהרי”ל מודה דאין חשש וזהו כוונתו שלא ישים מגמתו נגד המתים בעצמם אבל לבקש להמליץ בעדו אין חשש.
בספר ‘הערות’ למסכת סוטה דף ךד ע”ב מובאת הכרעת הגרי”ש אלישיב זצ”ל דמזה שאנו אומרים תפלת ‘מכניסי רחמים’ שכביכול אנו מתפללים למלאכים, משמע שאנו נוקטים כדעה שניתן לפנות בבקשה אל המתים, אלא שצריך להזהר בזה שהבקשה היא שימליצו טוב בעדנו ולא שנחשוב שזה בכוחם להרע או להיטיב.
וכן הובאה דעת בעל הקהילות יעקב בספר ‘אורחות רבנו’ חלק א עמוד שה ”אמר לי מו”ר שתפלתנו על קברי צדיקים היר שאנו מבקשים מהם שיתפללו עבורנו”.
About what Harav Kook said: That’s for one to decide about himself wether he is on the level for this chumra, not that one should judge someone else if the other one who does keep the chumra is on that level.
Plus: I can understand if an individual takes on a chumra which is not common practice, but I am talking about minhagim and hiddur mitzvos practiced by thousands of yidden for generations, and they are doing it by instructions of their Rebbes, Roshei Yeshivos, Gedolei Hadar, or at least with the full knowledge of their Rebbes, Roshei Yeshivos and Gedolim.
What kind of a derech is it to be mekatreg on thousands of yidden that ‘maybe’ they are doing something wrong? Why not use the time and brains and energy to be melamed zchus on thousands of yidden and find sources to their minhagim and hidurim?
I wish you all the best.Why??
Knaidlach,
1. I find it hard to believe that Rav Eliashiv said “machnissei harachamim”.He was a Litvak and the Gra even opposed “barchunei l’shalom”. In any case, what does that have to do with the dead (BTW, the Gra opposed going to cemeteries in general as do the Briskers)?
2. If you are referring to Rav Kook’s teshuva on leaving EY to go to kivrei tzaddikim,he odes not say that it is a chumra but ikar hadin. He also says that it is not clear that there is a mitzva at all.
3. Rav Tuchachinsky casts doubts on the practice of making requests of the dead (Gesher haChaim 2:25). Certainly actually davening to them is a”z.
The MB 581, s”k 27 says that the reason we should go to the ztadikim in the beis hakavoros because it is a place of kedusha and the tefila is more listened to there.
Laskern, he adds that one should not address the dead but only Hashem.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.