Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Goofus, was that going to be your next question: How can the Torah condone the killing of animals for human consumption?
Depends on how many cups I’m spilling on him.
You just asked the same question in different words. I don’t see why our answers would change.
He made up a story of a train ride where the rider has no choice, and doesn’t know where he’ll sit.
It’s not a true story, he made it up.
What don’t you understand about it?
Writersoul, legalizing marriage is a new level of acceptance.
See meforshim on 9 in the Medrash here:
You said “as long as”. I took that to mean, “on the condition that”.
Kol Hamarbeh means whoever increases, in other words, the more one relates about yetzias Mitzrayim, the better.
Perhaps you meant that as well, and I misunderstood your usage of “as long as”?
I’m not sure what you mean.
So spill it on popa. Then it wouldn’t be a waste.
It means whoever increases the amount of relating the story of yetzias Mitzraim is praised. My point was that there’s a lot to talk about and discuss, as there is in all areas in Torah.
If you want to understand more, learn more.
Some things in Torah seem to be outside the understanding of everyone.
Well, yes, it’s Divine wisdom, from the Infinite, being understood by mortal, finite, flesh and blood.
But what a zechus that we can get some of it.
About acetaminophen, that is completely false.
It’s certainly not false for me, I can read twenty journals, and I still won’t understand. That doesn’t change whether or not it works, does it?
Got it through Google. The two results I opened, I posted, but that’s irrelevant to my point.
So as long as one promulgates the story of leaving Mitzrayim it is praiseworthy? (not actually recognizing it as fact)
No, that’s a mistranslation.
What if one’s striving for answers borders upon apikorsus?
Same answer as earlier. That depends on the motivation.
From Tufts Journal:
And, a headline from Chemical and Engineering News:
So, it wasn’t a bad example. 🙂
No, I am asking basic questions that should be answered before living one’s life within a certain set of parameters.
I disagree. Na’aseh v’nishma. We can live our lives properly, unconditional of receiving answers, as catch yourself and I have pointed out. It means accepting our limitations, but not stopping to strive to understand more.
Please give an example where we, “can understand much.”?
I’ll start with your first example – yetzias Mitzrayim. Kol hamarbeh l’saper biyetzias Mitzrayim, harei zeh meshubach. If there’s so much to relate, there’s so much to learn.
“
And are you saying we get schar for asking questions that straddle upon apikorsus?
That depends on your motivation.
We can understand much; there’s so much to learn. We’ll never know everything, though, but part of the beauty of Yiddishkeit is that we get schar for trying to understand as much as we can about His Torah.
Goofus, first, that’s true but far from complete. Why does Hashem not want us to eat it?
Second, if I told you that slavery is condoned by the Torah because slavery is condoned by the Torah, would that be equally satisfying to you?
Okay… does that make it fine?
That depends a lot on the motivation of the question and lack of acceptance of the answer, but generally, I would say no, it’s not fine. However, putting it in that perspective certainly doesn’t make it sound quite as bad as “(S)he yelled at me simply for asking a question!”.
Goofus, why
is pig treif? Yes, there are explanations, but certainly not any which make me think, “of course, why didn’t I think of that?”.Zev, I don’t think it’s fair for you to assume how I would have reacted, unless you’re saying that your attitude justified the reactions.
And yes, one can believe without understanding 100%.
We don’t have a complete understanding of any of those things.
We don’t assume we understand anything 100%. We can only try our best to understand.
I agree that that’s not a complete answer. A more complete answer would involve a much more in depth analysis of the entire sugya, and more importantly, an in depth analysis of where we get our sense of morality from. Perfectly well meaning people from different cultures and different eras can have (and have had) vastly different perceptions of what is moral and what is immoral, and the only impartial arbiter of that is Hashem, and our ability to discern is only through His Torah. We may not understand, but with some humility, should accept our limitations in understanding.
Red meat?
The term slavery, its implications, and how it was carried out, are a very far cry from what the term “eved” means in the Torah. Aside from the strict halachos concerning how we must treat, and cannot treat, an eved, consider the fact that an eved is actually in a separate and more exalted category than an ordinary non Jew, and you will realize that using the word “slavery”, which conjures up images of the South in the 1700’s and 1800’s (and worse), is inaccurate.
You called those who held or hold like R’ Moshe “in denial”; others have said it in stronger language.
Avi, the context actually implies issur, even if not “mishum ervah” literally.
Health, that is not the only thing you, and others, have said about this topic.
Health, it’s one thing to hold like others, it’s another to disparage those who hold like R’ Moshe (and other gedolim) as you have.
Acharonim sensor – what shaychus?
Well, the famous story with the Vilna Gaon seems like you. He was in jail, and rebuked the guard, a Jew who had shmadded himself, for eating without a brachah.
The guard was taken aback. “I completely abandoned Yiddishkeit, and you’re worried about my saying a brachah?!”
The Gaon explained how a person will be held accountable for every single deed.
As the story goes, he came back to Yiddishkeit.
May all of our lost brethren at YCT come back to Yiddishkeit.
Not so plausible, but yes, funny.
CY: Ask better.
Do they ask the apikorsim why they didn’t learn Torah? And if they do, do the apikorsim think that being an apikores is a good excuse?
I really don’t think R’ Moshe ztl would hold nowadays…
That’s what everyone says when they don’t like an opinion of R’ Moshe’s.
That’s why he’s still got blood stains on his coat.
Simcha613, so you agree that stealing isn’t immoral without the Torah, it’s just not in society’s best interest to allow it. That’s not morality, that’s pragmatism.
Oot and CA, precisely. What makes that more moral than my pickpocketing CA? Socially necessary, yes. Acceptable by Torah law? Yes. Moral? What’s that?
CA, why are you any more entitled to that $100 in your pocket than I am? In fact, I’ll use it more wisely than you will, so I should have it, not you.
Simcha613, we’re not trying to “impose” our beliefs on them, although we’d like to, but regardless, it’s not hypocritical when you’re correct.
ZD, I’m not trying to convince them.
I could make a good argument that without religion, stealing would be okay. It’s irrelevant; the Torah forbids it, so it’s not okay.
The Torah also says this is wrong, and belief in, and following the Torah, is not optional.
Also, as Sam pointed out in this thread, without Torah, society goes downhill:
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/what-happens-when-god-is-removed
Goq, who cares? The Torah does say it, and belief in, and following the Torah is not optional.
Also, as Sam pointed out in this thread, without Torah, society goes downhill.
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/what-happens-when-god-is-removed
LG, she made that choice willingly.
Zev7 and goofus weren’t “ostracized” for asking questions, it was for rejecting the answers.