Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
DY: Of course it is. That’s what makes us right. If the actual Mekoros and proper application thereof supported what they were doing then they wouldn’t be in the wrong. That’s how Halachah works. (Okay, so if the sources backed them up what they are doing would have probably been done long ago, which is precisely the point.)
HaLeiVi: Actually, it’s Lich’ora a Machlokes Rishonim. I think Rashi in Bava Kama holds Assur L’hatzil Atzmo B’mamon Chaveiro is literal. And there are more Rishonim who hold that if you don’t have money to pay back then it’s also Assur.
old man: Good to hear from you. I would like to slightly amend your first statement, though. Mesorah trumps the written word when that Mesorah has some slight backing in the written word. There are T’shuvos HaRishonim that mention that a Minhag is allowed to be K’negged HaDin, but the Achronim (it’s a Mahari Weil that others quote, if I recall correctly) say that that’s only if the Minhag goes back to the time of Chazal, because presumably then it was done Al Pi the Chachamim. You find it throughout the words of the Rishonim and Achronim when there is a Minhag that is clearly against the Din and they can’t find a Shemetz of support for it, they (attempt to) remove that Minhag.
DY: Ah, interesting. My point is that you need sources to dispute their source-less change to Judaism. Otherwise, what makes you more right than them? It’s just he-said-she-said. You might be right because you happen to be right, but that’s really not how Yiddishkeit works.
R’ Chaim was a Chiddush in how to learn the Rishonim, which is fine because, by definition, there can’t really be a Mesorah from Chazal on how to learn the Rishonim. He didn’t change how to learnt he Tannaim and Amoraim.
DY: The Darchei HaLimud are based on Mesorahs that have a Makor in Shas and Rishonim. Whether it’s Pilpul, Brisker, or anything in between, the way it is done is based on a Mehalech the early Rishonim had in Shas, which they themselves received from the Geonim who had a tradition straight from the Amoraim. The early Rishonim and Geonim had direct Mesorahs to Chazal (meaning they could quote, Ish Achar Ish, who they were saying their statements in the name of). No one today can do any such thing. If someone had an unwritten Mesorah that they could quote who it came from and how that Mesorah was transmitted Midor L’dor then it would be different. A random person claiming an “unwritten Mesorah” that has no basis in Seforim but is a core belief in Judaism is an attempt to uproot Judaism, plain and simple.
To be honest, I’m not sure why you’re arguing with me here. You agree with this point. You just won’t concede because LF happens to be either right or not-so-wrong in this case. But if anyone else made any claim and had to back it up by saying it’s central in Yiddishkeit but have no Makor for it, you would tell them to join Shmuely Yanklowitz and Zev Farber and leave you alone.
DY:I might not disagree with you there, though someone in the link in the chain of the Mesorah generally has proofs from Shas UPoskim for what they say. That’s part of what makes them a link in the chain.
With all due respect to LF, I think we can agree that (s)he is not (yet) a link in the transmission of the Mesorah.
gefen There is an important rule in life that comments on internet articles are worse than useless. They are usually the worst of humanity who have nothing better to do than write their frustration out anonymously. Maybe we expect more of Frum Jews, but maybe we should stop that expectation. Those who actually take the time to post mean comments are those who have nothing better to do. So we shouldn’t extrapolate from them to the rest of the community. And, honestly, it’s better that these angry people write comments that everyone (other than other angry people) ignore, rather than doing actions in real life;
DY: Really? If someone came out and started saying that he has a Mesorah from his Rebbe to do X and that that Mesorah goes back to Sinai, would you believe him? He admits he can give no Remez to it in Shas, Rishonim, or Achronim, but says that what he has is really Emes and there is no room to argue on it because it goes back to Sinai. Would you believe him or would you say he’s a nut and trying to change Yiddishkeit?
(Once again, I am not commenting on this specific case. I am attacking LF’s attempted line of argument.)
DY: I wasn’t talking about whether “Daas Torah” has a Makor in Shas or not. I was attacking LF’s assertion that there can be an unwritten Mesorah. Don’t lose sight of that. I’m sure Daas Torah has Mekoros in Shas (I could name them for you). As does the opposition of Daas Torah. That wasn’t my point in this thread.
DY: Go back to my first post on this topic. I said that any Chiddush in the realms of Halachah (and yes, the way the world works counts as Halachah) has to have a Makor in Shas. You have to be able to prove it from a source in Chazal. Everything in the Rishonim and Achronim (including the Shulchan Aruch 🙂 ) is based in Chazal. A “Mesorah” that’s not in any Sefarim, by definition, isn’t.
DY: Ravina V’rav Ashi Sof Hora’ah?
HaLeiVi: Halevai that your paragraph of “There is a lot of misinformation here. As seen earlier in this thread, it was assumed by many outside observers that Daas Torah means that we would ask a Rov for a medical opinion. People rail against “Daas Torah” without knowing what it is.” was true. If it is, great. I would humbly ask LF if that is what (s)he means by Da’as Torah. I have problems with the theoretical “Daas Torah” concept that even the Mili D’alma of a “Gadol” is Halachically binding on everyone. But if that doesn’t exist, then Shalom Al Yisrael.
I still strongly protest any claims of any unwritten Mesorahs, though, for the reasons I explained.
DY: I explicitly said why it was different. And that that is probably the reason we have Remazim to Torah Sheba’al Peh in Chumash-so that it cannot be denied. When we had a Chazal with a direct, unbroken oral Mesorah the Mesorah was oral. Now that we assume they wrote down the entirety of that oral Mesorah for us, how is there room for any other unwritten Mesorah?
DY: I very, very clearly said that this is true after the Chasima of the Gemara. We assume that the Gemara and Midrashim from the Tannaim and Amoraim contain the corpus of Torah Sheba’al Peh that was transmitted from Sinai until then. That is an Ikkar Emunah. But you cannot claim any oral tradition outside that because no one can disprove you. (And, in fact, the Gemara tells us that Torah Sheba’al Peh is referenced in Torah Shebiksav, presumably for this very reason.)
LF: Please, please, tell me what gave you the impression that I “have nothing against those who are trying to reinvent, modernize, adjust, downgrade Yiddishkeit”. I would love to know where you got that from. I promise you, you won’t find it. And, frankly, I find it insulting that you said such a thing and that the mods let it through without at least some sort of attempt to substantiate your attack. I intentionally did not address the paragraph attacking “unwritten Mesorahs” to you because I wanted to show I was attacking a concept, not you as a person. But please, back up your argument or apologize.
PAA: At least acknowledge that the Dor Revi’i was attacked for these Shittos and that he is on the fringe of accepted thought, if not outright rejected.
HaLeiVi: LF’s claim that there is an unwritten Mesorah of a special trust in Talmidei Chachamim is, frankly, scary. Not because it’s wrong, but because we can never claim unwritten Mesorahs. Why is that unwritten Mesorah any better than the “Tikkun Olam” Mesorah of the Reform or the “Hashem obviously wanted us to be nice people at the expense of Halachah” Mesorah of the Open Orthodox? We have a corpus of Torah Sheba’al Peh that contains our entire Mesorah. Once you go outside of that, you are lost.
streekgeek: There is a Gemara that references that they changed the way a river flows. It has Halachic Nafka Minas, but nowhere did the Gemara seem to indicate (as I recall) that it was something that shouldn’t have been done.
DY: Each other’s. Because Achim Min HaAv V’Lo Min HaEim is Muttar for B’nei Noach. They didn’t marry their own.
DY: Wouldn’t it be because it would be an Issur Misah? Unless you assume Bakol was a Bas Hagar?
No, I would not let my (nonexistent) daughter marry Wolf.
HaLeiVi: It’s LF’s claim that anyone against the expansion of “Daas Torah” doesn’t have a proper Mesorah that really bothers me.
And I think you might be overreaching as well. I recall R’ Schachter once mentioning that the Melech wasn’t the top of the Sanhedrin because different talents are needed in leading the generation politically and in Paskening Halachah.
ben: I know it’s true. I just wanted to know LF’s reason why. The simple explanation for this whole debate is that he/she assumes the Chazon Ish’s answer while others take the Rambam’s and Kessef Mishnah’s approach.
Just a point, by the way. Whenever you try claiming an unwritten Mesorah for anything, you are treading very, very dangerous waters. One of the most important parts of our Mesorah (post-Gemara) is that everything you say is verifiable-i.e. you can trace it back to the Gemara, who we believe had a direct Mesorah from Sinai. Thus, everything one says in Torah goes back to Sinai. When you claim a “Mesorah” that you can’t read into a Gemara, you are essentially claiming that you know something that the Tannaim and Amoraim didn’t choose to write down. Basically, you could make up anything and claim “Mesorah” and call out other people for not having it. That’s not the way Yiddishkeit works. In fact, it is that the exact opposite is true (that any claim that anyone makes has to be backed up in what we now have written in Torah Sheba’al Peh) that has allowed Torah and Yiddishkeit to thrive and remain unbroken even in this long Galus. You may even be right about this unwritten Mesorah. But it is a potentially lethal game to play.
LF: I think you have some basics right but you are taking things too far. Any Chacham Shehigia L’hora’ah is allowed to argue on any other Chacham Shehigia L’hora’ah, even if one is greater than the other. The Gemara says that a Chacham Shelo Higia L’Hora’ah who Paskens destroys the world. You are extending things farther and saying there is a subgroup here of people who no one is allowed to argue on. That group has not existed since we lost the Sanhedrin HaGadol.
No one is claiming that national matters of importance shouldn’t be decided by Talmidei Chachamim or that the biggest Talmidei Chachamim shouldn’t handle the biggest Shailos. Some just think that the concept has been extended too far. To quote the Gemara, the Torah gave each of us permission to say that something is Kosher, etc. There are parts of life that we are expected to live on our own.
I’m curious, by the way. Why do you think that Amoraim can’t argue on Tannaim and Rishonim can’t argue on Amoraim?
PAA: Of course we can’t decide that they are wrong (well, unless we have a Ra’aya Muchrach from Shas, which if it actually is presumably they would be Chozer if we presented it to them). But we are certainly allowed to ask questions. LF seems to think that we can’t do that. (This reminds me of the comment I once heard someone make when they called someone a Kofer for asking a Kashya from a Gemara on a P’sak of R’ Chaim Kanievsky.)
PAA: For whatever it’s worth, R’ Moshe Shternbuch in T’shuvos V’hanhagos disagrees with this R’ Moshe and explains why you might need Rov HaRosh. On the other hand, I would have no problem whatsoever just saying R’ Moshe wrote a T’shuvah V’su Lo Midi.
LF: According to you, why is there a Parsha of Par He’elam Davar in the Torah? Better yet, how can Machlokes even exist? Isn’t someone arguing with a Gadol somewhere in there?
PAA: I believe that a Rebbe in KBY is famous for saying something along the lines that the Olam HaYeshivos hold of Daas Torah for R’ Shach’s every word-except his opinion on what he knew the most about, Talmud Torah!
feivel: That I do not know. I do know that they have 4 or 5 texts from the time that use the phrase. I don’t know if any of those pre-date the Torah (in terms of physical existence in this world), so it could be that they borrowed the phrase from the Jewish usage. Or it could have been a common phrase from another text, and Dibrah Torah K’lashon B’nei Adam. I could ask someone about this when I get the chance, but I don’t expect to be in contact with anyone in the field for quite a while.
LF: Rabbi Genack is the head of the OU.
And no one claims that a Gadol stops being great. But Gedolim do make mistakes and can even have (usually very slight) personal flaws at times. That’s something to be respected, not ignored. There is nothing to be learned from an angel being an angel. There is much to be learned from a person coming very close.
Very interesting. The Gemara uses the fact of not making a bald spot being called “Bein Einayim” to prove that it means above the forehead by Tefillin as well. Academic researchers have pointed out that the phrase “between the eyes” means above the forehead in several ancient middle eastern works. Apparently it was a common idiom at the time (which highlights the anachronistic foolishness of the Karaites for being unable to realize that their simple reading of the words did not take context into account).
Though this is certainly a very cool Remez.
LF: We see it in this week’s Parshah. A N’giyus Badavar can take down even the Gedolei HaDor (see the Zohar as to why the Meraglim wanted the Jews to stay in the Midbar). That’s an extreme case, but N’giyus exists everywhere in life. There is a Gemara in Bava Metzia with a list of Amoraim who wouldn’t be a Dayan for anyone who had ever done them a favor. I’m not going to be one to come out and try to find which Psakim (if any) of which contemporary Poskim come from any sort of N’giyus, but it certainly exists somewhere. To be human is to have biases. That’s how we were created. One of the challenges of life is to ignore those biases when the time comes up.
In regards to your second point, he was just quoting from someone who had a strong Mesorah in Europe and never heard the phrase used in that context.
HaLeiVi: There is no Mitzvah of Hafrashas Challah in CHU”L Buzman HaZeh. There is just a Minhag L’zecher B’alma.
So I saw DY’s post and was sad that I hadn’t looked at this thread until now.
Then I saw squeak’s and I’m sad that I even looked now.
It’s funny because Popa’s OP could be read as both a critique of Zionism and anti-Zionism, which I think was exactly the point. Maybe.
PAA: One-ness should not be confused with the lack of other deities. Although, according to the Rambam, the lack of other deities is obvious because other deities would be a lack of One-ness (and a lack of Infinity, but those are one and the same).
PAA: Not only is it a limitation, it’s a lack of One-ness. Because anything that has defined areas has, by definition, areas not within its definition.
He was a Rav there in 1927-1928. He is famously standing next to R’ Moshe Soloveitchik in a picture from the dedication of one of the Beis Midrash buildings.
DY: Whose status? Apikores Sheta’ah Mitoch Limudo? The Ra’avad certainly does.
PAA: In theory. But such a person would have to be a Bar Hachi of disagreeing and be able to give Ra’ayos to defend it. Joe Schmoe can’t come off the street and say he wants to Pasken like a rejected opinion. R’ Shteinman can prove why a rejected opinion might not be K’firah. Shmuely Yanklowitz can’t. And certainly not in this case where he just asserts it and doesn’t even attempt to give a Torah backing to his opinion.
PAA and DY: “Emunah Sh’leimah” is just a phrase they put in the Siddur. The Chiyuvim (which differ slightly by each Ikkar because some Ikkarim lend themselves to absolute proof/knowledge more than others) are to believe they are true, whether or not we can contrive hypotheticals to the contrary.
DY: I disagree here also. If the Rambam didn’t take such a prominent place in philosophical history in Yiddishkeit, it’s entirely possible that standard Jewish thought would be quasi-corporealist (certainly Mekubalim would have a much easier time than just calling everything a Mashal, when concepts like Shiur Komah and Heichalot are relatively prominent). Most of Kaballah is probably K’firah according to the Rambam anyway. The point is that as history moves on, Judaism has had beliefs that are accepted and aren’t accepted. The Rambam changed what those are (quite drastically if you were an Ashkenazi), and we have slowly changed away from some of the Rambam’s. Which is fine. We are Noheg what we assume to be acceptable beliefs, which is how we can “Pasken” on these Inyanim and why those Psakim aren’t necessarily K’vuim L’olam Va’ed. (Someday maybe I’ll tell the story about the Rav from Lakewood who thought that Spinoza’s theology of pantheism was closer to Emes than K’firah.) This is what PAA refuses to acknowledge. He thinks if something was ever not-K’firah, then it has to remain not-K’firah L’olam Va’ed. You are the opposite extreme. You think the definitions of K’firah always remain the same but the P’sak about them sometimes can change (e.g. before a consensus is reached). P’shat is probably like GAW. There is an objective M’tziyus. If we’re being honest we have to admit that there is some dispute as to what it is. However, we are not obligated (nor are we capable) to discover it. We believe the current consensus of what K’lal Yisrael has accepted throughout the generations because to do otherwise would be to be Motzi ourselves from K’lal Yisrael. And if it turns out that the minority opinions (which have since been rejected) were correct on some Ikkarei Emunah, that’s okay. HKBH doesn’t expect us to discover the M’tziyus when we have no ability to do so. He expects us to do what we can.
As far as I know, the only Rishon whose Shittah precludes any Machlokes in matters regarding Ikkarei Emunah (sort of, he has two different types of Ikkarim in this regard) is the Rambam’s. Needless to say, we don’t hold like him in that regard.
PBA: It’s not a joke. I once met a Daf Yomi Maggid Shiur who refuses to teach the “inappropriate” Gemaras to his balabatim. He tells them to just read it in the artscroll instead.
golfer: He’s not wrong. T’fillah B’eis Tzarah is a special obligation in T’fillah on its own, outside of the normal Chiyuv to Daven.
PAA: What DY is saying is actually very Mistaber and, moreover, removes your question. If we assume that once there is a consensus on an Ikkar Emunah that that means that HKBH would not have allowed a wrong view to become consensus and, therefore, the consensus view is the right one, there is nothing wrong with having argued before the consensus. Yes, those arguing may have been wrong in an Ikkar Emunah, but it wasn’t K’firah because they had no proof that they were wrong. It’s a Machlokes in a M’tziyus that they could not be M’varer, so the Machlokes stands. Nowadays, though, that we know the M’tziyus (by virtue of the consensus), arguing on the M’tziyus of an Ikkar Emunah would be Apikorsus.
(That being said, I don’t know that the Chazon Ish having a Shittah and every 5th-7th grade Rebbe teaching the Chazon Ish and ignoring the other Shittos counts as a consensus, which is what basically happened with a few of the opinions about some Ikkarei Emunah in the last 50 years. But everyone agrees that belief in Mashiach is an Ikkar Emunah, so that’s not relevant here.)
PAA: It’s clear we don’t Pasken like the Rambam on an Apikores Sheta’ah Mitoch Limudo. We don’t throw out all the other Rishonim. Learn the first section of the Moreh. It’s clear we don’t hold of his conception of Olam Haba (and by that I mean it’s clear that almost all the other Rishonim and philosophical Achronim in history held by it) and therefore we’re not going to hold like him by an Apikores Sheta’ah Mitoch Limudo.
PAA: It doesn’t matter. At all. And I’ll explain why.
Whether or not someone is a Kofer is up to HKBH. It has no Nafka Minas to us. So if someone accidentally or intentionally has beliefs that may cost them their Olam Haba, it does not relate to us.
Ah, but what about the fact that a Kofer is Dino K’Goy? That’s only because a Mumar L’Avodah Zarah/K’fira is a Mumar L’chol HaTorah Kula. But as long as they don’t think they’re a Kofer (i.e. as long as they think their views fall in with traditional Torah Judaism) then they’re not Mumrim for Kol HaTorah, so their food, wine, Shechita, etc. are fine. This is quite clear from the beginning of Maseches Chullin.
Ah, but you’ll tell me that Shmuely Yanklowitz and Zev Farber thinks their views are legitimate Torah views. I’ll tell you that they are lying to both you and themselves. They know what they’re saying is K’fira. They just want to redefine K’fira (and Judaism). Which is exactly what K’fira is.
If you’re in the states, no Shuls say Tachanun because it’s Isru Chag.
42: I don’t expect them to revoke his Smicha. The issue with revoking Smicha is that it gives an implicit stamp of approval on other Smichas. Then they’d have to start drawing lines about too many individuals, which isn’t right or fair.
They should, however, publicly distance themselves from his (and Zev Farber’s) opinions. Their lack of doing so is glaring.
I believe Karaits count day 50.
PAA: I know a Rav who once told his Talmidim that they shouldn’t wear T’cheiles because he doesn’t wear T’cheiles. He doesn’t wear it because his Rav doesn’t wear it, etc. And he said when you have 3 generations of Rabbonim who do/don’t do something then it gets a Halachic status. I responded to him that I’m very sad to know he won’t be eating Korban Pesach with me B’vias Goel.
HaKatan: If you really want to save space and not be insulting, why not just write Rabbi Soloveitchik? Everyone would know who you’re referring to.