Point being? I mean what she says is interesting. A lot of it makes sense. It fits with the Torah. But what is its relevance to this particular blog? What are you trying to say?
One of the major sources of friction and hostility in the Orthodox world - esepcially toward anyone who thinks differently - is the strongly feeling of being right and righteous and that anyone who disagrees is obviously wrong,and/or heretical and/or stupid.
Another critical point is expressed in the TED talk about positive thinking - without an accompanying concern for reality.
These two issues - always being right or at least on the right side and a belief that if you really want something G-d will provide without being concerned with reality - are perhaps the two most harmful beliefs.
Ok. I get it. But she is coming from a totally different perspective. You can NOT be wrong about Torah miSinai! No matter what! A Torah perspective of this would be more appropriate. For example: Teshuva me'Ahava turns Aveiros into Zechuyos. That is, a mistake has a positive value when it is recognized as a mistake.
@Yehuda - my concern is not regarding clear halacha or Torah principles. The problem is the interpretations or analysis of halacha - or distortions of clear halacha or principles made for social or personal gain. Not every decision made by a rabbi means that it is halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai or that it was said with clear ruach hakodesh etc.
My concern is that of the Netziv in his introduction to Bereishis - the tzadikim of Bayis Sheni felt that all those whose views differed from theirs must be an apikorus and did their best to have the executed as a heretic.
You can be wrong about your understanding of Torah.
Please note Rav Moshe's Introduction to the Igros Moshe. Eilu v'eilus refers to talmidei chachomim who try their best to understand the halacha even though they differer from each other and even though they might all be mistaken. [Maharal does not view one's best as constituting eilu v'eilu and he states that only Hillel and Shammai's views were eilu v'eilu.]
Point being?
ReplyDeleteI mean what she says is interesting. A lot of it makes sense. It fits with the Torah.
But what is its relevance to this particular blog? What are you trying to say?
One of the major sources of friction and hostility in the Orthodox world - esepcially toward anyone who thinks differently - is the strongly feeling of being right and righteous and that anyone who disagrees is obviously wrong,and/or heretical and/or stupid.
ReplyDeleteAnother critical point is expressed in the TED talk about positive thinking - without an accompanying concern for reality.
These two issues - always being right or at least on the right side and a belief that if you really want something G-d will provide without being concerned with reality - are perhaps the two most harmful beliefs.
Ok. I get it. But she is coming from a totally different perspective. You can NOT be wrong about Torah miSinai! No matter what!
ReplyDeleteA Torah perspective of this would be more appropriate.
For example: Teshuva me'Ahava turns Aveiros into Zechuyos. That is, a mistake has a positive value when it is recognized as a mistake.
@Yehuda - my concern is not regarding clear halacha or Torah principles. The problem is the interpretations or analysis of halacha - or distortions of clear halacha or principles made for social or personal gain. Not every decision made by a rabbi means that it is halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai or that it was said with clear ruach hakodesh etc.
ReplyDeleteMy concern is that of the Netziv in his introduction to Bereishis - the tzadikim of Bayis Sheni felt that all those whose views differed from theirs must be an apikorus and did their best to have the executed as a heretic.
You can be wrong about your understanding of Torah.
Please note Rav Moshe's Introduction to the Igros Moshe. Eilu v'eilus refers to talmidei chachomim who try their best to understand the halacha even though they differer from each other and even though they might all be mistaken. [Maharal does not view one's best as constituting eilu v'eilu and he states that only Hillel and Shammai's views were eilu v'eilu.]