Eruvin (64a) Rav Naḥman said: This halakha is not excellent, as concerning myself, as long as I have not drunk a quarter-log of wine, my mind is not clear. It is only after drinking wine that I can issue appropriate rulings.
Rava said to Rav Naḥman: What is the reason that the Master said this, making a statement that praises one halakha and disparages another? Didn’t Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina say: What is the meaning of that which is written: “But he who keeps company with prostitutes [zonot] wastes his fortune” (Proverbs 29:3)? It alludes to the following: Anyone who says: This teaching is pleasant [zo na’a] but this is not pleasant, loses the fortune of Torah. It is not in keeping with the honor of Torah to make such evaluations. Rav Naḥman said to him: I retract, and I will no longer make such comments concerning words of Torah.
So I was going to say how interesting this is, but i should be more careful.
ReplyDeleteIS a Gezeira a teaching? Or a preventative measure aimed to stop infringement of Torah law? And what of Shlomo hamelech who said דרכיה דרכי נועם וכל נתיבותיה שלום?
Also, what does it mean "as long as I have not drunk a quarter-log of wine, my mind is not clear. It is only after drinking wine that I can issue appropriate rulings."? How does this play into the discussion of the gemara?
There is some context to this gemara:
ReplyDelete"Returning to the matter itself, Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Even the gentile’s hired laborer, and even his harvester, may contribute to the eiruv in his stead, and this is enough. Rav Naḥman said: How excellent is this halakha. Even Rav Naḥman agreed with this statement, and viewed it as correct and substantiated. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שָׁתָה רְבִיעִית יַיִן — אַל יוֹרֶה. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: לָא מְעַלְּיָא הָא שְׁמַעְתָּא, דְּהָא אֲנָא כֹּל כַּמָּה דְּלָא שָׁתֵינָא רְבִיעֵתָא דְּחַמְרָא — לָא צִילָא דַּעְתַּאי. However, Rav Naḥman did not give his approval to all of Rav Yehuda’s rulings, as Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: If one drank a quarter-log of wine, he may not issue a halakhic ruling, as the wine is liable to confuse his thinking. With regard to this second statement, Rav Naḥman said: This halakha is not excellent, as concerning myself, as long as I have not drunk a quarter-log of wine, my mind is not clear. It is only after drinking wine that I can issue appropriate rulings. "
shiur on the daf
ReplyDeletehttps://alldaf.org/p/95083/
Are kabbalists apikorsim because they hold kabbalah to be better than Talmud? Chassidim who say chassidus was brought in because bava batra is so tedious to learn?
ReplyDeleteSource?!
ReplyDeleteIn
ReplyDelete, the Zohar became a
?canonical? book together with the Bible and the Talmud. The early Hasidic
master, Pinhas of Koretz, it is said, used to thank God that he had not been
created before the appearance of the Zohar for it was the Zohar that had
preserved him for Judaism (
). Of the Baal shemTov [the founder of Hasidism], it is related
that he would carry a copy of the Zohar with him at all times and he would see
the whole world in the Zohar.
,the Gaon of Vilna, the fierce opponent of
Hasidism, also believed in the supreme sanctity of the Zohar and his attitude was
shared by the majority of the
[those who opposed the Hasidim].
http://www.faculty.umb.edu/gary_zabel/Courses/Phil%20281b/Philosophy%20of%20Magic/Arcana/Kabbalah/Mysticism_ZohInflu_Jacobs.htm
So your great source is Louis Jakobs?
ReplyDeleteHas zero credibility!
He had enough credibility for the Rebbe to hire him as expert witness. Spend time in Chabad and they will tell you all this stuff.
ReplyDeleteWow!
ReplyDeleteSounds like you spent too much time or simply misunderstood
maybe i misunderstood-
ReplyDeletethe Gemara above is not saying that you cannot like a specific law or interpretation. The issur was to not issue halacha whilst intoxicated by alcohol. Rav Nahmani dislikes this halacha because he would drink before issuing rulings, hence it conflicts with his own personal practice.
All i said is that like the rulings of Meiri and Akiva Eiger, and that they (in my very humble perception) address some of the consequences of the gezeiro better than other opinions. That does not mean I said that the other opinions are wrong or false.
So you'll believe a secretary when she testifies about Trump but not an established rabbinical scholar when he says stuff you don't like?
ReplyDeleteApples and oranges
ReplyDeleteIn halacha or Torah, he's an apikorsus supreme. (and rav dessler's prodigy).
ReplyDeleteAs an, Academic, his claims or sources are quite accurate.
His conjecture based on what you cited is nonsense
ReplyDelete