tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post6514070688733683630..comments2024-03-29T09:34:59.827+03:00Comments on Daas Torah - Issues of Jewish Identity: Chareidi world continues to self-destructDaas Torahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07252904288544083215noreply@blogger.comBlogger114125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-6228175822405730872013-11-18T16:24:07.401+02:002013-11-18T16:24:07.401+02:00"'Ultra Orthodox Judaism is Sheker' W..."'Ultra Orthodox Judaism is Sheker' What a silly narrow minded statement. What aspect are you referring to? "<br /><br />I am referring to the aspect which claims a Rabbi's statement to be infallible. So the debate is where they say it is or isn't infallible. <br />Again, I referred you to the Torah about sacrifices for errors. you may claim that no ultra-orthodox ever say this, and then my statement might not apply. So the debate is whether some people claim that daas torah or such is infallible. <br />Ben MIkrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07122937371918515052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-10418925867647990602013-11-18T16:19:28.305+02:002013-11-18T16:19:28.305+02:00Well: "You call Rebbes and Kabbalist dreamers...Well: "You call Rebbes and Kabbalist dreamers. What a unmitigated Chutzpah and stupidity."<br />You obviously have a hard time in the subject of Torah. The speaks of neviim and dreamers of dreams. The Nevua can come to a navi like Moses, when he is awake, or it can come to a regular navi in his dreams, as is explained by Rambam. So what is the insult here? Kabbalists claim to have revelations from Eliyahu, from maggidim etc. This can be in a meditative state or in a dream. You seem insulted that the Torah would ever ask a question on Rebbes?<br /><br /><br />"but still you find yourself qualified to ridicule the words of the Sifri and countless Torah scholars"<br /><br />It is called the Yerushalmi, In case you or your child protoge have not heard of it, it is the Talmud Yerushalmi, where they vehemently disagreed with the Sifri. But it seems that not only do they not teach it at your establishment, but they also conceal the very existence of this particular Yerushalmi, since it would be most inconvenient.<br />Furthermore, I reiterate the words of Ramchal (who incidentally had revelations of Zohar on further books, eg Koheleth), who says we reject or accept a statement based on its rationality, not on who said it. So if ramchal lends his methodology to me, and you atatck this methodology, then you are also attacking the Ramchal. This is typical of Haredi mentality, but one should not be surprised at all if it comes form satmar.<br /><br />The Gra, who was greater than any Hassidic rebbes the 20th century, said that if Ramchal was alive in his day, he would go on foot to Italy to see him.<br /><br />I accept your explanation of dome l'malach. I am saying in reality, it doesnt work, and that many still hold their rebbes to be inerrant. If you don't follow my argumentation, then I am sorry. The issue is that the subjective view of a rebbe being dome l'malach is very subjective. 2 people might have different views.<br /><br />Regarding the Sifri, the issue is whether the Torah would accept that argument or not. And it also depends on how far u take it. A chassidic Rabbi knew, who was Belz, says that if your rebbe tells you to do the most absurd thing, you should listen to him. And I presume this is how the satmar rebbe hoodwinked his flock to remain in Europe, while he took the Kastner train, and started singing New York, so good they named it twice.<br /><br />What you are doing, is denying the Torah, and its mechanism for smoking out a navi sheker. This brainwashing is what the Sifri does. The Yerushalmi smoked out the fallacy of that particular Sifri. So you are projecting your anger at me, since you are ignorant of teh Talmud Yerushalmi, which says precisely what I say. But you don't need a Jerusalem to say it. or at least a rational person doesnt. For an irrational person, such as yourself, even with the Yerusahlmi, you still hold on to your fixations.<br />Ben MIkrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07122937371918515052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-32777860043676668792013-11-17T08:50:29.681+02:002013-11-17T08:50:29.681+02:00It is interesting to note, however, that while you... It is interesting to note, however, that while you hold that anyone is qualified to argue with anyone, you find it acceptable to disqualify my argument against the modern orthodox by saying that you don't think I know about MO ... and you disqualify my arguments in general by saying that I do not appear to know science well enough. This logic works for you when you want to use it, but still you find yourself qualified to ridicule the words of the Sifri and countless Torah scholars. You make a broad statement, which put a zillion things, most of which you know nothing about, in a single category. You say 'Ultra Orthodox Judaism is Sheker' What a silly narrow minded statement. What aspect are you referring to? Or do you mean every aspect, in which case you would have had to study all of these things in depth, and I see that getting you to understand just a few concepts of mine is קריעת ים סוף, so how could you deceive yourself into believing that know the whole thing and know better than all of it. Do you know all of the people you are including in this statement? Or do you mean that there are some aspects of some people in the Ultra Orthodox community who have some mistakes which would constitute Sheker. If you mean that, then you've said nothing of any substance. Truthfully, this statement is laden with tremendous שנאה, which has been מקלקל את השורה to get you to say this. You call Rebbes and Kabbalist dreamers. What a unmitigated Chutzpah and stupidity. Which Rebbes and which Kabbalists? Do you mean the Tzanzer Rav Z"L or at this point I wouldn't be shocked if you mean רשב"י. Should we see how much you know of their teachings? You have stated in this single statement that all of the multitudes of students and Rabbis that study their words are less wise than you. How ridiculously narrow minded! Or are you not aware of all of the great minds whom you are ridiculing? So you just make these statements without any basis. You completely ignored my explanation of the concept of Horav Domeh L'malach, but you attack the concept, on the basis of the way you would like to understand it in order to ridicule it. It does not by any means mean to say that the Rav is infallible. You claim that my understanding of Meharher is based on Rav Domeh L'malach. This is a misrepresentation of my words and taking them completely of of context. I had clearly explained that Rav Domeh L'Malach is subjective rather than objective(although I didn't use those exact words), and you go on about the objective fallibility of a Rav, as if that had been what was discussed. I also clearly aid that one can disqualify a Rav, but you may not because you do it without due diligence.<br /><br />I am no longer willing to continue this debate with you, because you aren't operating with the degree of honesty that I would require. If you wish to respond to me, you will be left having the last word.<br /><br />I do wish you all the best.<br />Katche-labnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-63892454881375637052013-11-17T08:50:20.356+02:002013-11-17T08:50:20.356+02:00You ridiculed and attacked the Halacha of the nail...You ridiculed and attacked the Halacha of the nail cutting. You did so without even knowing the basic basic of the Halacha, and clearly had no understanding of it's reasoning. How shameful. I explained it. You still don't seem to understand(or you just have a hard time with being מודה על האמת, which is a fault which will truly stop you from understanding things), because what you continue to argue about it makes no sense. If you will say after 120 what you are planning to say, you will be told that you were so clearly explained the reasoning, and you are capable of understanding, so why did you refuse to understand? Melachos are permitted 6 days, and this has nothing to do with not doing Melachos, as I explained quite clearly. We are meant to prepare before Shabbos to bring in the Shabbos in a honorary way. We prepare special delightful food, we clean the house, we wash ourselves to be prepared for the coming of the holy and exalted Shabbos. Part of this preparation is that we should be beginning to get unkempt just as the Shabbos arrives, so we don't make the preparations so far in advance that by the time it's Shabbos it's already partially undone. I already explained this so clearly that even a small child would understand, but not Eddie. I am repeating and further explaining, as I would do to a small and inattentive child, who needs to be told again and again until he will grasp. Admit that this refusal to understand, or the careless assumption that there is no wisdom beside by those whom you choose, is narrow minded, and needs to be reassessed.Katche-labnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-84519963169199809352013-11-17T08:46:33.789+02:002013-11-17T08:46:33.789+02:00Eddie
As I read your comments, I am utterly perple...Eddie<br />As I read your comments, I am utterly perplexed. How could it be that a seemingly intelligent person, is misinterpreting what I saying, again and again, and presents arguments against me, which have no bearing on what I have said. First I thought that maybe the concepts are deep and as you aren't used to these concepts, you're having a hard time grasping them, so on Shabbos, I presented to a reasonably intelligent young Yeshiva Bochur, my understanding of the Issur of Meharher Achar Rabo, to see how difficult it would be for him to grasp, and in a relative short time, and without much difficulty, I realized that he understood it well. So the big question - Why does Eddie not understand? And as I am reading your argument, it seems as though you merely skimmed through my comment and saw the mention of certain key words and took it for granted that you know what I mean and went ahead with presenting your irrelevant argument against my words. So I wondered why would a intelligent person do this. And then it occurred to me that this approach, of arguing before you understand what has been said, goes well along with the idea that a beginner student is fine to think that he knows better than Einstein and that he can argue, which to me is the epitome of narrow mindedness, but to you is okay. Well why not if you can argue without knowing what was said, then the beginner student who doesn't yet know the material can argue on Einstein. You say that this is the scientific way, because otherwise we wouldn't have planes and modern medical advances. To this I say, although it's wasted because you won't bother trying to understand what I'm saying anyway, but my answer to the point is that such advances, which are aroused by a question that a beginner asks, it is either because the question motivates the student to become more of an expert, or the teacher who truly understands, in a much more real and solidly based way, that it is a good question and needs to be addressed, takes it to the further step. It is true that sometimes even someone who doesn't know much can say something meaningful, but since he doesn't know the subject well, he doesn't really understand the meaningfulness of what he said. He merely stumbles upon it in a way to which the Gemara refers as כסומא בארובה. But if a student who isn't yet well versed thinks he knows better, he is certainly a fool, and even if the question he stumbled upon lead his teachers to great advances, he is destined to remain a fool, because he doesn't really have a thirst for knowledge, as he believes he's as good as the experts even when knows very little. I hope you understood that nowhere here did I say that the student is supposed to think his teachers are infallible. That would be silly. Nobody is infallible. But if he thinks, that because his teachers aren't infallible, therefore that means that he, without knowing anything compared to them, is their equal, it is utter stupidity, and a lack of respect for the knowledge of his teachers and of knowledge in general. You seem to think that since it is broadminded to know that nobody is infallible, it therefore becomes broadminded to totally disrespect great scholars, to the point that anyone is legitimate to argue and even ridicule their words. In my opinion, this is narrow minded thinking. To think that whatever I think in any subject of knowledge, is wise at the level of the wisdom of the experts of that subject, and to, therefore, have no tolerance of anyone else's wisdom, and ridicule it, even when I genuinely don't know. Could there be anything more narrow minded than that?Katche-labnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-56002607393497923772013-11-15T15:56:43.201+02:002013-11-15T15:56:43.201+02:00For Samim/medicine - I am pointing out how technol...For Samim/medicine - I am pointing out how technology changes the world -<br />the question of whether you can grind actual herbs for an illness is not what I am asking - that is a strong halachic quesiton for a Rav. the question is about how things are today. Can an asthmatic carry an inhaler on shabbes, if there isnt an eruv? If I have to take a medicine every day, then why should i not take it on shabbes? And again, look at HaMeiri, the most MO of the rishonim. Today, apart from trendy herbalists such as myself, nobody grinds herbs for medicine. If i have a herbal med, i will make enough portions before shabbes. But the gezeira was specifically to prevent the issur of grinding. So, just like drinking milk does not have a fear that grinding will take place, so if you take an aspirin for a toothache.<br /><br />Regarding nails: my analogy was that it is not possible to break shabbes on a Thursday. This was one of the big errors of the karaites, that if u start a process on shabbes, you are breaking shabbes. I don't know if the issur claims that one is mechalel shabbes for cutting on thursday, but if so, in the Divine court after 120, i will say that all malachas are permitted on the 6 days of the week.<br />Ben MIkrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07122937371918515052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-81355797562182697812013-11-15T15:00:21.406+02:002013-11-15T15:00:21.406+02:00Ultra Orthodox Judaism, is sheker, because it deni...Ultra Orthodox Judaism, is sheker, because it denies the Torah. <br />Now, there is a degree of hypocrisy amongst rabbis, because some will claim in their propaganda speeches that there is no infallibility. However, in reality they adhere to the kind of אם הרב דומה למלאך יבקשו וכו statement you make, and they cannot accept that there was infallibility.<br /><br />But I think you are making progress. You let slip out that there is an objective halacha, which even Gedolim cannot bend. This was in your statement "then unless these Gedolim viewed an agricultural Yeshiva as a יהרג ואל יעבר, they were wrong." We can go into a discussion of what is Yehareg v'lo yaavor. I think Satmar said this about moving to Israel, or leaving Europe. or the 3 oaths.<br /><br />Also, your analysis of malach - is nice, but is logically flawed. You are saying that if the Talmid does not see his Rav as a malach, it is not meharher. This has many implications. <br />a) the objective fallibility of a Rav has nothing to do with the perception of him by his followers. If your rav was Shabetai Zvi, Nathan of Aza, or Lubavitcher Rebbe, all false messiahs/ false prophets, then believing he is a malacha does not change the truth of the situation. In fact this is precisely one of the arguments Lubavitchers bring is that their leader is such a Tzaddik, he cannot be wrong.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Ben MIkrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07122937371918515052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-23020036381482790082013-11-15T15:00:13.686+02:002013-11-15T15:00:13.686+02:00katche- i am sorry - perhaps I misunderstood what ...katche- i am sorry - perhaps I misunderstood what you meant "So we shouldn't be presenting this difference in thinking methods as a difference between science and Chareidi Machshava, but rather as the difference between the scholars of any group and the simpletons of that same same group " - i seemed to think you implied that Chareidi or even orthodox thinking is like science.<br />Now, you quote your attack on MO thinking as being scientific. So I am not clear what you say or know about science.<br /><br />There is a philosopher, who claims that the Test for a navi, in the Devarim, is the first written scientific method in history. In other words, 1000 years before Aristotle, the Torah instructs us how to determine if a Navi is a valid or a false one. So are you saying that Hashem, and Moses are MO, and hence you do not accept them, because they think too scientifically for you? <br />The Torah tells us, that if we do not know whether or not a Navi or dreamer (implying kabbalist, chassidic rebbe) is true, we should carry out a test on him. What are you saying? you are saying that we are not on the level of the Navi, to test his words. This is your Hareidi machshava. it is also MO machshava. I don't think you really know MO, other than what they taught you in Satmar summer camps. <br />After all, you could easily claim that the Rav is like a malach, hence we cannot test him. You could further claim, as does Sifri, that if a rav tells you your left hand is right , and your right is left, you should believe him. Again, this is in violation of the Torah. Even the Talmud Yerushalmi, were shocked at the nonsense brainwashing of this sifri. They rejected it. <br />So this is the difference between Scientific approach, and Authoritarian brainwash approach.<br />You do not appear to know science well enough when you claim that a beginner, eg a research student, cannot argue with the received tradition. This is precisely how science progresses. Otherwise you would not be able to fly a plane, a doctor would still sue leeches, etc. (and i don't knwo if leeches are mutar or not).<br />I am not familiar with the gemara אם הרב דומה למלאך יבקשו וכו, but it seems to me to be aggada, to instill fear into the student. If you take this literally, which I know Chassidim do, but not all misnagdim (although you are wining the battle in destroying misnagdic thought) then it leads to a weird situation of denial of the entire concept of the Torah and Horayos, which has actual korbanot for cases where the Sanhedrin or Judge does err.<br />A problem in learning is that people fixate on one idea, without seeing the bigger picture. the bigger picture is that Torah already says that nobody is infallible. This includes Moses, Aharon, David, Shlomo, etc. What Chareidi mindbend does is to create a new religion called Ultra orthodox Judaism, which Chazal rejected, (Horayos is a tractate of both the Yerushalmi and Bavli).<br />Ben MIkrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07122937371918515052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-34574665969230112122013-11-15T08:11:37.801+02:002013-11-15T08:11:37.801+02:00About Shechikas Samonim, you say that this is stil...About Shechikas Samonim, you say that this is still the case today. This is debatable. See K'tzos Hashulchan 134,7,2. The general consensus, however, is that it does in fact apply today, because of the rule about nullifying a G'zeirah, which is also discussed in the source I mention, as well as other sources. I don't see why you are turning this into a debate between Chareidi and Non Chareidi. <br />You say " One needs to get a heter from a Rav in order to take pills." This statement makes no dense to me. One needs to see if the Halacha offers a Heter. If he doesn't know how to find out on his own, he needs to ask a rabbi, the same way a person who doesn't know how to fix the leak needs to call the plumber, not because the law requires it.<br />Your points<br />a)Is this a question or a statement of protest? If a question, we can have this discussion when we're up to that. If a statement, then we need to go back to the discussion of who may argue against who, and fill some gaps.<br />b)admittedly a legitimate question<br />c)Why do I need to go to the doctor and take my clothes off to show him the wound? It's none of his business! The answer is you don't unless you happen not to know medicine, in which case I'm afraid you have no choice. If you don't trust him to answer you honesty, or if you think this doctor is a quack, find another. If you can't, I'm so sorry to hear that. How is this relevant to our discussion?<br />d)Don't speak with such certainty. I already said it is a legitimate question, but since when do you have the final word on this?<br />e)I haven't been a party to that conversation so I'm not sure what your point is.<br /><br />Whether Rabbinical law is from Sinai or not is a very interesting subject, and that's all it is. If anyone is planning to come up with an argument that says we don't need to adhere to them Chas V'sholom, and he thinks he is in the league to argue against them, please let me know, because I have enough to say to convince ANYONE (with integrity) otherwise.<br /><br />The statement you make "Rambam was great in everything, with the exception of Bible exegesis." disturbes me very much, for reasons similar to those we have been discussing.<br /><br />The issue of cutting nails, I think you misunderstand. The prohibition is against cutting on THURSDAY. The reason is not as you seem to understand, but that when nauls are cut, they maintain the fresh cut look for some time, and then they look like they're beginning to grow back. If one cuts in Thursday, it begins seeming to grow back on Shabbos, so since we cut our nails in honor of Shabbos, it would be showing a degree of disrespect to make the growing back process kick in Davka ON Shabbos, like someone who gets all dressed up for a party on Friday such that by the time Shabbos come he's getting all messy, thus giving more importance to Friday than to Shabbos. The way you understood this rule, you're correct to be puzzled by it, but if that is how you understood the words of our sages, how could you have spoken about them in such a derogatory way? Even you would agree that they were at the very least not Chelmites. <br /><br />So the question is, will we get organized to a fruitful debate? Who has the time.<br />Sorry for the tone in this post. I'm only human.<br />Kol TuvKatche-labnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-57743661056947943422013-11-15T08:11:26.559+02:002013-11-15T08:11:26.559+02:00Eddie
Before we continue this debate, I wish to kn...Eddie<br />Before we continue this debate, I wish to know if we can agree to some ground rules. I don't want to waste my time going in circles. In my Chareidi way of learning, I like to keep track of what is being said - which points have already been agreed, completely or partially, and which have been accepted as being irreconcilable or thus far not reconciled. I also like to know, at any given point, in which issue we are aiming to gain clarity. We will never reach the point of building the third floor if as soon as we finish the second floor, the first floor collapses. The reason I am coming with this now, is that I find that the answers I need to give here in many of the points you make, are things which I have already clearly explained, and some of these things you even seemed to agree with, and now it's as though we never had the discussion. <br /><br />The post I refer to [MO /Einstein] is: Sunday, November 3, 2013<br />Rav Sternbuch: Bishul akum based on Jewish status on Israeli i.d. card<br />In this post, although I didn't openly say that I mean to criticise the MO, the discussion was about MO type of machshava, and I have given 2 reasons(each applicable differently) why this approach to Limud Hatorah is faulty. One was the distinction between Science, which is working from bottom upwards, and Torah L'havdil is the opposite. The other was that practically as a beginner would be a fool to argue with an expert, so would a modern day scholar be a fool to argue with a Rishon. I quoted אם ראשונים...<br />Next, I am unfamiliar with the story of Tzemach Warhaftig, but if it is as you say, then unless these Gedolim viewed an agricultural Yeshiva as a יהרג ואל יעבר, they were wrong. This has no bearing on what I wrote about Malachim. This is what I wrote.<br />"The Gemara says אם הרב דומה למלאך יבקשו וכו This means that by the level of The Hasagah of the Talmid, the Rav is like a Malach who cannot err, because the level where the Rebbe has his Nisionos are beyond the level of the Talmid. He is therefore worthy of יבקשו תורה מפיו which means without my considering on my own whether I agree, but accepting מפיו because I don't have the ability to understand at the depth that the Rebbe understands so I can't give an opinion of agreement or disagreement so I accept from the Rebbe. (If there is a Machlokes between 2 Rebbes כמלאכים then there are rules about how this is dealt with, irrelevant to this discussion) If, however, the Talmid does not see the Rebbe to be at this level, not because the Talmid is a Porek Ol, but because he genuinely doesn't see the Rebbe to be at quite that level, that does not constitute Meharher Acharei Rabo."<br />Next, I didn't say "Hareidi machshava is like scientific method."<br />I said about a particular diference you were trying to point out, that "This is not a difference between Hareidi machshava and scientific method." <br />The gaps were about who may argue against who - again the earlier mentioned discussion<br />Katche-labnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-44733360459848000542013-11-14T22:52:27.123+02:002013-11-14T22:52:27.123+02:00If you want to talk scientific method - i raised a...If you want to talk scientific method - i raised a point with Chaim, but he evaded me. Now according to rabbinic law, you are not allowed to take medicine on shabbes, because u may come to grind herbs. Thsi is still the case today, even with pills. One needs to get a heter from a Rav in order to take pills.<br /><br />If you want to be a scientist, you have to say:<br /><br />a) What Divine right did Chazal have to institute this issur?<br /><br />b) what relevance does it have today, since most meds are in pill or liquid, or compressed gas.<br /><br />c) Why do i need to ask a rav about a pill i need to take, it is none of his business. And furthermore, eh has negios in the matter. What negios? he has his perceived Olam haba; he has his reputation to think about, and since being machmir is all the rage, then he is not interested in me, in the Torah, in G-d, or in emes. he has negios, and self interest. <br /><br />d) The law should be abolished since it is no longer relevant.<br /><br />e) the issue of "majority" has no scientific meaning in this case. whether the majority can abide by it or not, i couldn't care less, and it doesn't change my situation. So the rule is irrational.<br /><br />There is a to-and-fro in haredi, and MO, about whehter rabbinci law is from Sinai or not. On the one hand , you can cite rambam who says if you say it is, then it is bal tosif. On the other, he himself writes that gezeiros, takkanos, and minhagim were all subsumed under asher yoro.<br /><br />Actually, scientifically speaking, and ramabNically speaking - the pasuk is referring a situation where we cannot resolve our dispute about property or kashrus locally, so we go the the Sanhedrin, or to the Lishkat Gazit. it is not saying anything about rabbinic additions, that is am misreading of the pasuk, and Rambam was great in everything, with the exception of Bible exegesis.<br /><br />Another example . whilst Sadducess/Karaites, claimed that we cannot light a fire on a weekday, to let it burn itself over shabbes, the rabbis did the same thing in another area. I don't knwo the source of this, if it is Kabbalah or from the Gemara - but cutting nails on Friday is forbidden - because they will grow on Shabbes! They use the same logic as the Tsedukim.<br />Again, if you think logically, you will see the absurdity and hypocrisy of that statement.<br /><br />Since, I dont think any hareidi rav will agree with either analysis of mine, then it is very difficult to say Haredi machshava is the same as Scientific machshava.<br /><br />Ben MIkrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07122937371918515052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-72421042603910351572013-11-14T22:52:18.439+02:002013-11-14T22:52:18.439+02:00Sorry, Katche, I cant find the post you refer to [...Sorry, Katche, I cant find the post you refer to [MO /Einstein], and I don't know what you accuse MO of. Did you know that I did a lot of accusing of Haredi leaders, but I am not in the mood for repeating that whole spiel.<br />So let's try a simple one - those who were offered visas to escape Europe, eg the case of a Tzioni Rav , Tzemach Warhaftic, who brought visas to many Yeshivas, but they all turned him down, because they didnt like the idea of having an agricultural yeshiva in Israel (in order get the visas).<br />SO, are u suggesting these Gedolim, who were great in halacha, were like malachim, or were too blinded by their own ideology?<br /><br />Next, i am not sure you really understand Science well enough to say Hareidi machshava is like scientific method. Alternatively, i don't understand hareidi machshava well enough to see your point.<br /><br />This business about malachim is also a joke - although you also point out that people can be misled. <br /><br />I don't know which gaps you claim are being closed, but I am interested to find out. Rav Kook, for example, was to many people a malach. Gedolim were amazed by his greatness. Now, i personally, am not too much into some of his ideas, which are a bit too extreme, but I like what he says about zionism. However, as you speak about middos, peopel were very abusive towards him. Even the satmar rav mocked him. With due respect, I dont think the Satmar Rebbe was on the level of Rav Kook. Now, I used to daven with Lubavitch, so i know how chassidim feel about their rebbe.<br />it is possible to disagree, eg Satmar rav can disagree with R Feinstein, as can Lubavitcher; they can disagree with each other etc. <br />But, as an illustration, the Ohr sameach, R Meir Simcha of Dvinsk, was a Zionist. He celebrated the balfour declaration, and said the oaths are no longer valid (if they ever were).<br /><br />Ben MIkrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07122937371918515052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-16301871131353510842013-11-14T17:26:06.204+02:002013-11-14T17:26:06.204+02:00There is warlike behavior coming from all camps, s...There is warlike behavior coming from all camps, stemming from those individuals who have no Middos. Don't you agree that if someone has no Middos, he would be better not using his own instinct, but rather following someone else's judgment? Katche-labnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-91575263015636469262013-11-14T11:56:59.566+02:002013-11-14T11:56:59.566+02:00This Shita can potentially lead to warlike behavio...<i>This Shita can potentially lead to warlike behavior, stemming from the fact that people can be Mevatel any Gadol who holds different from them, as he is, in fact, not a reliable Gadol.</i><br /><br />the warlike behavior has been coming from those who believe in daat torah, not those who do not believe.Ben Waxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02798895161663664689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-33056828052535591412013-11-14T08:35:04.152+02:002013-11-14T08:35:04.152+02:00About the danger of 'The Chassidic adulation o...<br />About the danger of 'The Chassidic adulation of a Rebbe' First of all I repeat an earlier response of mine to you.<br /><br />"Eddie<br />Sadly I think I have to agree with you about the end of the era of Gedolim. The Satmar Rav z"l(R' Yoel) clearly said this that there no longer is any real reliable leadership and every individual must follow his own feeling of right and wrong. <br /><br />This Shita can potentially lead to warlike behavior, stemming from the fact that people can be Mevatel any Gadol who holds different from them, as he is, in fact, not a reliable Gadol.<br /><br />Or this Shita can allow people to act peacefully and not feel that they need to fight relentlessly to support their Gadol because he's not really a Gadol anyway.<br /><br />If we follow our own conscience and our own sense of right and wrong we will not fight viciously to support the statements of or Gedolim.<br /><br />The problem is that some people have no Middos and no sense of decency to go by. They need someone to follow and rely upon. They will need to choose a "Gadol" even in our times. As the Rambam explains the Mishna עשה' לך רב' to mean even if he isn't worthy to be your Rebbe. But anyone who has sense and Middos should not join the fight."<br /><br />Here in the last paragraph I explained that people who have no sense of their own of right and wrong, need to blindly follow someone. That would not be so bad in and of itself. See Chinuch on the mitzva of Som Tasum Alecha Melech. He says any leader, even imperfect, to keep order is better than none. I assure for many people, if they would use their own sense, it would not be an advantage over following their Rebbe. On the other hand, those people who do have good sense, should not ignore their own sense, and, in fact they don't. Unless the Rebbe is Domeh L'malach. (About Domeh L'malach, I ask you to look over again my explanation thereof, and I don't see why you shouldn't agree)There is only one problem, that someone might deceive himself to believe that his Rebbe is Domeh L'malach, when in fact, he is not worthy of quite that distinction. You will say that this problem exists with the Chassidim because it manifested itself from the original and true application of Rav Domeh L'malach and was wrongly applied by the masses. To this I say, <br />ישרים דרכי ד' וצדיקים...ופושעים....<br />The alternative would be to have no proper Hachna'ah to the True Gedoilim and even to Rishonim and even Chaza"l, as I already accused the Modern Orthodox community, in our earlier discussion - the one which included the mention of Einstein. Please look that over again too. I was under the impression that we narrowed that gap already.<br /><br />The next point, being your main critique of Satmar, I don't feel we are ready to touch. Not until all of the above has been cleaned up and clarified. All of the above includes our earlier discussions as well, specifically the one in which I explained the underlying mentality that goes along with each of these ideologies. I would like to first narrow the gap as much as we can on the issue of which of these two approaches should be adopted.<br />Katche-labnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-11265949458395743402013-11-14T08:34:58.136+02:002013-11-14T08:34:58.136+02:00Eddie'
Again, I reiterate. This is not a diffe...Eddie'<br />Again, I reiterate. This is not a difference between Hareidi machshava and scientific method. Maybe the way you called it orthodox machshava, your statement would be true, with orthodox meaning the norms widely accepted by the masses, as the majority of people are not independent thinkers, and thus not true scholars, and therefore orthodox machshava does not really represent the true chareidi machshava. I would not put Ramchal on one side of the coin and Yated on the other, because Yated is not a Man D'amar. It's not a scholarly work. It's merely a newspaper full of Propaganda and Shtusim, written by the people, for the people - people meaning simpletons not shcolars. It doesn't, IMHO, represent intelligent chareidi thinking, but rather, it's manifestation away from the Olam Hamachshava and into the Olam Hamaaseh, where machshave isn't understood. I repeat "The masses of any group do not know the theology of that group" So what the 'people' of any group call heresy and cry 'Apikores', does not represent the 'Mind' of that group. Now you admit that this happens in the scientific community as well. So we shouldn't be presenting this difference in thinking methods as a difference between science and Chareidi Machshava, but rather as the difference between the scholars of any group and the simpletons of that same same group - לפלוג ולתני בדידה.<br /><br />I think(hope) we have narrowed or closed this gap, so now we move on to your next point.<br />Katche-labnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-48187814080908418442013-11-14T01:44:56.957+02:002013-11-14T01:44:56.957+02:00Katche, it is difficult to speak of Hareidi in ter...Katche, it is difficult to speak of Hareidi in terms of 400 years ago or 1000 years ago. Was Rambam the Modern O of his day, and his opponents haredi?<br /><br />My i mentioned Ramchal, was that the comment he made in the Derech Tevunot, that I mentioned, i.e. that we judge a saying not by who says it, but by whether it makes sense to our intellect - which is conceptually the opposite of the Yated / we have the only Daas Torah/ your left is right etc world.<br />In science, which we enjoyed discussing, they also have this method. A professor of Chemistry, Israeli, but was at Harvard, made a discovery about crystal shapes, which was "apikorsus" to the received wisdom and theories. His colleagues at Harvard said he was a "shaigetz" of science. Ultimately he proved himself and won a Nobel prize. So he was going by the Ramchal in question, not by Yated Neeman.<br /><br />The Tzioni/Satmar debate, which we have until now agreed to avoid, is complex. I think it is dangerous to have a Hassidic adualtion of a rebbe, whether Rav Kook or the Satmar rav. I have criticisms of both, even though i am obviously closer to rav Kook.<br />R Kook once said he would rather err by giving someone the benefit of the doubt (hessed) than err by wrongly accusing someone of being a rosho (gevurah). I would say , in general, that the other end of the hareidi spectrum do the opposite. And both positions have their dangers. <br />I believe that the recent posts on Loshon hara and the Chofetz Chaim, are actually dealing with this issue.<br /><br />My main critique of Satmar, is the elevation of the 3 shavuot into new ikkarim - which is virtually a new religion. The Brisker Rov, R' Sonenfeld lived in Eretz hakodesh, and Brisk do not leave, whereas Satmar do not have such a problem. So I don't mind if you are sceptical of the entire Zioni enterprise, and you can divorce yourself from it totally like Brisk, and only use $ and not Shekels. Even when you buy cigarettes at BenGurion airport!<br />In a paradoxical way, I love Brisk more than any other current group, because they are sharp and lomdish - although this is bounded. Obviously i disagree with their views on the rabbanut, but that's a different story.<br />So paradoxically, Rav Goren ztl and the brisker derech were the greatest, or most open minded of recent years. <br />I have a theory, or claim - and that is as follows: what was the the first commentary on the Torah? My answer was Sefer Yehoshua. then Sefer Shoftim. etc. There is an internal logic of the Torah, which is often neglected. it sometimes conflicts with how we understand things today. But the brave soul has to be aware of these as well. <br />So I gave an example with Chaim, of a commentary on the Torah - where ushmartem mishmartai , in Sefer Malachim 1, is actually referring to Torah Shebikhtav. <br />I try to choose my controversial statements carefully, where I have a good source to rely on - and TeNach is about the best source there is. Also the Chatam Sofer.<br /><br />Kol tuveBen MIkrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07122937371918515052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-20291774994884680662013-11-14T00:39:54.622+02:002013-11-14T00:39:54.622+02:00Kol Tuv Eddie - Hatzlocho Gedola in your search fo...Kol Tuv Eddie - Hatzlocho Gedola in your search for the truth.Chaimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05331877663627621320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-28539463186300740492013-11-13T23:39:23.392+02:002013-11-13T23:39:23.392+02:00Eddie, I get the feeling that you haven't had ...Eddie, I get the feeling that you haven't had much opportunity to have intelligent conversations with intelligent chareidi thinkers. I was somewhat puzzled by your excluding the Ramchal from what you say about haredi machshava, because this implies that you are saying that even the works of Gedoilim have this trait, and I don't remember ever coming across this in any of the Sefarim I learn. I will tell you that from when I was approximately 11, I have been called Apikoires by my classmates and friends numerous times but not by anyone who matters, and today, I am B"H well respected. If you recall, in our first dialogue you said " Before I hear cries of Reform! let me explain what I mean" and my immediate response was "I don't cry Reform, when it isn't due." I think you have a misconception about chareidi thinking. The masses of any group do know know the theology of that group. It is when the philosophy translates itself into outward behaviors, that the simple members have their place. But they will not be able to explain the thinking that is their Shoresh. As the hand does not understand how to signal the hand to move. Only the brain understands that. The hand only moves. It is true that the L'maase outcome of Chareidi thinking produces a more cautious, conservative way of life. It produces fear, which will naturally cause simple folks to cry 'Apikores' when an alien thought is presented, in order to protect them of an unfamiliar though which may perhaps be bad, they can't tell. The L'maase manifestation of the Zionist idea will no doubt have many aspect to which you, as an intelligent person, do not agree and certainly do not adhere. That is why, I want to discuss things with you and not with the Shmendricks in your group.Katche-labnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-53571822393353491372013-11-13T23:01:37.897+02:002013-11-13T23:01:37.897+02:00Chaim
Don't worry, I'm quite capable of se...Chaim<br />Don't worry, I'm quite capable of seeing your position on the matter, but I gathered from Eddie's comments that he isn't convinced whether these Gedoilim's motives are completely pure because there exist the possibility of tremendous negios here. While I don't know if I agree with Eddie on that, and I think more likely that I don't, still, by my understanding, even that would not constitute the Issur of Meharher.Katche-labnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-78889641712577527532013-11-13T22:17:57.312+02:002013-11-13T22:17:57.312+02:00Eddie, I get the feeling that you haven't had ...Eddie, I get the feeling that you haven't had much opportunity to have intelligent conversations with intelligent chareidi thinkers. I was somewhat puzzled by your excluding the Ramchal from what you say about haredi machshava, because this implies that you are saying that even the works of Gedoilim have this trait, and I don't remember ever coming across this in any of the Sefarim I learn. I will tell you that from when I was approximately 11, I have been called Apikoires by my classmates and friends numerous times but not by anyone who matters, and today, I am B"H well respected. If you recall, in our first dialogue you said " Before I hear cries of Reform! let me explain what I mean" and my immediate response was "I don't cry Reform, when it isn't due." I think you have a misconception about chareidi thinking. The masses of any group do know know the theology of that group. It is when the philosophy translates itself into outward behaviors, that the simple members have their place. But they will not be able to explain the thinking that is their Shoresh. As the hand does not understand how to signal the hand to move. Only the brain understands that. The hand only moves. It is true that the L'maase outcome of Chareidi thinking produces a more cautious, conservative way of life. It produces fear, which will naturally cause simple folks to cry 'Apikores' when an alien thought is presented, in order to protect them of an unfamiliar though which may perhaps be bad, they can't tell. The L'maase manifestation of the Zionist idea will no doubt have many aspect to which you, as an intelligent person, do not agree and certainly do not adhere. That is why, I want to discuss things with you and not with the Shmendricks in your group.Katche-labnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-83347426553771683912013-11-13T22:06:11.894+02:002013-11-13T22:06:11.894+02:00Chaim, i thought it was Yated and HaPeles, or what...Chaim, i thought it was Yated and HaPeles, or whatever the warring factions are called!<br /><br />"Why do you feel that you cannot express your views without misrepresenting mine?"<br /><br />Are we going by your definition of meharher or Katchkes?<br /><br />If there were differences between the Gedolim on say, maaser terumah or sheviis, then I don't think there would be this debate here. <br /><br />"To be מהרהר אחרי... means to harbour thoughts of suspicion against a great Torah sage - that he is only interested in money, wealth or is biased in some other way."<br /><br />we are going round in circles, i already answered this. Once someone gets too involved in politics it can cause some kind of bias,<br /><br />I think you have run out of what to say, so you want to debate the same things again!<br /><br />One of the Marx brothers, Chico, was a compulsive gambler. But he couldn't always find people to play cards with, so he would have to pay people to play with him! So, perhaps we are too addicted to this discussion, but have run out of things to say. Kol tuv! <br /><br /><br />Ben MIkrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07122937371918515052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-81015202343332094582013-11-13T21:16:41.084+02:002013-11-13T21:16:41.084+02:00Eddie:
"I have have great respect for RSA and...Eddie:<br />"I have have great respect for RSA and R'Shteinman, but in the areas of party politics, I do not accept that their views are from Sinai. Chaim is implying that this constitutes meharher."<br /><br />Chaim (above on this page, speaking to Eddie):<br /><br />"My answer is as follows. מהרהר אחרי רבו does not mean to have an argument with one's Rebbe (or the Gadol HaDor), whether in terms of Halacha or Hashkafa. This has been commonplace throughout Jewish history. You are surely nuanced enough to understand that you can disagree with someone without disrespecting that person, impugning his motives and vilifying him. To be מהרהר אחרי... means to harbour thoughts of suspicion against a great Torah sage - that he is only interested in money, wealth or is biased in some other way. See Rashi (Breishis 12:10, Shemos 6:1) where the term להרהר אחר... is used in this context of suspecting another of impure motives.<br />Somebody who respects both disputants in a Machlokes among Gedolei Yisrael, and realises that they are both acting לשם שמים in their minds, is not included in the מהרהר אחרי רבו category, regardless of who he believes to be correct, or even if he thinks that none are correct. (So none of your cases have relevance.)"<br /><br />Why do you feel that you cannot express your views without misrepresenting mine?Chaimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05331877663627621320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-11674374694317296392013-11-13T19:36:46.727+02:002013-11-13T19:36:46.727+02:00Eddie - you discovered my plan to release your ide...Eddie - you discovered my plan to release your identity and whereabouts to the Yated Ne'eman and Eida HaChareidis simultaneously!Chaimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05331877663627621320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-79355618236308963682013-11-13T19:35:02.137+02:002013-11-13T19:35:02.137+02:00Isn't "having a mistake about the greatne...Isn't "having a mistake about the greatness of Hashem" essentially a "lack of... Emunah" on some level - such a Emunah in His all-encompassing abilities, which were clearly doubted in the Midbar?Chaimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05331877663627621320noreply@blogger.com