- A nice exchange between Reb Gutman Locks and a pastor, at the kotel:
Of course, this is excerpts just as the pastor intended to present excerpts. And one could argue against Reb Lock's panentheism, as the Gra did.
a
a - In a move that could profoundly affect halacha, the EU bans selling things by number rather than weight. And so nothing will be davar she-be-minyan. No eggs sold by the dozen.
a
a - Salma Hayek loves eating ants, worms and grasshoppers as part of a varied diet. Which goes to show that such disgust is cultural. Just as sefardim will eat chagavim. This point is related to my post about disgust at eating anisakis worms in fish.
a
- The Star K on anisakis worms.
aa
aS - The Seforim blog with more back and forth on the recent Lubavitcher Rebbe book:
In response to the recent review by Chaim Rapoport, "The Afterlife of Scholarship: A Critical Exploration of Samuel Heilman and Menachem Friedman’s Presentation of the Rebbe’s Life," the Seforim blog (14 June 2010), available here, of Samuel Heilman and Menachem Friedman, The Rebbe: The Life and Afterlife of Menachem Mendel Schneerson (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010), available here, the editors of the Seforim blog are proud to present a response by Samuel Heilman and Menachem Friedman (submitted on Tuesday, 22 June 2010), available here (PDF) with a rejoinder by Chaim Rapoport (submitted on Tuesday, 29 June 2010), available here (PDF).
- The latest Jewish Studies Internet Journal. (JSIJ)
Thursday, July 01, 2010
Interesting Posts and Articles #266
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
LinkWithin
16 comments:
meir says
Regarding our previous correspondence.
the gemoro you quoted saying that a person has blind and dumb children for the parents sins. the tanna quotes it in the name of angels which the gemoro afterwards changes to mean chachomim. why for this din does he call them angels. very unusual.
The reason the gemoro gives is because others argue with him therefore it couldnt be angels.
the mesechta kalla rabosi perek one says that Rabbis Eliezer, Yehoshua and Akiba all say that because of the parents sins the child will be blind deaf dumb and lame.
or as the tur's reading they will be baalei mummin
Considering you dont believe this possible how do you explain their views. Or better put since you dont agree with them, how do you explain them. Is it because you have different way of life to them.
i
Here is a link to kallah rabbati.
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=33828&pgnum=1
please find the text you refer to, give me a hyperlink, and then i may choose to respond. i don't go on quests.
similarly, give me a link to the tur. there are Turs at HebrewBooks as well.
like that, i don't need to go on quests for statements you refuse to source (to make them easy to look up), and i don't need to rely on your second-hand summary.
kol tuv,
josh
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=33828&pgnum=17
meir says
looking at the gra on the page and in the gemoro in greater detail he does seem to have a different girsa.
But the tur brought down on that page i sent, I dont know how to find the tur itself does have what i mentioned.
and again r Yochanan ben duhabai has still to be explained even according to the gra.
it is a pity that i cannot put the page in a comment only the url.
it presumably was implemented to prevent people from putting objectionable images, or (since images can be located elsewhere, 3rd party tracking of sites).
here is a link to Tur Even HaEzer. Do you know the siman?
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14266&st=&pgnum=1
meir says
that link is to tur even hoezer what i say is in tur orach chaim 241
anyway although i am not capable to put it in a comment (you are on the blog) it is metioned there on the page i quoted that the tur says baalei mumin.
So at the end of the day.
we have our girsa in the kalla that children are disabled because of the parents sins quoting rabbis Eilezer,yehoshua and Akiba.
We have the gra who does not have this girsa and perhaps agrees with you that children are not punished for their fathers sins.
we have the tur who says baalei mumin.
we have r yehochanan ben dhubai who quotes from angels which the gemorro changes to rabbis that they are punished.
we have the shulchan oruch who quotes the din without the punishment.
we have the biur halacha who usually follows the gra although that is not proof who says they are punished
i think i have summed up all this correctly.
so now i am again putting to you the question (although i know the answer) what do you think is in the mind set of those who oppose you.
meaning r yochanan ben duhabe his angels rabbis ( i think i know the answer to that too why he called them that according to you).
the tur.
the mishna brurah in biur halacha.
to help your viewers it would be advantageous if you put the kalla on the blog for them to see.
here is tur even haezer, siman 25, bottom of the page:
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14266&st=&pgnum=93
though see what Beis Yosef says about this.
a link to the biur halacha?
in the mindset of modern day "those who oppose me" in accusing parents of disabled kids of sexual sin?
i would say that just as trying to find chumros is a sickness, so is fantasizing sexual immoralities perpetrated by the parents of disabled children. and choosing particular interpretations of sources to that end may well be guided by such sickness; especially where there is so much opportunity to be dan lekaf zechut.
ask me, inside, what any particular of these sources mean, and i will explain it. but that is beside the point, because no explanation will suffice if one is LOOKING to accuse these people of such sexual crimes.
the Tur, for example, does argue with the Rambam and makes a diyuk that only one of these offenses does Rabbi Yochanan reject as halacha. and he interprets the talking as non-sexual talking, about other people, lest he come to think of them during intercourse, where that talking done to increase sexual appetite or to appease her if angry is permitted. i don't have to agree with the plausibility of his reading.
but Tur introduces this as a pegam which corrupts the action, along the same philosophical path as that I laid out above, and apparently popular among the ancient philosophers. Not that it was a punishment, but a natural consequence.
There is a difference between if and iff in logic. One is "if this, then that." The other is "if and only if this, then that." You are interpreting all of this as an iff. Such that anyone with a disability listed in the gemara (or even past that), this would be true ONLY IF the parents did that action. I would interpret what they are saying, for the most part, as an if. This is one cause of that.
in terms of Rabbi Yochanan ben Dahavei, I think he was a mystically inclined Tanna who believed he had a revelation from angels, and who maintained certain ascetic beliefs and practices, in line with his mysticism. he sees a spiritual impact in these actions, and cites the malachei hashareis to this effect. and this is perfectly understandable given cultural context. while *other* statements in the gemara may impose some of these as halachic obligations (such as the drasha from magid leAdam mah sicho), that does not mean that we must agree that Rabbi Yochanan ben Dahavai knows this; and indeed, Rabbi Yochanan disagrees with him. We are similarly under no obligation to agree with him in the 3 not explicitly rejected by Rabbi Yochanan, but can maintain, as with Rambam and Beis Yosef=Shulchan Aruch, that he is entirely rejected.
If you feel like it, you may act lechumra. With your own wife, if you feel it necessary and appropriate, act like the Tur. But in judging others and accusing them of sexual crimes, which is an issue of chosheid bekesheirim, be dan lekaf zechus that just perhaps this statement is wrong and rejected and /or this is a misapplication of iff where a mere if is appropriate.
kol tuv,
josh
in the mindset of modern day "those who oppose me" in accusing parents of disabled kids of sexual sin?
i would say that just as trying to find chumros is a sickness, so is fantasizing sexual immoralities perpetrated by the parents of disabled children. and choosing particular interpretations of sources to that end may well be guided by such sickness; especially where there is so much opportunity to be dan lekaf zechut.
ask me, inside, what any particular of these sources mean, and i will explain it. but that is beside the point, because no explanation will suffice if one is LOOKING to accuse these people of such sexual crimes.
the Tur, for example, does argue with the Rambam and makes a diyuk that only one of these offenses does Rabbi Yochanan reject as halacha. and he interprets the talking as non-sexual talking, about other people, lest he come to think of them during intercourse, where that talking done to increase sexual appetite or to appease her if angry is permitted. i don't have to agree with the plausibility of his reading.
but Tur introduces this as a pegam which corrupts the action, along the same philosophical path as that I laid out above, and apparently popular among the ancient philosophers. Not that it was a punishment, but a natural consequence.
There is a difference between if and iff in logic. One is "if this, then that." The other is "if and only if this, then that." You are interpreting all of this as an iff. Such that anyone with a disability listed in the gemara (or even past that), this would be true ONLY IF the parents did that action. I would interpret what they are saying, for the most part, as an if. This is one cause of that.
in terms of Rabbi Yochanan ben Dahavei, I think he was a mystically inclined Tanna who believed he had a revelation from angels, and who maintained certain ascetic beliefs and practices, in line with his mysticism. he sees a spiritual impact in these actions, and cites the malachei hashareis to this effect. and this is perfectly understandable given cultural context. while *other* statements in the gemara may impose some of these as halachic obligations (such as the drasha from magid leAdam mah sicho), that does not mean that we must agree that Rabbi Yochanan ben Dahavai knows this; and indeed, Rabbi Yochanan disagrees with him. We are similarly under no obligation to agree with him in the 3 not explicitly rejected by Rabbi Yochanan, but can maintain, as with Rambam and Beis Yosef=Shulchan Aruch, that he is entirely rejected.
If you feel like it, you may act lechumra. With your own wife, if you feel it necessary and appropriate, act like the Tur. But in judging others and accusing them of sexual crimes, which is an issue of chosheid bekesheirim, be dan lekaf zechus that just perhaps this statement is wrong and rejected and /or this is a misapplication of iff where a mere if is appropriate.
kol tuv,
josh
here, btw, it Tur Orach Chaim 241.
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=43059&st=&pgnum=217
I don't see him say anything there that is relevant. Are you certain as to the siman? At any rate, the Tur in Even HaEzer seems on the mark.
here it is in siman 240.
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=43059&st=&pgnum=216
but my comment above stands equally.
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14164&st=&pgnum=290&hilite=
indeed, that is Mishnah Brurah. See the Shulchan Aruch's words, which indicates where he derives the issuring he maintains exist, where it seems (to me) that is not from the words of Rabbi Yochanan ben Dehavai particularly but from other statements of Chazal.
and see what the Rama says in Even HaEzer siman 25, where he cites the same wording of the Rambam, which on Tur, Beis Yosef brought to indicate opposition in the general case to the position of Rabbi Yochanan ben Dehavai. (though see Beit Shmuel and Be'er Heitiv who explain it otherwise).
kol tuv,
josh
regardless, i seriously doubt that any of the aforementioned rabbis would point to any individual, or particular group, of congenitally blind, lame, or deaf and say that we now know that their parents sin, and that other rabbis' words of praise for them and their thriving under these difficult circumstances are baseless flattery and against the gemara. indeed, i suspect that they would be similarly appalled at the sentiment.
Post a Comment