tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post9081355063270149021..comments2024-03-05T21:22:43.426-05:00Comments on parshablog: Why I was so blunt with Mr. Lazar at RationalistJudaismjoshwaxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03516171362038454070noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-58468072109426171672010-07-04T11:25:24.856-04:002010-07-04T11:25:24.856-04:00Your attitude impresses me, and your apologies are...Your attitude impresses me, and your apologies are accepted. I estimate that my use of the word "loyalty" may have ignited you. It is not a perfect term, but I could not think of another. When there is a Sanhedrin, may it be soon, we must listen to their Psak. The sin of a Zaken Mamre is not that he does not follow the truth. His sin is that he is not loyal, that he breaks the unity of the Am. By that, he goes against Tzivui HaShem, which says that we must follow the Psak of Sanhedrin. We do not follow Sanhedrin's Psakim because Sanhedrin is infallible. The reason is different. Similarly, the reason that we follow Chazal is different. The background is that HaShem has chose a Nation to reveal Himself. We humble ourselves in view of Jewish destiny. That was the point in my original comment.madaralhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12464817724312275528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-79238492814627331352010-07-04T10:58:47.843-04:002010-07-04T10:58:47.843-04:00meir says
i apologise unreservedly.
I have no idea...meir says<br />i apologise unreservedly.<br />I have no idea who you are and this was not my intention. Although insults do seem to fly around this blog i am not one to trade them. i come here looking for the truth and will be the first to acknowledge if i am wrong. If you think i meant anything at all personal i ask your forgiveness. If you look at my previous posts and i seem to be the main poster here you will see this to be true. This is new to me and i have not yet got the hang of it. there most likely are other ways to answer your posts and i hope in time to do it correctly. again i am sorry if any offence is caused.<br />i would delete it if i could and perhaps the owner of the blog willAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-55756432353350613522010-07-04T10:12:36.267-04:002010-07-04T10:12:36.267-04:00From where come your need to denigrate me?From where come your need to denigrate me?madaralhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12464817724312275528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-8988462792671802052010-07-04T10:05:47.503-04:002010-07-04T10:05:47.503-04:00meir says
As seems to be usual in these comments i...meir says<br />As seems to be usual in these comments instead of answering, one drifts off to a new subject.<br />When the earth was created is not a matter of svoro or logic but a matter of fact. How one can prove or disprove this i have no idea. No was alive then to remember. If you find archelogical proof that it takes millions of years for the earth to come about. Then that can mean that when it was made it was already partly formed. Like we say water was already there before the creation. This is all simplistic and most likely far from the truth. maasai breishis was considered the hardest thing by yonasan ben uziel. i wonder if you have already understood abaye vrovo considered easy that you already delve into this and already trying to imply that chazal may be wrong. Do birds that fly over your head melt from the heat. <br />we have the bible accepted by all religions which comes up with this count.<br />its not part of chazal as you put it. its specific in the torah. <br />but maybe you question that as well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-23286235039117008292010-07-04T09:51:47.143-04:002010-07-04T09:51:47.143-04:00"Reading your post again you seem to contradi..."Reading your post again you seem to contradict yourself. we follow them because we are loyal even though they are rarely right or read truth. and then when they are wrong (objectively whatever that means) we shouldnt or dont.... i seem to have missed something here."<br /><br />Yes, you missed something. I said Chazal are fallible. That means that they CAN be wrong, not that they are "rarely right," Chas V'Shalom. Chazal CAN be wrong also in Sevara that leads to Halacha, or in an assumption underlying a Sevara. However, even a compromised Sevara should not compromise the associated Psak. Our following Chazal in Halacha does not depend on their being always right, and thus there is no reason to limit their fallibility in any way, e.g. to matters of science and related matters.madaralhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12464817724312275528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-81770934675253181432010-07-04T09:00:17.254-04:002010-07-04T09:00:17.254-04:00"Halacha is nothing to do with truth as you i..."Halacha is nothing to do with truth as you imply both are true halacha means winning the vote and acting accordingly."<br /><br />Right, that is the point. We follow Chazal' psak, which is a matter of decision, not a matter of truth. But when we find that our understanding of a position of Chazal is not true in an objective sense, we should not claim that this position, as we understand it, is the truth. For instance, if you understand from Chazal that the Earth was created less than 6000 years ago, your understanding is objectively not true. This means that you should not claim that the world is younger than 6000 years. Rather, you should learn more. Perhaps you will find that you understood Chazal wrong. Alternatively, perhaps the understanding of Chazal was wanting, and you will rise above them.madaralhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12464817724312275528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-83201661010474133352010-07-04T06:31:01.184-04:002010-07-04T06:31:01.184-04:00meir says
i must add 'these and these are the ...meir says<br />i must add 'these and these are the words of the living (for greater emphasis) god.<br />that means everything that one says which makes sense and does not go against the tora are the words of the living god.<br />but of course the halacha can only follow one path. you either are allowed or not allowed. so one path has to be chosen and the gemoro says not by god but here in this world by making a vote.<br />Halacha is nothing to do with truth as you imply both are true halacha means winning the vote and acting accordingly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-26785653682181148552010-07-04T04:34:01.312-04:002010-07-04T04:34:01.312-04:00meir says
I have not understood exactly what is go...meir says<br />I have not understood exactly what is going on here considering it is coming from another blog.<br />It would be helpful to sum up what the argument is all about.<br />i cannot agree to tha last post as i have previously mentioned.<br />Science is a matter of knowledge. Logic isnt.<br />One can be fallible by not having knowledge. For not knowing what goes in the moon for instance. But logic read a svoro, chazal and for that matter all rishonim and most achronim cannot be wrong in the sense that it is non-sense.<br />When the gemoro says an amoro is wrong because a tanna says differently it only means he is wrong but not that he was speaking illogically or nonsense. and one also has to do ones best to understand him. that means understanding a hava mina.<br />We follow halacha because we believe they had better heads than us and if our small minds cannot understand them today that is a reflection on us not on them.<br />Your comment is a case in point. you cannot make a simple distinction like i have done and yet you claim they can be objectively wrong.<br />why is it that only today we have this critisism of chazal which was unheard of before, by so many blogs. were people all blind till<br /> now. All meforshim do their best to understand chazal however difficult it may be. but no one comes up with a blanket saying they were wrong as an answer. 'Halacha is rarely a matter of truth'.<br />i agree that some halachos are difficult to understand and you may term them untrue. but to say they are rarely a matter of truth is a statement which is totally untrue.<br />anyone who has opened a mishne brura will find that most halachos are easily understood.<br />perhaps your defintion of truth means that you 'like' them.<br />that is bordering on reform that you pick and choose what you like and you end up with a new religion that is how christianity started.<br />perhaps you would feel more at home there. i just wonder why you call yourself in hebrew letters. is it that you 'like' their shape better. i expect a strong reaction from you to this post and i hope others will also comment. i may sound extreme but that is the outcome of only following chazal out of loyalty and not believing them to be right at least most of the time. Reading your post again you seem to contradict yourself. we follow them because we are loyal even though they are rarely right or read truth. and then when they are wrong (objectively whatever that means) we shouldnt or dont. if our loyalty to the truth must prevail we should rarely follow them. i seem to have missed something here. you must forgive me i am a simple person not a rabbi and things have to be explained that bit more clearly to me and in simple plain English.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-90305847067993475212010-07-04T01:30:53.604-04:002010-07-04T01:30:53.604-04:00The hot discussion betrays a hot issue. The fear o...The hot discussion betrays a hot issue. The fear of the infallibility camp is that if "Chazal can be wrong in matters of science and related matters", Chazal can be wrong in anything. Thus, because "we" cannot allow the conclusion, we cannot allow the premise. It is a dogmatic position, and the conclusion is untrue, but the logic is quite rational. Rationally, can one limit the area of infallibilty to "science and related matters"? If not, why not state that Chazal can be wrong, in anything? For fear of the consequences?<br /><br />The honest position, I feel, is to say that Chazal were fallible, in anything. We follow them in Halacha, because we are loyal. We can do this, because Halacha is rarely a matter of truth. Our loyalty to the system derives from our loyalty Am Yisrael, and not from our loyalty to the truth. However, whenever Chazal are objectively wrong, our loyalty to the truth must prevail.madaralhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12464817724312275528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-6190597254931257662010-07-02T13:23:36.383-04:002010-07-02T13:23:36.383-04:00Basically, of course you can argue with me. And th...<i>Basically, of course you can argue with me. And the likelihood is that many of the times someone will argue with me, they will be correct and I will be incorrect.</i><br /><br />Thanks for this admission. I will now use this quote often in future arguments with you. :-)<br /><br />And by the way, I can't believe that you believe that cows are green! Such Apikorsut! :-)<br /> <br />Shabbat Shalom.yaakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08179304707239865515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-7942047210608103802010-07-02T11:18:13.172-04:002010-07-02T11:18:13.172-04:00I understand where you are coming from completely....I understand where you are coming from completely. Someone refuses to acknowledge basic statements. It is very frustrating. You definitely did not need to speak harshly with him, but I do not think anyone could blame you since you had clarified yourself continuously. Also, this is Rabbi Slifkin's website and this poster could have just been one of those people that are Anti-Slifkinites. Those people are just impossible to deal with. <br /><br />Anyway, keep up the great Divrei Torah. Your blog is GREAT and so are you.E-Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327848648278849664noreply@blogger.com