 | We claim to believe in the Bible, but it seems to me that in reality we're controlled by a small group of old men and their Talmud...
28 Comments Posted
So when and where did we get the Law that says we have to have 2 sets of dishes and cooking items? One for Milk and one for meat? It is so frustrating. I have only a small kitchen and one sink. Does " " really care if I have meat on it for dinner and then wash it and have curds for breakfast?
|
It's possible to have a kosher kitchen with one sink. One good way is to use plastic basins that fit in the sink with a hole that fits over the drain. You need two of them--one for meat and one for milk.
There are other ways, too. Talk with the rabbi who made your kitchen kosher.
|
beautiful, thoughtful article. yasher koach!
|
I was just asking a question about something like this in ASK THE RABBI because I suspected it. And then here it is, all i need to know written in plain words what I experienced as a fetus of an insight that rocked my world, coming down from heaven in a crown.
I was going through" the book of the dead" and thought Moses must have seen through the esoteric mumbo-jumbo and made it lay-man's terms.
That's why Moses thought it was too much to have the letters come down in a crown.
I totally get it!
Thank you for this answer. I have the quiet version of a thrill of teenager when her favorite rock star is singing her favorite song, live on stage.
|
All well taken, democratic, populist, wise, adaptive debates, based on G-d's original creation-so now maybe it's time to broaden the group of wise discussants to include wise women, the spiritual daughters of Zelophehad, the daughters in law of Judah, the voices G-d gave us women, which since the time of Torah, or at least Devorah, haven't been heard in the debate, except through the discussion of our husbands. Yet G-d said time and again "Abraham, listen to your wife; Moses, Noà has a point" when will we ever learn to listen to the other half of our community
|
I really struggle with this article, although I feel it is well written - thank you, R' Freeman!
I think there might be a good many in the Orthodox/ultraOrthodox community who would disagree with this populist approach. A few points:
1. Rabbi Akiva also proclaimed Bar Kochba to be the awaited mashiach, yet we're supposed to somehow lend weight to the midrash about Moses in the 18th row of Akiva's class?
2. Even at Mt. Sinai, after the Israelites had heard G-d with their own ears and seen his closeness, their "popular opinion" was to construct a golden calf. So the community can determine Halachah?
3. This populist view is antithetical to the Orthodox position. There are far more Conservative/Reform/Reconstructionist Jews in this world, yet the Orthodox community continues to uphold its standards. Shall we therefore let the non-Orthodox majority decide Halachah/Aggadah? Guess we'd better open up the doors to Aliyah to all those Jews who are converts and those who've married Jews but remain goyim.
|
Even as recently as a generation ago,most women were way too busy to write responsa. Now there are women who study all the texts, who have the time and inclination to write. There should be weight given to their opinions. I do not understand why women are often locked into only women's issues. To be fair this is a society wide problem My ob/gyn may be a man or a woman, but try to find a female urologist!!
There are some programs to make this come about. In the meantime, if any woman wants to have her word alone counted as a witness I suggest she become a shomemet at a mikvah!!
|
Wow, this article is really an eye opener to a Noachide, since it shows how we actually have no voice in the 'doors' being made with regard to our position in the whole scheme of Judaism. Surely new instances occur. For example, we can all agree that pornography is wrong, either morally or psychologically, but strictly speaking, it isn't a part of the 7 laws we follow. And what about p2p file sharing? Is that 'theft' if you are residing in a country where it isn't illegal?
I guess I just feel disenfranchised. Even if the Rabbis decide on issues, surely they are considering the Jewish perspective, not that of the Noachide.
|
A fascinating answer to a question I have been trying to answer for myself. Just one question I would like to raise is where does the Law account for an individuals accountability for what he/she does before their Creator. My understanding was that first we were accountable to G-D and secondly men. In G-D's Kingdom, it is G-D who makes the rules and we as His people to outwork them out of love for G-D. Therefore each and every man needs to interpret the Torah for himself, live a life in accordance with his/her understanding knowing that they accountable to G-D for their actions and their passion for Him.
|
If so, then why does the G_d tell us that when we have a difficulty, we should go to the wise men of our times and ask them, and then "not turn from their words to the right or to the left"? Why is there a court of justice? Why is that court of justice endowed with the power to dispense punishment even for crimes against G_d?
We human beings live in societies. We are all responsible for one another. If you are drilling a hole in the floor of your side of the boat, I have the right and duty to stop you--no matter what your philosophy is.
|
Some issues are still troubling me. First, the assumption that no mistakes have been made by men throughout the ages (in the deduction and establishment of halakhot). I can hardly imagine that decisions have not been influenced by extreme circumstances under which communities have been living in the past. Secondly, even if we would recognize that mistakes have been made, the inability to cancel them. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know, only a Sanhedrin could invalidate halakhot.
Hence, the following question: what is preventing our Sages, today, from setting up a Sanhedrin in Israel?
Finally, how are our non-religious fellow Jews taken into account? Should they be disregarded altogether because they are not religious?
I live in Israel, and I am saddened everyday by the drift between religious and secular.
|
Concerning mistakes: Not sure what would be deemed a mistake. G_d says, "Argue it out, follow the rules, and I'll agree with whatever consensus you come to as a community."
Can a decision be overturned? Depends. Many decisions have been overturned when the case was reviewed later. Some rulings can never be overturned. Some can only be overturned by a court that is greater than the original court that made the ruling. So, for example, the court of Moshiach will likely overturn many rulings, since they will understand everything on a much higher plane.
Who do we consider valid voices? The simple answer is, "If you don't play the game, you can't make the rules."
The rift between religious and not-yet-religious Jews in Israel is indeed saddening. We need love and understanding. But compromising halacha isn't going to gain us any Browny points with anyone.
|
"No use for Q in Latin"? How about quid pro quo, quo vadis, qua, quasi-, etc.
Hila - there has been a Sanhedrin meeting in Israel recently, quietly, hoping for wider acceptance among the public.
|
"And so, the Jewish people became the first literate society in history—and remained such until the advent of popular literacy in the modern era."
Weren't the Greeks literate?
|
Ze'ev raises some issues that may be bothering others as well and need to be clarified:
1. Who says Rabbi Akiva was wrong? Bar Kochba rebuilt the Temple and almost redeemed the Jewish People. Then he failed. Moses also failed. Does that mean you can't back a great candidate just because he has the free will to fail? In fact, Maimonides learns the qualifications of the moshiach from the story of Bar Kochba--meaning that he understands that since Rabbi Akiva accepted him, he must have been qualified.
2. The Jewish community determines a halacha according to the rules, not by breaking them. If everyone is sinning, that doesn't mean that sinning has now become ethical. See 3. (Aside from this, it was only a small minority that was directly involved in making the golden calf. According to tradition, only some members of the "mixed multitude".)
3. The rule is, if you don't play the game, you can't make the rules. We are talking about the consensus of the <i>participating</i> Jewish community. And that means a consensus over a matter discussed by qualified scholars. I'm going to stop there because this is not a forum for discussing various contemporary movements.
What is fascinating is that over all these journeys, persecutions and upheavals, whenever the dust settles, those who veered from the path of halacha have disappeared or been reduced to insignificance, while the halachic Jews continue with strength. If you've looked at the demographic projections, you'll see we're observing the same thing happening today and within the next few decades.
|
The key word is "society". Many Greeks were literate, but never more than a small minority. Literacy was a luxury of the few. In a Torah society, it is incumbent upon every father to teach his child to read, and if the father fails to do so, the responsibility lies upon the court and community.
From earliest times, a Jew was assumed to be literate by default. Rabbi Jonathan Sacks cites strong evidence of this from Judges 8:13–14 where Gideon asks the first young man he comes across to write down all the names of the elders of his town. The implication is that Gideon took it for granted that a young man grabbed at random would be literate. See “A Letter in a Scroll” (also published as "Radical Then, Radical Now") by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, Chapter 10.
|
Wow - I'm astonished - "What's wrong with "K"?" (for Q)
Surely a student of Hebrew understands the difference between the palatal kaf (from which K is derived, via the Greek kappa) and the guttural qof (from which Q is derived - the resemblance between q and the Hebrew qof is no coincidence).
|
That's the point: In Hebrew and other Semitic languages, there's a difference. In Greek and Latin, there is no difference. The Greeks didn't need the Q. They could have sufficed with a KW. But since they just wholesale adopted the system, they took that too.
|
You should now go to discuss the next level in light of the current Jewish condition particularly in America. Some Rabbis today don't accept the rulings of other Rabbis. Both groups, in many cases, say that they are ruling based upon the Torah and the Gemara. Yet, they result radically different results. One group ends up saying that the other group can't be/shouldn't be listened to (e.g., Orthodox v. Conservative). How can we be sure?
|
Akiva's claims that the Oral Torah he received from Moses -- as Moses is portrayed in the 18th row of his class seems anything but humble. In the story, Moses is reduced to a simpleton at the back of the class who cannot validate Akiva's claim. I always believed Oral Torah was from Moses til I heard this story. Instead of 'being relieved' that Akiva was a good humble guy who says he got his teachings from Moses, it is disturbing that Akiva is legitimizing claims using the authority of Moses who is also denigrated, which is disingenuous and not humble. Sorry to be a party pooper, and it would be a cute story if the stakes were not the legitimacy of Akiva's claims that contributions to Talmud were from Moses' reception of Torah.
|
The reason that subsequent rulings were made is that they were indispensable to practice; and in the alternative, total confusion would reign. No rulings were made independent of a need to clarify exactly how a given problem would be resolved or how a halachic ruling would logically be expressed in a given context.
An example of this is the various rulings governing medical decisions, in which it became necessary to make proper moral--and ultimately halachc--decisions. The notions of option or redundancy have no place in rulings any more than they do in halacha itself. Rulings are made out of necessity and nothing more--or less.
This also applies to selfl-appointed guardians of halacha--Conservative or Reform or Reconstructionist. The Sanhedrin is as necessary as the Supreme Court is in determining whether or not a given ruling is consistent with the original document.
|
Things we read in the bible does not even compare to what is allowed to be seen by PG13 movies nowadays.
It was Edison credited to have invented the light bulb. But it was Davy who invented the spark that Edison prolonged. Without Davy, what would Edison expound on?
Some would say what Davy made was not as useful as Edison's, but that's a limited point of view. Foundations are not less than the towering buildings that stand upon them.
Ego is man's concern. In the grand scheme of things, whoever is greater is a tick, a flea of a disturbance to the great glory of the running horse it is feeding upon.
|
Rabbi Posner referred your article and I must commend you for such a well-written and beautifully presented assessment.
In fact, one can analogize the way you presented Talmudic practice to the way the Supreme Court rules on Constitutional questions No one rejects the zillions of pages of laws that have been enacted in the mere 250 some years of this country’s existence simply because there have been LOTs of new laws added - The reason being the procedure for adding new laws is akin to what you raise, (stare decis or need for precedent); & the types of cases heard are amazingly consonant with your description.
And any valid and functional legal System is dependent on the analog of a Supreme Court to keep it relevant. Sadly, the Jewish people have lost ours - the Sanhedrin- hundreds of years ago. And yes, there are Rabbis who do their best to fill in -- without a Supreme court, with universal authority - we have a fragmented system, sects, backbiting and rifts within our own.
|
I have been enjoying and learning a great deal from several of your articles tonight, since the local Chabad Rabbi suggested it would help me understand better. You certainly are very learned about a great deal more than Orthodox Judaism.
With all due respect, I do have to state however, that I find it blasphemous to suggest that Rabbi Akiva was more knowledgable than Moshe Rabeinu. Invented stories such as this being taken seriously, is where you go too far to justify your belief and worship of Talmud as opposed to the Torah God handed down to Moshe and to our tribe.
|
I think in many ways the Rabbis won. The problem is that no matter how wise or inteligent they were, they were still just men with flaws. I see Maimonides quoted a great deal, but conservative Jews do not take into account his personal stance regarding women and continue the oppression of women that was the norm during his time.
It is really the same as the way whites treated blacks. If not for many whites who realized this was wrong the blacks would still be regulated to the back of the bus. Changing what we know to wrong helps bring us closer to G_d. Waiting for the Moshiach to change what you already know isn't right is a sin.
|
Will somebody please make up God's mind!
I mean years ago, it was "turn neither to the right nor to the left", now its "...Torah should come from within, not from without, from below, not from above". What?
I notice that after the death of Moses, the 'Jews' have not ceased to twist the Torah to their own convenience.
It is obviously necessary to expound the concepts in order to transfer the import, but it is critical that the context and original concept be preserved. I cant feel comfortable with you people just adding this or that.
Give it to me straight, let me and G*d work out the implications for my reality. And why is it that I keep hearing all kinds of new stories about Moses and such? Are you guys making them up or something?
The Torah is in itself, a vital means of navigating any reality; but if you guys keep this up, I'll just go burn my own bush and write my own Torah on my own mountain.
The Torah doesn't need your help to be right and valid, stop messing with it!!
|
|
| |
|
LOGIN
ASK THE RABBI
Read this article
