The Knesset (and idolatry) are binding because we accepted them upon ourselves, and the Talmud also because God wants it? What is the difference between a halakhic mistake in the Talmudic text and idolatry? We accepted both upon ourselves, and on the other hand God opposes both.

The Holy One, blessed be He, does not oppose our carrying out the decisions of the sages. On the contrary, “It is not in heaven,” and that is precisely what He wants us to do. It is just that this was not His original intention when He commanded this particular commandment. But in the case of idolatry, He opposes our obeying it. And from another angle: obedience to the sages stems from the Torah’s commandment of “Do not turn aside,” that is, from God’s will (except that what is new here is that the selection of the sages who possess the authority is not only through a process of ordination “from above,” but also through the agreement of the whole Jewish people “from below.” See at length on this in Beit Yishai – Derashot, sec. 15). But obedience to idolatry certainly does not stem from there.

So if the sages decide that there is a commandment to practice idolatry and the whole Jewish people agree (as in the case of the Talmudic text and its mistakes), that will be God’s will? What about tractate Horayot?

I already explained, and I won’t repeat it again.

Ronen — explain exactly what you mean by “idolatry.”

If you mean “idolatry” in the sense of something that God did not command us and that never entered His mind, then obviously it is forbidden, as if by simple logic.

And if you mean “idolatry” in the sense of something foreign that was introduced from the unknown for some reason or other, and not necessarily worshiping some statue or foreign deity besides our God, then the Rabbi explained that this is forbidden because of “Do not turn aside,” that is, by God’s will.
Now explain to me what the problem is with tractate Horayot, and I’ll try to answer you according to the Torah.

Rabbi Micha,

I will quote your words: “The holiness of the Talmud and of Jewish law lies not in their content but in the framework. Even if the Talmud is mistaken, and this is not what the Holy One, blessed be He, intended, one must still follow its instructions. That does not mean they are correct, only that they are binding. Therefore their holiness does not stem from their being correct, but from the fact that this is how the Holy One, blessed be He, wants us to conduct ourselves in practice.” And also: “The Holy One, blessed be He, does not oppose our carrying out the decisions of the sages. On the contrary, ‘It is not in heaven,’ and that is precisely what He wants us to do. It is just that this was not His original intention when He commanded this particular commandment. But in the case of idolatry, He opposes our obeying it. And from another angle: obedience to the sages stems from the Torah’s commandment of ‘Do not turn aside,’ that is, from God’s will.” End of 2 quotations.

What comes out from the Rabbi’s words is that the sages are allowed to tilt Jewish law however they see fit and not according to the Torah. On what basis does the Rabbi determine that the sages are allowed to uproot the words of the Torah even though the plain meaning is supposed to determine things, as Maimonides ruled: “Anyone who takes the Torah away from its plain meaning or uproots something from the Torah… behold, he is a heretic and an apikores.”

On the other hand, how can it be that the Holy One, blessed be He, gives us a Torah, and commands us and our sages and our judges and the entire Jewish people for all generations not to depart from the Torah, as it says, “According to the Torah that they instruct you…” So there is a hole here in His blessed intention when you wrote that this was not His original intention…. So God’s will is what determines more than the will of the sages. And if the sages are mistaken, what obligates me to listen to them?
After all, what determines things is the Torah, to which they too are obligated.
I found that Joshua said to the children of Israel and to all the priests that if they do not want to obey the Torah, then he and his household will go by the Torah alone!

Ronen — what mistakes in the commandments did you find in the Talmud? That you think and are certain that we are not properly fulfilling commandments!

B. As I showed from Maimonides, it is absolutely, absolutely, absolutely forbidden, with no exceptions for any sage, to uproot the Torah by even one letter or to take the Torah away from its plain meaning — and whoever does so is, in Maimonides’ opinion, a heretic and an apikores.

Absolutely not. What I wrote was that we should not worry if they erred unintentionally, because in any case they have authority. If they intentionally distort things or do whatever they want, their words have no significance and no authority whatsoever. The authority to err intentionally is given only in the laws of sanctifying the new month (“even if they do so intentionally”).

A mistake is a mistake, Rabbi — what difference does it make whether it was intentional or unintentional? Mistakes have to be corrected.

And regarding the authority to err intentionally in the laws of sanctifying the month, I am asking in order to understand:

Suppose the sages and all the judges and all the recognized authorities in the time of the First Temple sanctified the seventh month on some date by their authority, and the festival fell on the first day of the month, for example Rosh Hashanah, and then afterward they discovered that they had erred by one day and that the second day was the correct day. What would they do in such a situation regarding the rest of the festival days that fall in that month?
1. Would they and the whole people be obligated to bring a sin offering for their inadvertent error?
2. Would they be obligated to sanctify the second day as the proper day of the new month, as the correct Rosh Hashanah day, and likewise the 11th of the month as the correct Yom Kippur?
3. If they really are allowed to err in the matter of sanctifying the month, why did the Torah “approve” desecrating Sabbaths in order to receive the witnesses who “traveled” on the Sabbath and left the city limits in order to go testify in Jerusalem…
4. How did we understand from the Torah that Sabbath observance is weaker than observance of sanctification, even though those who rely on them are allowed to err on the day of sanctification even intentionally, while on the other hand the Torah would approve witnesses desecrating the Sabbath — which carries karet — without any היתר for desecration…

Moshe, this is an old question. What I meant by tractate Horayot is that it proves that if the Sanhedrin errs, one does not listen to it. All the more so to the Talmud. The Rabbi now argued that this is only if they erred by mistake. In tractate Horayot it is explained the opposite — even then it is forbidden to listen to them if it is known that they are mistaken. And as for your question what mistakes I found in the Talmudic text — I didn’t find any, but the Rabbi said elsewhere that there are some. Your questions about sanctifying the month actually are not difficult.
1. No.
2. No. If they already sanctified it, they do not change it afterward even if they erred intentionally. (Maybe it can be annulled, I don’t know. But they certainly are not obligated.)
3. When the witnesses go to testify, they do so innocently. They really did see the moon. Otherwise of course it is Sabbath desecration. The question is whether the religious court will accept their testimony or deceive or err, and that does not turn what they did into Sabbath desecration.
4. I didn’t understand.

Moshe.
In the Talmud there are many halakhic determinations. Among them there are probably not a few mistakes, as is the way of all human beings. A person could say that if so, he is not obligated to the Talmud. To that I said that we are obligated to it despite the concern about mistakes. This does not mean that the sages did whatever they wanted. It also does not mean that they did not err. But if we do not know regarding some ruling that it is mistaken, then despite the concern one should observe it. More than that, even if we reach the conclusion that in some ruling they really did err (halakhically, not factually), it remains binding until someone with authority (the Sanhedrin) corrects it.
It is true, as Ronen noted, that matters are not simple in light of the Horayot passage (about an error concerning the commandment to obey the words of the sages), and this is not the place for that topic. If it is a manifest error, perhaps there is room not to follow certain views. I already wrote this, and I do not remember whether here or elsewhere.

I assume they would do nothing. About this it was said, “even if inadvertent and even if intentional.” It seems to me that one cannot retroactively change the calendar except on the day of the new month itself. Therefore there is no sin offering for an inadvertent error, because there is no inadvertent error here (regarding the calendar itself there is no prohibition at all that would require an offering, though even if someone’s violation of a prohibition branched off from that). This is the correct calendar because the religious court established it. See Ronen’s answers.

Hello Rabbi,

One more thing, if I may have your response:

Suppose the Sanhedrin itself established a Jewish law, under a certain condition or in certain situations, to act in such-and-such a way, and afterward those “conditions” no longer interfere, or are no longer relevant — when can the Jewish law be changed, or what does it depend on..
For example the conditions of metya and yarqa.. today they overcome that easily — and it is completely irrelevant.

How did they light signal-fires when the new month fell on the Sabbath?

See Maimonides at the beginning of chapter 2 of the laws of Rebels: according to his view, even if the circumstances changed (the reason no longer applies), for a Torah-level law we require a religious court, and for a rabbinic law a court greater in wisdom and number. The Raavad disagrees with him there. However, the medieval authorities already brought quite a few examples that when circumstances significantly change, they do indeed cancel things even without any religious court at all. See many examples in the last chapter of Rabbi Neria Gutel’s book, Changes in Nature in Jewish Law.

I did not understand the question about the signal-fires.

If the new month falls on the Sabbath, how do they notify the Diaspora that they sanctified the month? On the Sabbath it is impossible to light signal-fires.

I haven’t checked now. In principle, they desecrate the Sabbath for the witnesses because they are a condition for sanctifying the month, but not for announcing its sanctification (see Maimonides, Sanctification of the New Month 3:8). So if the new month fell on the Sabbath, they would not light signal-fires, and at most people would not know that today was the new month. There is not much practical difference in that, since in the Temple, where they offer additional offerings, they would know even without signal-fires (because it is near the Chamber of Hewn Stone). It is exactly like the period of the messengers (which came after the signal-fires): until the messenger arrived, the people of the place would not know when the new month was, and sometimes this took two weeks. So with signal-fires it could be delayed by one day.

Why did the sectarians have a different calculation from ours regarding the calculation of the beginnings of the months? Why did they want to disrupt the signal-fires that marked the beginnings of the months?

Does the Rabbi think that the day is near when we will celebrate only one day of Rosh Hashanah and every new month will always be only one day?

And what about the rule that Passover must not begin on Monday, Wednesday, or Friday — will that no longer be relevant?

When the messiah comes, will they still permit Sabbath desecration by the arrival of witnesses, or will they rely on astronomical software for precise prediction of the new moon in order to declare the new month?

Are metya and yarqa in our time indeed irrelevant, and are they significant enough changed circumstances to cause the change you mentioned?

Why is there a difference in outlook between Torah-level and rabbinic law, since everything that a Torah scholar innovated or will innovate was already said at Mount Sinai…

I do not know who those sectarians were, but it is possible that they had a different calendar (for example a solar one), or that they too had a lunisolar calendar like ours, but did not accept the authority of the religious court and therefore wanted to disrupt things. Or they may simply have wanted to disrupt.

I definitely think that is how it should be. Whether that day is near or not — I do not know. Even today, the Rif’s view is that in the Land of Israel Rosh Hashanah is one day.

On that Maimonides and Rav Saadia Gaon disagreed: whether the rules “Rosh Hashanah does not fall on Sunday, Wednesday, or Friday” and “Passover does not begin on Monday, Wednesday, or Friday” started with the fixed calendar, or whether they were practiced even when the month was sanctified based on the moon. Once someone brought me a nice proof about this from the New Testament, where it is described that in Jesus’s time Passover was celebrated on Friday.

I don’t know, but I assume they will not sanctify it as they did in the past.

Indeed, but we require a different quorum to permit it.

“Outlook”? I didn’t understand. As for your point itself — none of this was said to Moses at Sinai. In my opinion, these rabbinic sayings should be interpreted as normative statements and not historical ones; that is, we are to relate to innovations as though they were given at Sinai and conduct ourselves according to them (if accepted as Jewish law) like what was given there.

Regarding the “outlook,” I meant your words: “See Maimonides at the beginning of chapter 2 of the laws of Rebels: according to his view, even if the circumstances changed (the reason no longer applies), for a Torah-level law we require a religious court, and for a rabbinic law a court greater in wisdom and number.” Because of the change in the “we require” when circumstances change..

I understand your view very well — “to interpret them as normative statements and not historical ones” — and that was clear to me beforehand from logic, but that is exactly what I am asking: why is there a difference among the halakhic decisors between Torah-level law and rabbinic law if in any event we consider or relate, or are supposed to relate, to innovations as though they were given at Sinai and accepted as Jewish law. So the question still stands. Is there a contradiction?

So only after I understand the answer to the above question will I be happy to understand the logical importance of requiring a different quorum to permit it (canceling consideration of yarqa and metya because their time has passed — obsolete). Why does Jewish law make re-ruling so difficult in such a simple case? And why is there no time at all for a religious court to deal with such things? After all, it is a need…. really a burden on the public in addition to the fact that the reason of metya and yarqa is obsolete.

What, in the Rabbi’s opinion, is holding back establishing one day of Rosh Hashanah nowadays?
(From the standpoint that there are issues with this because statistically according to the rule of “Rosh Hashanah does not fall on Sunday, Wednesday, or Friday” — and considering that this festival is celebrated for two days, it actually does fall on a day on which it was “forbidden” to be in the first place… but on the other hand we “sanctify” the second day too on this basis. Strange…)

I didn’t understand why the Rabbi mentioned the “Christian Passover,” which indeed fell on Friday. And if that source is reliable and not just hearsay, I would be glad to receive it, because if the “Christians” celebrated “Passover,” that means they offered a sacrifice on the altar among the Jews. Is it possible that we would allow them to “desecrate” our altar with “Passover” sacrifices of Christians that fall on the wrong day?! That must be absolutely forbidden, and it counts as idolatry because it is a sacrifice not at its proper time.
Should I rely on this source from the New Testament? The proof is very nice, but the question is whether one can rely on it.

As far as I know, these rules came into practice when witnesses ceased, and the proof is what I wrote in paragraph 3 of this message, starting from “So only after…”

In my opinion it is very important who those sectarians were — in order to exact justice from them for their deception. Their sentence is death. “Do not turn aside from all that they instruct you.” It is interesting why they did not settle accounts with them.. and they could have, because they apparently made pilgrimage according to their calendar. And they offered peace offerings and freewill offerings on their festivals according to their sectarian faith. And if they stoned a High Priest who belittled the commandment of the water libation, then what is the problem with stoning those wicked people who “do not obey the religious court”…

To exact justice from the sectarians and stone them? Good luck.

And regarding the “Christian Passover,” know that Jesus was Jewish.

Moshe,
I already answered about changes in Jewish law. The fact that we need to see them as though they were given at Sinai is after the law has been decided. And if one changes it, then the change too is as though it was given at Sinai.

Jewish law requires that halakhic change be done by a religious court. The reason is to prevent hasty and unjustified changes. What is the problem with that?

I mentioned that what is holding it back is the absence of a quorum (the Great Court).

What do you want from the Christians? They mentioned that the Jews celebrate Passover on Friday (they themselves were Jews then too).

Good luck with exterminating the sectarians. Just gently.

Imagine, Rabbi, that we had destroyed Jesus as a false messiah, or that his mother had undergone the ordeal of the bitter waters — do you think that he or his mother would have lived, meaning would Christianity have arisen? The Torah does not want gentleness — on the contrary. It wants to split open his mother’s belly. I say this in complete seriousness. Where was the Great Court, who were unable to do such a “maneuver” to his mother? Or to put him on trial as a false prophet or false messiah?

Apparently what I still do not understand is:
Does the Rabbi mean to say that there is no Great Court today and there will not be one because there is no Temple? If that is not your meaning, then what is preventing the establishment of a Great Court in our day?
How many judges were in the Great Court that established as Jewish law the rule that Rosh Hashanah does not fall on Sunday, Wednesday, or Friday and that Passover does not begin on Monday, Wednesday, or Friday…?

According to Jewish law, how can one know today who is fit to wear the robe of the religious court? And how many such people are needed?

It is understood from your words that you believe the “Christian” source that the Jews observed Passover on Friday? So has the question here been solved as to when they began to sanctify according to the rules of “Rosh Hashanah does not fall…”?

How did they solve the problem of metya and yarqa in the case where Passover fell on Friday? Very interesting…

To “Wondering” — I’d be happy if you’d rise higher still and find a source that we observed Passover on Friday. Do you also believe the Christian source as genuine evidence?

You need ordained sages, and we do not have them. Renewing ordination is disputed, and even according to Maimonides, who allows it, the agreement of all the sages of the Land of Israel is required. Somewhere between science fiction and fantasy. In the 16th century they tried and failed.
Metya and yarqa are only one of the considerations. But beyond that, it relates to “Rosh Hashanah does not fall…” and not to Passover.
A non-Jew is believed when speaking innocently, although this can be rejected in several ways.

On what basis did Maimonides determine that renewing ordination requires the agreement of all the sages of the Land of Israel?
According to the Torah, Moses “chose” elders and they immediately received prophecy.
Even if there is a dispute about renewing ordination — what bad could come from it? After all, it would only unite the Jewish people..
Okay, I didn’t say they would not take all the considerations into account.. what could be so complicated nowadays with these considerations and others… everything can be solved.. decided, and it is as though it were a law given to Moses at Sinai. Exactly so. Especially in fixing a calendar, since “even if their error is inadvertent, even if they were misled” — so there is no problem with this at all…

And what is the stronger consideration in establishing the rule that Passover does not begin on Monday, Wednesday, or Friday?

Maimonides is actually the more lenient one here. According to those who disagree with him, ordination cannot be renewed at all. He determined out of nowhere that it is possible through all the sages of the Land of Israel, and you ask on what basis he determined that they are required? Ask where he decided in the first place that it is possible at all.

This is not a question of bad or good. The question is whether ordination can be renewed or not. Even if it is very good, if according to Jewish law ordination cannot be renewed, then it cannot be. It is very good to permit an agunah to remarry, or to permit a mamzer, but without a halakhic argument this cannot be done.

I am not asking where Maimonides decided that ordination must and can be renewed, because they have that authority from the Torah: “And you shall do according to all that they instruct you” — who? Those ordained over all the Jewish people, of course. Not fragments upon fragments. Not rips upon rips. We are one people and must have a Sanhedrin.
Each generation and its sages, each generation and its scribes, each generation and its leaders, each generation and its guides. As it is written: “Your eyes saw my unformed substance, and in Your book they were all written.”

Even when there was no Temple there was still a Sanhedrin and they still ordained. This is the head of the whole structure; it cannot exist without it. The fact that one must “make for oneself a rabbi” is on the private level, but we also need to make for ourselves general leaders. And as I hinted, according to the Torah Moses was commanded to choose elders who would serve as part of this whole structure; Moses received the Torah from Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua, and Joshua to the elders….. that is how the Torah is transmitted and also ordination; one must not stop this. And even if they wrote down the Oral Torah and even sealed it, that does not mean it ended there — because there are always innovations in Jewish law.. and we need to find one general Jewish law for all the Jewish streams, and as quickly as possible.

What do you mean one must not stop ordination? It stopped about 1500 years ago.

Fine — based on what? Who said it is a proper state of affairs to be without ordination? Ordination creates unity, and not rips upon rips in the people… “And you shall do according to all that they instruct you” applies to the public, while “make for yourself a rabbi” applies to the individual.
There always need to be elders, as is written in the Scroll of Ruth that we read not long ago, that Boaz spoke with the elders….

Wondering — are you still merely wondering, or are you ready to admit what I’m saying and stop being in the category of “wondering”? Moses said to Joshua: “Would that all the Lord’s people were prophets” — note, he said “prophets” and not sages! And of course he instructed this according to the Torah! And the cycle I am returning to for the third time in this article is that all this refers to the elders, whose role is to ordain and help Moses, of course, in instructing Jewish law and in innovations in Jewish law that will develop, and this is what is written in tractate Avot, and whoever does not believe it is a heretic: Moses received the Torah from Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua, Joshua to the elders…. and from this verse and this mishnah we will understand and infer and expound that there must be a Sanhedrin in every single generation, and we should aspire to this no matter how strong the motives are, although there do not need to be motives. “There shall be one Torah for you” — and when will that happen? When there is a Sanhedrin, and not everyone making himself a rabbi, which is only for personal matters. And it is a mistake that there are chief rabbis who disagree with one another; that is not a proper or desirable state, and about this Scripture cries out: “For My people have committed two evils: they have forsaken Me, the fountain of living waters, to hew for themselves cisterns, broken cisterns that can hold no water.” And as long as the dispute continues and there is no Sanhedrin, it will be considered as though we have forsaken God and God is hidden from us.

So? What are you proposing? I agree that there needs to be a Sanhedrin; I doubt it’s possible. I already said that Maimonides invented out of nowhere that all the sages of Israel together can start ordination (not likely to happen today), and not everyone agrees.

To believe that it is needed and erase all the doubts, and from there all that remains is to move forward.. to enact a law in the Knesset, approved and accepted, according to which we will elect for ourselves a Sanhedrin according to criteria that will ordain the elders according to the Torah. And in no way pay attention to those who do not agree — because the gain that will come from having a Sanhedrin will be enormous and will bring unity, and I believe it will even bring prophecy back, because God will be with us, since God loves unity and He is one. Who knows? Maybe when we abolished the Sanhedrin it counted as having forsaken God. And this is considered an evil thing, as it is written, “My people have committed two evils,” and did not make for themselves a Sanhedrin. The Jewish people are torn and split —> we need to stitch everything back together!

As for a law in the Knesset — good luck.

Even if you don’t pay attention to those who disagree, that won’t solve anything, because in their view the “Sanhedrin” will still be a group of people with no authority whatsoever. You cannot say that the gain from a Sanhedrin is great and therefore it should be established against the view of the non-agreeing people, because in their opinion even if you establish it, it will be worth nothing. “To believe and erase all the doubts” — I suggest you believe in Christianity and erase all the doubts. You can’t erase doubts. They’re there.

Even if we decide that from now on it is permitted to eat non-kosher, there would be great gain. I suggest believing that and erasing all the doubts, and even passing a law in the Knesset declaring that from now on everything is kosher!

And in no way pay attention to those who forbid eating non-kosher, because the gain from everything being permitted will bring unity (and maybe even bring prophecy back).

You missed the point, and that is a great shame, because now you have turned into someone who mocks and belittles the fact that I proposed a way to draw His providence near to us. We have to make an effort, my brother. The effort brings reward with it. Our good will in establishing a Sanhedrin, already in the very speaking about it -> does something… up there… We are looking for a way to bring God to us and attain His providence — because His providence will also bring prophecy, obviously. Do you understand?
And regarding doubt and those who disagree and so on, know that you have moved away from my line of thinking: this Sanhedrin will think about and work on bringing hearts together among all our brothers of the house of Israel, all streams and factions, and there will be no ethnic discrimination because everyone will be equal. By the way, regarding the various kosher certifications too — that will be canceled, and there will be one certification for all products. There will be one law and one judgment. If there were a law canceling kosher food, that would not bring good, because eating non-kosher dulls the mind. And that would not bring unity but turn us into gentiles, because the Jewish people received laws to separate them from the gentiles, for we are a treasured people. And as it is written in the Torah, when we are united, even without those who agree to the Sanhedrin, the blessing will rest on those who do agree, and from them salvation will come, as it is written: “Keep them and do them, for that is your wisdom and your understanding in the eyes of the peoples, who shall hear all these statutes and say: Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.” And if the nations say so, what will those who disagree say and understand? See with your own eyes what the promise says: “But you who cleave to the Lord your God are all alive today.” “See, I have taught you statutes and ordinances, as the Lord my God commanded me, to do so in the midst of the land that you are entering to possess.”

For some reason you assume that specifically those who agree are right and those who do not agree just have empty doubts, and they will eventually see that they were mistaken. How do you know that? You say that salvation will come from those who agree, etc. But that is because you think (with no reason other than that it is what you prefer) that those who agree are right. The verses you brought prove neither side. How are they connected?

To Wondering,
Unfortunately the Rabbi left the discussion for some reason.
I will answer you, and I don’t know whether you will understand. In order to cleave to God, all that is needed is will, and not waiting for things to happen by themselves. And that is part of cleaving, meaning that those who do not agree will not be able to cleave with the same strength as those who do agree. And it is easy to bring examples that those who are zealous for God and for His word see salvation more quickly than others. As long as we are without a Sanhedrin, each person will do what is right in his own eyes. We need one law, one judgment, one instruction. Actually, my brother, I don’t think you will understand — never mind — apparently beyond that it is also faith.. and a feeling that connects only when one combines everything and learns from experience and tries to close the things that do not seem good in Judaism. I do not understand how you yourself agreed that there should be ordination today even though everything appears doubtful in Jewish law, but you agreed! In your opinion, who is “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved”? What does that mean?

To Ronen,
You said, and I quote: “2. No. If they already sanctified it, they do not change it afterward even if they erred intentionally. (Maybe it can be annulled, I don’t know. But they certainly are not obligated.)” End quote.

Now that I think about your words, I find a small difficulty that I would be glad if you or someone else could clarify. From your words it is not clear to me, nor to any creature, why and from where the sages sanctified two days of Rosh Hashanah as Jewish law for generations if, since they are allowed to err and will not even be obligated to bring a sin offering and they and we have whom to rely on, how does this fit together? The Rabbi explained that Maimonides brought from nowhere that it is permitted to renew ordination, and I ask: from where did the sages derive that one must sanctify two days of Rosh Hashanah? And why is that still binding if I do not even know the reason for it, nor their scriptural support for it for all generations… Actually, when I write “they sanctified the new month,” I mean all the new months that in our time are sanctified for two days, especially.

Moshe, are you sure you’re with us?
The sages sanctified Rosh Hashanah and the new months for two days precisely because they have the right to do what they think is correct. What are you asking?

That’s the problem — there is a glaring inconsistency here, Rabbi..

Welcome back, Rabbi. They understand what they are doing, and that is excellent, but we admitted that they had mistakes, which does not matter right now what they stemmed from, because we are now dealing with understanding the reason for their understanding of the essence of their ruling in this right to sanctify two days of the new month. The Mishnah explains the Talmudic text — who is supposed to explain to me the reason that caused them to understand that they should sanctify two days for all generations…. with such confidence…
And I dared to bring Maimonides, who wrote in favor of ordination from nowhere, except that that is how he understood it — and you, Rabbi, smashed his understanding — why?
And what was the main reason of the sages who established as Jewish law for generations that Passover does not begin on Monday, Wednesday, or Friday?

Moshe, actually I understand very well. Very. I too agree that there should be a Sanhedrin and that it is very important and worthwhile. I am only saying that halakhically it is not clear that one can do this. One cannot ignore the view of those who disagree (I am fairly close to their view — but that is not the point) because even though I too very much want there to be a Sanhedrin and I would do anything for it, I cannot invent ordination out of nowhere. I could also very much want 2 to equal 3, and that would not make it happen.

I feel that you do not understand what I am talking about.
This is not a matter of cleaving to God, etc.
Maimonides, who wrote in favor of ordination, did not write to ignore the view of those who disagree;
he simply disputed them in part. About what? Not that they thought ordination was unnecessary and he thought it was necessary. They disagreed on the halakhic question whether there is a technical possibility of inventing ordination out of nowhere or not.
All this of course has nothing to do with whether it is good or whether it would bring cleaving to God and prophecy.
Therefore your arguments are not relevant to the discussion, although I completely agree with them. Indeed, it is needed and proper and worthwhile that there be ordination. That does not mean one should ignore the view of those who disagree, etc. Because those who disagree also think ordination is needed. They simply disagree about the halakhic possibility of doing it. Your arguments can make us want ordination and therefore look for a halakhic way to do it. But there isn’t one.

To Wondering,
Support for your words can be taken from the philosopher Hobbes, who said that if 2 equaled 3 had political significance, a party would already have arisen claiming that.

Given the state of the discussion here, it seems that soon it really will have significance 🙂

Okay, you repeated your points in different words — how does that help?

To Y.D. — your words are new among all these others who just repeated themselves, so it is clear that you are special. I agree with Hobbes, my brother — and listen carefully: it does not have to be that 2 equals 3. It is enough that you believe that as a party and in your views, you will succeed in making positive changes, even though there are many who currently do not agree with your party or do not believe in it. The goal is success, not how you got there. But my brother, there is a connection between the way and success, and therefore our mind says (a person’s healthy reason) — and you have it, brother, believe me, maybe a little less than I do but you have it — I will give all of you a very thick hint and we’ll see who understands from an a fortiori inference that those who do not agree to ordination are mistaken. And it is important that I say that even without the hint one can understand that it is preferable that there be ordination from the standpoint of healthy reason. Because quite simply ordination will bring success. And from healthy reason we will understand that if so, how could it be that God, who is wiser than us, would establish laws that would prevent us from using healthy reason? It cannot be!

And back to the thick hint: and I will present it as a “riddle,” because it is a hint. It was forbidden to do this, but they did it in order to prevent forgetting. Who picked up the hint, and what is understood from the hint regarding permission for ordination, meaning what a fortiori inference can be made from the hint regarding the permission for ordination…. come on, use your brains

What’s the solution to the riddle?

Hobbes — here’s another hint: it has to do with writing. Brother.

Moshe, you didn’t understand what I said. You keep saying that clearly there needs to be ordination, etc., and that those who disagree are wrong.
But *everyone agrees that ordination is needed*!!! No one will tell you he disagrees!!!
So what is the discussion about? About the *halakhic* question whether there is a technical possibility of inventing ordination out of nowhere. And on that, healthy reason דווקא says that you cannot. Otherwise why is there any need at all for each ordained person to ordain those who come after him? One could simply have anyone who wants ordination invent it out of nowhere.

The solution to the riddle is “It is a time to act for the Lord; they have violated Your Torah” regarding writing down the Oral Torah. Of course that has not the slightest connection to this.

By the way, I think you didn’t understand Y.D. and Hobbes, but never mind.

The difference between the Oral Torah and this case is that if it had not been written down, most of the Torah would have been forgotten. Here, ordination would indeed be useful, but even if there is no ordination, no significant damage will occur.

And even if ordination is so important, even if we use “It is a time to act for the Lord,” it is still not clear that we could renew ordination.
Why? Because “It is a time to act for the Lord” permits prohibitions such as writing down the Oral Torah and pronouncing God’s name, but nowhere do we find that it can create realities such as ordination. At most one can establish a “Sanhedrin” and listen to its rulings, but it will not actually be a Sanhedrin.

One last time:

What I am trying to tell you is that the very fact that there are people who ordain those who come after them already constitutes grounds to ordain such a group that will be called a Sanhedrin… and its rulings will obligate everyone.

You solved the riddle — well done — and the a fortiori inference learned from it is that if that verse’s prohibition can be overridden, then all the more so there is no explicit prohibition against canceling the Sanhedrin that existed, so clearly from this verse one can establish a Sanhedrin against the view of those who do not permit ordination (those who do not believe in ordination). This is healthy reason, brother.

And again and again and again, I repeat: it cannot be that the Giver of the Torah would give laws that interfere with keeping the Torah or prevent good and truth and justice from its recipients! Because the Torah is for the good of man!

And do not say that no significant damage will occur, because look how many rifts and disputes there are in the Jewish people — it should not be like that — and therefore only the Sanhedrin will cut through this and reunify it! One law for everyone!

And there is no point in adding more!

P.S. Thank you for agreeing again that one can establish a Sanhedrin and listen to its rulings — I enjoyed hearing that from your mouth, dear brother — love you!

That is the summary!

But the rulings of the group that is established will not obligate anyone! “It is a time to act for the Lord” will not help here. Of course one can establish a group and ordain it, but from a halakhic standpoint it will be worth nothing. And it is certainly possible that the Torah will prevent good from its recipients. For example, the Torah prevents me from eating pork, and it tastes good. Unless you are arguing that what the Torah commands is the good — in that case, the fact that one cannot invent ordination out of nothing is part of the Torah, so that is good.

And where did you get that the Torah is for the good of man? If so, one could simply not have created man and dispensed with the Torah. Man’s purpose is to keep the Torah. The Torah’s purpose is not to benefit me or you.

Moshe — another riddle!

To Wondering,
Actually in this case the party does have a certain amount of power. If Jewish law is determined according to the acceptance of the nation (and not only the Talmud, but in general, as Rabbi Melamed argues), then it would be worthwhile to establish a party that would persuade the public that Jewish law follows Maimonides, and then there would be no room for the dissenting view.

Indeed, if Rabbi Melamed is right, you are right. But his words in recent weeks are extremely puzzling.

Let the nation decide that I am the messiah, and that’s it…

Actually, in this case maybe he is right. We do find that custom can decide disputes. But here it is a bit hard to say that if most of the public is “convinced” (how?) that Maimonides is right, that counts as custom and “go out and see what the people do.”

To Wondering — I wish you emotional liberation — your eyes don’t see beyond your own head… from your rambling it is clear that you only want to weaken my proven and super-logical conclusion. Whoever does not mend the Jewish people will himself be torn, separate, detached, and cut off from the Jewish people. Measure for measure.
Hobbes, here is a “riddle”: who entered the Land of Israel from the generation of the Exodus from Egypt?

Moshe, I bless you likewise.
The discussion is exhausted as far as I’m concerned.

To Wondering, are you sure about what you wrote here: “And where did you get that the Torah is for the good of man? If so, one could simply not have created man and dispensed with the Torah. Man’s purpose is to keep the Torah. The Torah’s purpose is not to benefit me or you.”

I wanted to clarify whether you do not agree that the Torah is a kind of manufacturer’s instruction manual?

A manufacturer’s instruction manual for what?

Presumably, if it was given to man, then it is the manufacturer’s instruction manual for man — what he must do in order for things to go well for him.

No. How did you infer that? God created the world and its people in order to give them a Torah with all kinds of annoying laws so that things would go well for them? He could just have created us in the Garden of Eden and that would be that.

But that is what is written in the Torah, what can I do:
Jeremiah 7:23
“But this thing I commanded them, saying: Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be My people; and walk in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you.”
Deuteronomy 12:28
“Observe and hear all these words that I command you, that it may be well with you and with your children after you forever, when you do what is good and right in the eyes of the Lord your God.”
Deuteronomy 6:18
“And you shall do what is right and good in the eyes of the Lord, that it may be well with you, and that you may come and possess the good land that the Lord swore to your fathers.”

So? God says that if we do His commandments He will do good to us. Does that mean the Torah is a “manufacturer’s instruction manual”? Maimonides already explained that only to women (??? apparently that was the situation in his time) and children does one say to serve God for the sake of reward.

Wondering — I have proof in my hands that you have lost your direction. If I need to explain to you that if God will do good to us when we do His will, then clearly from this the Torah is a manufacturer’s instruction manual, then you have lost yourself, not just lost your direction.
And I will hint even more than that: if the manufacturer of a washing machine tells you its instructions so that the machine will last longer and not break down, then obviously you will listen to the manufacturer. All the more so when we are talking about the production of the human species — there are manufacturer’s instructions. What did you think?

As usual, you slander and speak with confidence as though you’re at minimum Einstein talking to a caveman, but fine.

You claim that God created people and gave the Torah so that things would go well for them through the instructions. Interesting. May I ask why the gentiles are not obligated in the commandments? Suddenly it is not beneficial for them?

I suggest we finish this bizarre discussion.

On the contrary, my brother — if I had not been learning something from the discussion here, I would have disappeared long ago. Thanks to you I found the proofs that confirmed what I knew and investigated in order to verify. And indeed there is no point in slogging through what has already been proven.

The truth is — don’t misunderstand — in your words you demand justified explanations at the right time. You attack in a way that is not the nicest, and that’s a shame.
I will explain from what I know: the Jewish people are a united people; this means one depends on another, and that is what causes good for all…. The question arises: what is good at all? Good is peace and security. God said that in this world there will always be people who are poor and sick and homeless and unemployed and so on, because God wants us to support them, and this is the greatness of unity: love of the other and concern for his needs as much as possible.

The gentiles are obligated in the logical commandments and are not obligated in Torah commandments because the covenant was made only with the Jewish people. The commandments can benefit them if they convert, and in fact conversion begins with their observing the commandments, including the Torah-specific ones, and receiving reward for it. In practice, this is the existential purpose of the Jewish people — to be a light unto the nations, so that the nations will imitate us and observe the Torah.

It is also clear to me that the discussion has been exhausted, and if there is anything else you want to ask — I will gladly answer, my brother.

It is important for me to note at this stage that because God said that in this world there will always be people who are sick, wounded, missing limbs, disabled, blind, and so on and so on, that is a sign that the messiah has not come. And we need to strive for him to arrive. How? Simple: fulfill commandments and ask the Creator to hasten the redemption and all that this implies.

* Jesus too is not the true messiah, because according to Christian belief the death of Jesus caused all illnesses to disappear and all people to be healed and all sins to be erased for all generations — and that is absolutely, absolutely not the case.