On "cutting" legumes, conservatism and blasphemy (column 2)

Wolf:
Geowold!!
——
Nadav Gessner:
Rabbi Michael,
It is difficult for me to accept the disdain for a custom that was practiced by the great rabbis. The Rema and the Maharil would not have maintained a strange and annoying custom.
I don't know about all the different and strange reasons, after studying the issue from the Gemara, Beit Yosef Shulchan Aruch and its subjects, I saw that the custom has three main reasons: 1. That I should not alternate between a dish with various legumes and a dish of various grains. 2. That I should not alternate between dishes made from legume flour and grain flour, 3. Mixing various grains with legumes. There is an understandable rationale for these reasons, even though they are not strong enough to make it clear that it should be prohibited, because concerns can always be found and why. But is the existence of relatively distant exceptions in halacha new to you?
While it is clear that nothing has changed regarding the first tastes, because today legumes are cooked and baked from their flour no less and even more often, regarding the third taste, I have heard Rabbi Eliezer Melamed teach several times in shiurim that the reality today has not only not changed but has actually worsened. He even addressed this briefly in the Revivim section. http://www.yeshiva.org.il/midrash/15751.
Perhaps in rice, which is not similar to wheat, it is easy to distinguish industrially, but in cumin, for example, which is also grown in the same field as wheat, Rabbi Eliezer said that once they showed cumin grain at a kosher conference, and only after they were shown the subtle difference between cumin and wheat, did they see that the ratio is 1 to 20. Not even a 60-fold increase! And we are talking about leaven that prohibits something.
Moreover, in Rabbi Micha Halevi's class this year, he said that he recently took care of a spice factory that had exactly this problem! After grinding, he realized that the grains from which the spices were made contained less than 60% wheat. The rabbi ordered the factory to stop operating for a few days (the rest of the incident is irrelevant to his case).

My question is, do you deal with kosher? Do you know the reality in the fields? In the packaging plants? Or are you just saying: I have never found wheat in rice. Because that doesn't sound like a serious enough argument to me. Maybe only for rice. (Certainly not the argument that according to the law it is serious to have unreported gluten. Do we live in the same country? Since when is the law here a guarantee for anything?).

I will summarize:
This is a ruling based on a caveat. There is no shortage of such in the halacha, more or less distant. All the reasons still exist. Therefore, there is no reason to annul this type of halacha, simply because in our opinion the beliefs of the great men of that generation were foolish.
——
Rabbi:
Nadav Shalom.
I just saw your comment. Sorry for the delay.
I have already written that all these unconvincing justifications, even if they are true, are irrelevant to the discussion. In your opinion, we should prohibit things based on the actual concern about them, not because of custom, and not permit them based on formal questions such as whether it is a legume that was in existence at the time of the "decree," or whether it is green. Poke around and see where there is leaven and where there is not. Furthermore, if there is a real concern, Sephardim should also be stopped from eating legumes. No one recommends doing this. Therefore, I do not buy the enthusiastic reports of supporters of this custom, and you do not need any knowledge of kosher for this.
If leaven is found in any product, production must be stopped or the kosher status must be revoked. This is what has been done and is being done in these cases, and the ban on all legumes does not become any less ridiculous because of this.
The law on gluten is very significant, just like the RMP's consideration of Akko milk in a modern country. In the State of Israel, they are also strict about it, if only for economic reasons (the fine if you violate it). If you don't trust the conduct - don't eat any kosher product because it might contain pork or blood and you weren't told. By the way, do you know many Sephardic gluten-sensitive people who were harmed by eating legumes on Passover? That gluten got into their product? From what I've been told, even in restaurants - which are much less supervised than industrial products - this almost never happens anymore.
I don't know whether or not there was a concern about chametz at the time of the Maharil or the Rema, so it is possible that in their time there was a reason for this prohibition. We will leave the discussion of the obligations of death for another occasion...

By the way, if this were a decree (and as I wrote, in my opinion it really isn't, but rather a concern), then there's no need for all this, because even if the reason is nullified, the decree is not nullified. I've already written about the fact that the early rabbis nullified dozens of such decrees. The rules of halakhah are not mathematical rules, but that's a topic for another discussion.
——
Pine:
Following on from what was said about Rabbi Chaim Navon, there is an article by him with similar things that I would love to hear your opinion on:
Rabbi Chaim Navon:
A new Torah genre has come into the world: mocking the exaggeration of Passover cleaning. "According to Halacha, in three hours you can make your house ready," people read in Shabbat pamphlets, and I immediately rush to disparage both men and women who clean. My wife really doesn't like these statements. Maybe according to Halacha, three hours is enough, she says (and I say: I doubt it), but that's how my mother cleans, and that's how we clean too. And she's right. Because our Passover is not determined solely by the books of Halacha. I believe with all my heart in the vitality of Halacha to our spiritual lives. In a world where all loyalties are degenerating and all commitments are dissolving, in a world where people pride themselves on having freed themselves from the shackles of religion while at the same time worshipping themselves as a selfish and crazed idol, in such a world our loyalty to Halacha is a vital and heartwarming wonder. Halacha is the skeleton of our spiritual world. But this skeleton must be covered with flesh and blood. Halacha must not be given up, but it can and should be added to. Our customs and traditions are what give volume and strength to our religious life. What would our Passover look like if it were only Halacha? From the point of view of the mathematics of Halacha, it is enough for a person to recite short, fragmented parts of the Haggadah. From the point of view of formal Halacha, if the cleaning for Passover can be completed in three hours, then the Seder night can be completed in an hour and a half, including the meal. It is not just about Passover. If we were limited to formal Halacha, much of the flavor and aroma of our religious life would be taken away from us. According to the books of Halacha, one does not have to pray Kabbalat Shabbat. I am not saying that one should not pray it in the Carlebach style – that is certainly true, and even recommended, regardless of Halacha – but that one should not pray Kabbalat Shabbat at all. Shabbat songs also do not appear in any section of the Shulchan Aruch. Even "Kol Nidrei" on Yom Kippur night can be skipped. And even for forgiveness, we don't need to wake up. Our lives are wrapped in customs and habits, without which we would be lost and poor. It is impossible to turn to books everywhere as an exclusive source of authority. In no area of our lives do we act like this. Respectable people boast about wearing ties. Does anyone have a logical explanation for this item of clothing? When we meet, we shake hands. What is the meaning of this procedure? It is unhygienic and illogical. We will not find any explanation for it in books. We can only find theories about the historical origin of the handshake, theories that only present it in an even more ridiculous light. Anyone who examines the rational explanation for each step and what justification can be found for it in books will reduce his life to an incredibly short series of purposeful actions. None of us act like this. Even when we do things that have a clear purpose, this reasoning is not the motive for our actions. Sometimes people tell me with pride that they explain to their young children the reasoning for every religious action and every mitzvah. And I ask: Do you also teach them a crash course in bacteriology before brushing their teeth? We do what we do because that is how life is in our home, and at the elementary level, that reasoning is enough. This is the basic layer of family and community identity that every child should grow up with. As our children grow older, they understand more and more. But we, their parents, also press the microwave and believe that the food will heat up, without having any idea how this miraculous mechanism works. If we limited our actions only to what we can rationally explain and justify, we would still be heating food on campfires (assuming we understand the theory of fire combustion). Our customs have a double value. First of all, they shape the hidden corners of our souls. Each of us misses the High Holy Day melodies of our parents' home. Not that they are really more beautiful than the melodies of the cantor in our contemporary synagogue, but we grew up on them. Besides this, customs also have another value: they preserve the wisdom of our ancestors. The wisdom of many generations has been poured into these customs. And if the accumulated experience of our ancestors led them to gather together for the Kabbalat Shabbat prayer, even though the halacha does not require it, then this is probably the way to truly elevate our Shabbat. Because of all this, I appreciate the dedication to Pesach cleaning. Whoever finds it too much for him – let him reduce. Whoever feels that the smells of bleach turn him into a compulsive-obsessive monster – let him stop. But those who are ready and willing to make the effort and clean more than necessary, because that is how they did it in their parents' house, and that is how they want their Pesach – deserve appreciation and not disdain. I have much more to say on this subject, but the panels are waiting for me. (The weekly column in Motzesh magazine – Your New Week).
——
Rabbi:
Halacha itself sees a custom as something obligatory. But in doing so, it also says that foolish customs should be abolished. And when a custom becomes a nuisance and it is clear to everyone that it is nonsense, there is no reason to keep it. And when it comes to a concern that has become a custom out of inertia, like the Rebbe of Gur's broom, then it is already a joke. And if cleaning for Passover is a fashion like wearing ties, then clean it. Just don't tell me that it is obligatory. If you look for leaven where it can be, then there is a place. But simple cleanings are not a custom, but a nuisance. Rabbi Navon reacts with a hysterical reaction to the excessive reform and innovation (to his taste), and in doing so, in my opinion, he associates gender with something that is not gender. Incidentally, I also don't have too much faith in the collective wisdom of the generations. For example, I clearly prefer scientific medicine to the 'accumulated wisdom' of the Chinese in acupuncture.
——
kid:
Be updated on the new site, a, Why not be afraid of that biting snake? b. My opinion is that the snake is not exactly metaphysical but a feeling of withdrawal that does not do good to the self in front of the audience to which you belong, c. Look at the fact that in Passover customs, one should not abandon the tradition, even in the custom of a shtutted. This is a slippery slope and that is how the reform began. It also had halachic supports for the most part until it deteriorated. I hope that his honor did not eat legumes on Passover. Personally, it would hurt me [of course, this does not obligate his honor] as I think it would also be for his honor. Happy Holidays
——
Rabbi:
Gadi Shalom. Thank you for your response. If something doesn't do someone good, then don't do it. The question is not a question of feelings, but of prohibition or permission. Even if it says so in the Maharal, I disagree with it. The moment you treat a foolish custom like halakha, the damage is much more serious. The reform (and the Enlightenment) began with two forces that were combined together: the rebellion from below, and the wrong response from above (from the rabbinical establishment: condemnation and excommunication instead of a substantive response). I'm sorry to disappoint you, but this year I did eat legumes.
——
kid:
I will add a few more words: we are all part of the public. If everyone decides to do what they see fit, it will not hold. The issue is nothing more than signing the Talmud. It is the same principle. They accepted it and that is it. I made it very brief, and it should be extended.
——
Rabbi:
Regarding the issue of handing over the decision to everyone, I will bring here things I said about twenty years ago to my students at the Hesder Yeshiva in Yeruham before they left for the officer course. I told them that I would not want to go to war with soldiers that I know would never refuse me an order. Every soldier must refuse an order when a red line is crossed from his perspective, of course after considering that the matter is serious enough and justified. This is not only the soldier's right and duty for the benefit of his own values, but is also necessary for the proper functioning of the army. A commander who knows that if he gives an order, the soldiers can refuse him – will consider every order more seriously, and the functioning of the army will only improve. A commander who knows that every order of his will be carried out automatically will give orders without sufficient thought.
Regarding the status of the Talmud, it is indeed based on public acceptance, as was the case at Mount Sinai. But they did not accept the foolish custom of ketaniyot, and even if they did, it was a mistaken acceptance, like any other foolish custom.
I would also add that the arguments you have raised here are true for any custom, and what emerges from them is that in fact there is no such thing as a foolish custom. After all, you can always say that it is forbidden to deviate from the public and its acceptance is binding, etc., etc. But there is such a concept. So when did it say that foolish customs should be abolished? I mentioned in my remarks that even decrees from the Talmud were abolished by the Rishonim when it was necessary. So a fear or foolish custom all the more so that there is no problem and it is even desirable to abolish them.
——
Yeruham:
The honorable Rabbi 'forgot' that the Beit Yosef, regarding the issue of legumes, cites the words of our Rabbeinu Yerucham, who writes, 'And it is a foolish custom' - that is, your entire long [and enjoyable] speech in one word, 'nonsense.' From the course of events in the Beit Yosef, it seems that he is rubbing his hands with pleasure at hearing the words of Rabbi Yerucham, and he adds fuel to the fire and writes, 'And in Spain they never practiced this,' that is, don't confuse our minds with absurd Ashkenazi customs. See you at the university
——
Rabbi:
May they be blessed.
In my words, I did not need sources at all, because even if there were no such sources, my words would still stand.
Gadi Ma'alich cites a source that talks about "harvesting legumes," and this is also a source (and I haven't forgotten it either).
——
kid:
To my mind, I thought you were calling it a foolish custom that we are talking about today, but it is clear that it is an ancient custom [a decree, see the Maharil who wrote that there is a death penalty] with reasons [although there are some] of their own, and yet our Shulchan Aruch, the Rema, wrote a halakha "It cannot be changed" as I wrote if we read from the halakha [and more in public] each with his own opinions is the end of the matter, this is a reform, talking about it in public is contagious, I did not prolong it and maybe I will write to you privately, [Is there a chance that I will change your mind about something that in principle will convince you of the justice of the things?]
——
Rabbi:
It is difficult for a witness to testify about his actions. I can only express my appreciation and hope that if good evidence is presented, I will gladly return.
Originally, I assume that this fear had logic. I have no reason to assume that our ancestors and elders were fools. Therefore, it is clear that when I speak of a foolish custom, I am referring to our day. What I argued about the time when people began to abstain from legumes is a different argument: I argued that it was probably a fear and not a decree or custom, and I assume that there was really a basis for this fear at that time. After this basis has disappeared, there is no reason to continue practicing it. I detailed the matter in my column.
The treatment of this as an ancient custom is only because they don't understand why everyone does it and don't have the courage to change and abolish it as they should have. And inventing a death penalty for this is truly a futile thing to forgive.
I once heard from Rabbi Midan (maybe I wrote in my own words. I don't remember), that he knows 22 reasons why the Book of Ruth is read on Shavuot, but only one reason for the reading of the Book of Esther on Purim. All the reasons for "decrease in legumes" testify by a thousand witnesses that there is no reason at all. Just now, one of my acquaintances sent me a quote from Rabbi Chaim Pelaji, who wrote that the prohibition of legumes is because it is a dishonorable food for the holiday. And according to this, of course, they should also be avoided on Sukkot and Shavuot (he himself writes this in the Hadith). See how far these strange things go, and how all this is related to the distinctions between the different types of legumes (what was available at the time, green and not green, etc.).
If when everyone comes with their own interpretations, this is reform – then I am a reformer. I am one of those who use their own interpretations (although I try to be careful about this). This is what our sages have done throughout all generations, and they were not afraid of all these concerns (see, for example, the sources that Yeruham cited in the message before you).
This is not a departure from the Halacha, but a departure from the words of some Halacha arbiters. And they all do this. To call this a departure from the Halacha is to assume the desired outcome (you assume that this is the Halacha. But that is what the debate itself is about, and in my opinion it is not).
I certainly hope that talking about this in public is contagious. You certainly understand that my goal in publishing these things was not to hide my positions. I hope that it will infect many others who have abandoned their authentic teachings on this matter. The right way if you want to prevent this is to present good arguments against, and not to do it in person but in public. So that everyone can see and judge.
All the best
——
kid:
Rabbi Michal, if I thought you were a reformer, I would not argue about this. You are neither the first nor the last who every year can wonder to himself or to his friend why legumes are not permitted in our time, and everyone still follows the Rema who wrote that there should be no change despite his knowledge that in his day there was no longer any concern, [perhaps the concern of dragging wheat and rice] There was no shortage of leaders in previous generations who had handfuls of credit in their hands to permit the matter without fear for their own skin, and for the sake of the dangers of the matter, they did not permit it. The people are not ready for fundamental changes because this is a slippery slope, all the more so when it comes with a disregard for what is necessary, and this is the absolute respect for our ancestors who are still called,,,If we are first like angels, etc.,,,These are beliefs necessary for our existence and those greater than me will also say that this is a reality [the descent of generations, etc.] For others, these will be necessary customs and the custom of Israel is Torah and its merits are beside it. Without these foundations, I do not see Continuation and existence,,
——
Rabbi:
Hello, Gadi.
First of all, I don't think it's right not to debate with Reformers. Arguments should be responded to with arguments and not with boycotts or insults. What I wrote is that if the exercise of reason is a reform (as you claimed) then I am a Reformer. This is not a rhetorical statement, but I meant it completely seriously.
The fear of allowing, in my opinion, did not stem from personal fear, but from a reaction to reform and demands for change that arose or were feared to arise. I think that at least nowadays this is the wrong policy. Contrary to what was accepted in the past, that when there is a loophole, any change should be blocked or walls should be erected, today this policy is destructive and harmful. What needs to be done is to explain what is truly forbidden and what is not, and not to mix customs with prohibitions, and certainly not to adhere to foolish customs.
I don't know who the "people" are who are ready or not. I actually think that the people have stopped being ready for total non-change, especially on such stupid issues as kindergartens. And if we don't change, many will throw away (and are already doing so) everything. People are losing faith in such a fossilized and anachronistic system.
The question of whether Rishonim are like angels and its meaning does not concern us. I am not claiming that any of the founders of this prohibition were stupid. On the contrary, it is clear to me that they had a good reason, but I am claiming that now it no longer exists (and there are no concerns about dragging it out). It seems to me that if we maintain the perception of Rishonim as angels in this sense, we have no right to exist. Our eyes are seeing the (justified) deterioration of public trust in halacha and the poskim. This is a result of their/our fossilized conservatism. We earn it honestly.
——
kid:
Rabbi Michal, with a Reformer I would not discuss legumes, there is no such thing as a boycott. As for the fear of loosening, that is indeed what I wrote. I disagree with his honor regarding conservatism. I believe that conservatism is necessary, and for some reason his honor writes that the leash should be loosened [at least in what he believes], which in my opinion is destructive. Indeed, when an important, talented, and important Jew stands up and somehow mocks a saint and a precious person in the religious Ashkenazi community who observes the words of the Rema according to Halacha and who did not think that this was a foolish custom, this does indeed cause distrust, and this is what I argued from the beginning. History proves again and again this trend towards reform, leaving religion, and converting to Christianity in the past, and today, with the national religious community, which, with all the concessions that apply to it emotionally and mentally, does not hold,
——
Rabbi:
Gadi Shalom. Apparently we have a disagreement about what constitutes disrespect and what is dangerous to the status of Halacha. This is a factual dispute and I see no possibility of resolving it here, and after all, my words have already been spoken.
Regarding your words about the evidence from history, there is of course a lot to discuss. I see all the examples you brought as evidence for my theory. Regarding your words about the national religious public, I completely disagree with you. In my opinion, this public is what holds the Haredi public together, which itself really doesn't hold (and many of those who do hold together are failures in my opinion). Furthermore, Harediism (even if you assume that Judaism in the past was Haredi, a very difficult claim in itself) did not hold together in the past, since everything we know today (Reform, Enlightenment, national religiosity, etc.) emerged from it and its failures. But that really opens up a completely different debate, which has no place here.
——
kid:
It's like claiming that all the failures of the generation of the desert and those who come after it are from the Mount Sinai situation because they all came out of there. First, to claim that conservatism or boycotts or the ways of dealing with the beginning of the Reformation is what gave it legitimacy. This, in my opinion, is an argument that is plausible and not even a conspiracy. The exceptions that they will find to this argument are not really there to build such a reality. Since we became a people, there have always been "Reformers" in different variations and this is not something new as is commonly thought. First, we are here in our country today thanks to the existence of Pharisaic Judaism for generations, and it is the one that held it.
Here is the head of the Practical Reform Party (Aharon Horin) who for some reason is not that well-known to the public.
——
Rabbi:
The status of Mount Sinai did not cause any failure. But the Haredi boycott played a central role in the failure to deal with the new winds.
I didn't write that the boycott gave legitimacy, but that it was complicit in the failure. That's really not the same thing.
The Pharisees are the Reformers of our day. Therefore, to claim that we are the successors of the Pharisees and that it is their way that has preserved us, and at the same time to argue against the Reformers, seems to me to be a real blasphemy.
——
kid:
Rabbi Michael, good morning,
Your response looks like a 'V'
I used an extreme word, legitimacy from the word legitimate = logical,
In other words, the reality of the reform became logical through the attitude of,,,,
As I wrote, we do disagree on the matter,
Regarding the Pharisees of that time, who are today's Reformers, if you mean that the Sadducees preceded them, then I really feel that I am only degrading their honor by arguing.
And if it was just about changes, there is no doubt that they were mainly in the direction of piety and raising the walls, and not the other way around.
Even if there were indeed changes to ease the methods of punishment, then a] we have no historical record of what was practiced before,
[B] Many not insignificant punishments were added, a plague of rebellion, punishments that were not lawful, a great many, etc.,
Stones from ancestors or history etc…….,
Of course, all of this is apart from decrees and regulations and exclusions and observances and curfews and prohibitions, etc.,,,,,,,,,,,,,
——
Rabbi:
I didn't mean that the Sadducees were ahead, but rather that their approach was ahead. The Pharisees created a period of demanding sermons and far-reaching changes in halakha, kola and chumara. Incidentally, the difference between kola and chumara is not always clear, even today.
But this entire historical debate is irrelevant to our discussion. Even if you were right and this was indeed the policy of the Pharisees (and in my opinion it really wasn't), you would still suggest deviating from it. After all, I completely agree that this is indeed the policy that has been followed for most of our history: raising the walls when there are calls to break through (when the dispersal of a conference is taking place). But I have already written that there is no sanctity in halakhic policy, and contrary to halakhic law, there is no obligation to adhere to it. Policy should be tested by success or failure and by its suitability to reality. My argument is that today it is absolutely inappropriate. The opposite is true.

Amichai:
1. As you can see from many of the comments here, the ability to argue logically and rationally with an average Orthodox is impossible, since arguments such as "how can one be disrespectful" or "there is no rabbi who permits" are arguments that seek to eliminate the ability to think, and therefore thinking will not convince a person (who consciously or unconsciously) gives it minimal weight in life, meaning that the average Orthodox is ultimately busy preserving (what he inherited) and is not willing to realize what he inherited. This is very jarring today, since with Israel's return to its land and the establishment of an Israeli state and society, we should have moved into a state of realization and not remained in a state of preservation, as Orthodoxy does today, in my opinion.
2. Your assumptions regarding customs and decrees and the ability to cancel or change them are also questionable. Much of what is written can be asked, "Who said that?" I want to say that there are "rules" that for some reason someone decided were determined that way without reality requiring it, even the maxim that the Sanhedrin cannot cancel something that was determined by a Sanhedrin that is greater than it requires clarification. What cannot be canceled and under what circumstances?
3. I wanted to ask your opinion in general about many Talmudic sayings that are irrelevant today? What is your attitude?
For example, keeping seven days clean for a woman who is in a state of impurity (Rabbi Zira's statement on the book of the daughters of Israel), in fact, as I understand it after studying the subject, what happened was that women would sometimes bleed outside the regular time for impurity (gonorrhea), and this was relatively common in our day. In addition, this was the root of the problem, which was that it was difficult for women to properly count the days of menstruation and fill in the days when they were supposed to have menstruation (a calendar and a pen were not within everyone's reach, certainly not an app for calculating menstruation time). Therefore, the daughters of Israel decided not to risk violating the Torah prohibition of impurity, and therefore they also made it more severe for the blood of impurity (and all blood) to keep seven days clean after it. In other words, the daughters of Israel seriously harmed the intention of the Torah (to allow a woman in a state of impurity to be with her husband after 7 days as she was supposed to, to allow a woman to be in the blood of purity after giving birth), and all this because in the balance of considerations, the fear of the prohibition outweighed the cancellation of what the Torah did want us to do, and after all this I ask myself, Today, gonorrhea is relatively rare, today there is no problem with the help of a calendar and a pen (or an app) to understand whether the blood that flows on a certain date is within the range of the month that can be defined as niddah blood or is gonorrhea blood. Furthermore, there are women today who are halakhically infertile and undergo all kinds of procedures just because of this severity, meaning that today the will of the Torah (to permit niddah after 7 or to permit a woman with the blood of purity) is nullified when there is no consideration that justifies it. In fact, I feel that in maintaining this severity, we are sinning. It seems as if this severity is more important than the commandment of Per and Rabbah at times.
Unfortunately, even the discussion I want to have with my environment on the subject is stopped very quickly because of people's unwillingness to discuss it "Gevalad". In my opinion, the root of the lack of discussion on the subject stems from the religious attitude that has stuck in Diaspora Judaism, that severity is always a blessing, and as if prohibiting what is permitted is an excellent thing that certainly does not violate the will of the Torah. I of course think that prohibiting what is permitted is at least as severe as permitting what is prohibited (and even in this there is much to be said at the root of the view that Judaism, in my view, is a culture and a natural longevity that seeks to clothe man with morality and higher values, as opposed to most Orthodox who believe that Judaism is a religion that seeks to create laws and norms that are not natural to man so that man will always "overcome." Proof of this is that most religious people today feel satisfaction that they suffered greatly in performing a mitzvah and yet still did it, such as pushing 3 matzahs on Seder night even though it proves to them that this amount is not necessary).
That's it, I was careless and didn't even bother to edit. I'd love to hear what you think about what I wrote.
——
Rabbi:
Amichai Shalom.
You have raised some very important questions and I will not be able to exhaust them. I will try to be brief.
1. I actually disagree with your interpretation. These claims are claims like any other. A person claims that tradition has a truth value and that collective rationality fits it in some way, and therefore they have faith in its results. This is an approach like any other approach, and it can and should be dealt with. It is true that sometimes there is a lack of attention and people do not give up their basic assumptions, but this is true for all parts of the population and not just for religious orthodoxy.
2. You can say "Who said" about anything. And are there no basic assumptions in your thinking? The question is whether there is an answer to the question of "Who said". Sometimes there is and sometimes there is not. It is important to understand that sometimes an answer will not address the substance of the matter but rather the question of authority. Every normative system (such as state law, for example) establishes rules that are binding regardless of whether they are correct. If there is an incorrect law or an incorrect interpretation by a judge, there is still an obligation to obey them. Halacha is no different in this sense. Therefore, an answer that says we do not have the authority to change, or that in order to change, a judge (major or not) is required is a completely legitimate answer. And again, it must be examined whether it is correct or not, but there is nothing a priori wrong in it.
3. This is a specific halakhic and meta-halakhic discussion and this is not the place to conduct it. I am not at all sure that it is irrelevant today. And I also do not think that we have the authority to repeal it, just like an irrelevant law of the Knesset that only the Knesset can change (see previous sections on this type of answer). But given that there is truly no relevance, there is no obstacle to change (of course, a mechanism must be found that solves the problem of authority, and there are such in some cases).

Prohibiting what is permitted is problematic, and today even more so than ever. I completely agree.

I don't agree with your statement that the distinction between religion and moral and other values is wrong. I do agree that it is late (meaning that this distinction was once less sharp). But that is a separate discussion and there is no room here to dwell on it.
——
Pine:
1. You often compare the authority of the Knesset to the authority of the Sages, but with regard to the authority of the Knesset, if there is agreement to change a law that has become obsolete and is no longer relevant, this can easily happen, whereas with regard to the authority of the Sages, it seems that even broad agreement will not be beneficial in changing the decree.
2. Regarding the halacha that a court of great wisdom and quorum is required to annul a regulation, why don't we add a clause that in the event that it is clear to everyone that the reason for the regulation is invalid, the sages of the generation are sufficient to annul the regulation?
——
Rabbi:
I'm not very knowledgeable in the legal world, but as far as I understand, no law can be repealed without Knesset legislation. There is a novelty that the Ministry of Justice does not enforce when there is no public interest, but this is also a procedure that the Knesset can approve or repeal.
Regarding the authority of the Sages, in my opinion, if there is broad agreement, it is null and void. There is simply no agreement on that. What is the difference between agreeing to accept their authority (which is the basis for the authority they have) and agreeing to nullify it? The mouth that forbade is the one that permitted. See, as the Rabbi of the Rabbis, Memariam, that there is no principled restriction on nullifying ancient laws. Rabbi Kook also wrote that all of Israel have the power of the Great Council, and therefore their agreement nullifies whatever you wish.
What does it mean that we do not add? Because we do not add to or change the decrees of the Sages (unless there is general agreement, and so on. Hypothetical only). Although in practice this is done all the time, and I even gave examples and references to this in my remarks.

kid:
Rabbi Michal
B.E. So do you agree that this has been the case throughout history and propose that in times of need, a deviation from it be made while there is a Sanhedrin in Israel………?
This is what we really lack for change, the Sanhedrin. In our time, establishing a Sanhedrin is like a wolf living with a lamb, and we still haven't gotten there.
——
Rabbi:
Your words here are unclear. I'm not clear about what you're saying and especially what it refers to. It would be helpful to respond to what you're referring to so that I understand.
If you mean to refer to my statement that laws established by the Sanhedrin should not be changed without a Sanhedrin, that is not the case here. And if you mean to refer to my statement that policies that were traditionally made stricter should be changed where there is a fear of loopholes, then I have already explained elsewhere that there is authority to change policies. I argued this because policies are not laws, and therefore are subject to change even without a Sanhedrin. They should be examined according to their usefulness. But perhaps I did not understand your point.
——
kid:
Indeed, in order to change the words of the deceiver, a Sanhedrin or something of equal power is needed.
As I wrote my opinion, alone and publicly, this is a disgrace,
——
Rabbi:
Indeed, an innovation. To change the words of the Rema, do we need a Sanhedrin???
From now on, I must treat you as my master and knowledgeable rabbi who taught me something new.
I just have a question: Does this innovation itself, which has no origin, no father, no explanation or explanation, need a Sanhedrin? I wonder!

kid:
Rabbi Michal
I'd rather send the question to you,
When all the jurists in recent generations thought they had no power to permit,
And if you were to ask them in what way there was an option and a reality that the matter would be further and removed, what would they answer in his honor?
——
Rabbi:
I have no idea and I don't understand why this is important.

A:
This question came to me when I heard something from a friend about the rabbi's opinion on legumes, but it connected to the halakhic and thought-provoking clarification I'm trying to do. Let's say I decide that in my opinion (after checking, etc.) there is no reason not to eat legumes on Passover, and that God has no interest in it - should I continue to observe it because of customary laws? (What exactly is the place of Shema, son of your father's commandment, in comparison to clarification and behavior based on one's own halakhic clarification? Is it possible that any clarification will remain theoretical most of the time so as not to, let's say, 'withdraw from the public'?) And another side of the question - should I say that the reason it remains in the rabbinic tradition indicates that God wants me to behave this way?
——
Rabbi:
There are laws of custom and custom is a binding thing. But my argument is that petty things are not custom but just nonsense. Regarding the other side of the question: not necessarily. Custom is binding because there is a law of custom, and not necessarily because it expresses some truth.

As I explained here, legumes are not a custom but a concern, and therefore the entire discussion is irrelevant regarding this.
But I will answer my opinion regarding real customs. In customs, a distinction must be made between a custom of ruling and a custom that is not related to halakha. In my opinion, a custom to rule according to one opinion or another is not binding if you have your own position (not even to follow as a Sephardic author or as a Carma for Ashkenazi). But a non-halakhic custom is binding from the law of not abandoning, unless it is a foolish custom. With regard to such customs, there is no dependence on the essential question of whether God, the Blessed One, will or will not actually want this act. It is not done because it is a correct act, but because that is the custom. However, in a custom of ruling, there one must certainly search for the correct ruling. And there one must follow the custom only if you do not have your own position, as we found in Shas, if you do not know the most beautiful of women, follow the footsteps of the sheep (meaning that only if halakha has disappeared from you, do you follow the custom).
Metaphysical considerations regarding the will of God do not play in the halakhic arena. Even if they are correct, they are at most ex post facto explanations of halakhic principles. Thus, for us, the need to maintain customs can perhaps be explained by the fact that the preservation of the custom indicates that God wants it. But we follow the custom because of the halakhic principle itself (do not forsake it) and not because of the metaphysical explanations for it.