Sadducees and myths

Responsa > Category: Faith > Sadducees and myths
Hello Joseph Asked 2 years ago

Their minds led them not to accept the instructions of the sages and to deny the Toshav'a to some extent [not so well versed in what exactly was there] 
Is not the principle that guided them the principle that guides you? 
Is the Pharisees' instruction regarding the Sadducees actually another sage mistake for your understanding?
And why you are raped on the Talmud [for some reason, which I have not been able to stand up to now] 
Why common sense tells us that there is no problem turning on an air conditioner on Saturday, or boiling water for coffee 
Contorting in front of the Talmud and the arbitrators, I feel a kind of "whirlpool" in what is yes and what is not, and what is the reason for the difference
Hope I explained myself, because I'm really embarrassed by what I was exposed to in your articles

Leave a comment

1 Answers
mikyab Staff Answered 2 years ago

If the principle that guided them was what guides me then I am Sadducee and Beitusi. If you have a specific question, please formulate it here and discuss it in detail.

Hello Joseph Responded 2 years ago

I did not say you are Sadducee,
1. I said that to this day it would seem to me that such an approach is the Sadducee approach, the lack of acceptance of opinions / laws / authority that are passed down from generation to generation by the moralists of the Torah without any proof [sort of what Hillel said to Ger who wanted to study Magic]
2. It seems to me that you are orthodox in the halakhic sense, and so on

And how we can cut with a sharp knife what to accept in the tradition and what not

In short, the way you cut the first authority in the tradition, so the Sadducees cut the Pharisees in the tradition
And how do we know that the Pharisees were right?
Do we have proof of the righteousness of the Pharisees or do we just gamble?

ק Responded 2 years ago

Kamilta Debdihuta should edit your Wikipedia entry and claim that you attest to the fact that you may be Sadducee and Beitusi.
A.P. who was arguing at the time with a certain rabbi about Rabbi Shlita, and I think he argued to me that as long as you say that there is no authority in matters of thought for the lineage of generations, then even if you have reached all thirteen principles yourself there is nothing in it. Because a considerable part of the idea of ​​the thirteen principles is tradition. And understand that the others are no less smart than me…

Hello Joseph Responded 2 years ago

I do not discuss at all neither the tradition nor the rabbi, I am not busy handing out grades, I am busy with definitions
I try to understand the difference [if there is one] between his approach and the approach of the Sadducees [to the paucity of information I have about them at all]
Is something that is gaining true and part of the transmission of the Torah for generations among the moralists of the Torah [and we are not dealing with scientific facts of course] obliging me, or not, is there such a "formal" authority created by the moralists of the Torah throughout the generations
I wonder how I can actually accept even the written Torah, since it was also given by those whom I do not accept their authority

mikyab Staff Responded 2 years ago

I did not say you said I was a Sadducee. What I have said is that the debate over whether I am a Sadducee or not is not important to me. The question is what is right and not what the title deserves.
What is delivered in a message from Sinai or a qualified institution (Sanhedrin) is valid, and everything else even if delivered in a tradition is not valid. Very simple. It is not always simple what came from Sinai or a qualified institution and what did not, but it is a discussion that needs to be held in each matter on its own merits.
Indeed, there is no authority for what is created by virtue of the tradition of the generations. Definately not. It has some weight, and there are customs laws. that's it. Only God or a qualified institution has authority. By the way, this is not my novelty. This is the rule agreed upon by most arbitrators. But occasionally they tend to ignore it.

You and K. (and also the rabbi he quotes) just do not understand my claim. My contention is that conceptually there is no authority over factual matters. As for facts, and it does not matter whether scientific or not (even the coming of the Messiah or private providence is a fact) what is possible is to convince me that this is the truth and not to claim against me a proven authority. For if I was not convinced, what good is it for me to be told that such a position is heresy ?! that's it. Very simple and clear, and anyone who disagrees with that is just confused.

Hello Joseph Responded 2 years ago

It seems to me that I quite understood this, so I asked
I will explain in more detail, how is there before you even one statistic that you get as correct? For example the order of prayer
Do you not rely on those who do not have authority?

Michi Responded 2 years ago

I talked about facts. There is a dialogue of the deaf here

Hello Joseph Responded 2 years ago

When you say facts, do you mean evidence?
That is, you accept what is given as testimony, but do not accept what is given as "self-opinion"?
That's how I understood anyway

And here I am embarrassed

All the sages' sermons from the verses are not testimony but "self-opinion," ostensibly

And if it is said that Chazal is an authority, it is Manlan, is it not a self-opinion of the moralists of the Torah from then until today?

mikyab Staff Responded 2 years ago

I suggest we end here. You make it difficult when you do not know what it is all about.
If there is something specific that I have written and it seems to you that you do not understand, please write it clearly (including a source) and we can discuss. I ask without general statements about my method that it is obvious that you do not know it.

Leave a comment