A few questions
Hello Rabbi
How are you?
I just wanted to ask a few questions.
1. Is there a dispute among the Amoraim and it is written at the end of the Tanya Kevtiyya that Rabbi Yochanan (for example) does not make a retraction on the other because this is not a baraita with sufficient standing to make a retraction, but only an aid?
2. What is the meaning of Tractate Nida: The daughters of Israel accepted upon themselves to sit even on a drop of blood as small as a mustard seed? Wasn’t this the decision of the Sages?
3. I saw an explanation as to why one thread of interwoven material is not nullified, for example, if one thread of wool is lost in a linen garment, why is there no nullification by majority – and the explanation is that in prohibition and permission there is nullification by majority, but that both species are permission, only their mixing is forbidden, there is no nullification by majority. What is the explanation for this, that precisely because they are two, there is no nullification by majority?
4. I’ve seen all sorts of explanations and wanted to ask what you think, is evil simply the absence of good? And is darkness the absence of light or even a reality in itself?
5. Regarding your article on the love of God, I did not have time to read it properly, but since I have been hearing for a long time about two main approaches to this mitzvah, the intellectual and the emotional, I wanted to ask if I understand correctly the intellectual approach. The main ability to reach the love of God is through Torah study. So how are women supposed to fulfill the mitzvah of the love of God?
6. I wrote this question on a page and now I can’t find it, so I’m asking roughly. I saw in the Yorah a recent disagreement regarding the law of stains and one umpire wrote to ease it because of a doubt and a doubt, and the other disagreed because it is from one name (the name of the blood of a Nida) and therefore it is one doubt and not two. Someone tried to explain to me that there is such a thing that a doubt and a doubt are not said from one name but from two names, and I wanted to ask if you could briefly explain to me what is meant?
Thank you very much.
Hello Y.
Shlomi B.H. is perfectly fine. I hope you are too.
1. Indeed. Even ending in a dispute does not really end the debate. The scholars wrote that when the issue ends in a dispute, it is still possible to rule in the same way as the opinion that was challenged.
2. This was a custom of the women that received approval from the sages.
3. Because it is a species of its own kind and when there is no difference there is no annulment. The law of annulment was renewed when there are two different things. As far as I remember, this reasoning is found in Ritva and Toss Rosh B.M. 6a, and in the lessons of Rabbi Gustman there. Beyond that, there is a reasoning that when the mixing itself is what is prohibited, there is no need to annul. When the Torah prohibited mixing, it said that there would be no annulment. It is true that the annulment of meat with milk must be discussed.
4. Simply put, darkness is the absence of light. Add light to darkness and you get light (not weak light. There are no offsets). This is in contrast to heat and cold, which when mixed together result in something lukewarm. Therefore, the ratio between cold and heat is like the ratio between 1 and minus 1. And light and darkness is like 1 and 0. Regarding evil and good, these are not objects, and therefore the discussion is not well-defined. In general, there seems to be a difference between a person who does not do good and a person who does evil, like between undoing a good and going over a bad.
5. I don’t know what article this is about. Women can (and should) study Torah. But I don’t think that only through study can one reach the love of God. Study is a value in itself and not a mitzvah that equips one to love God. See my words here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAFe4p7SDrw
6. This is an innovation written by some rishonim. For example, Thos’ Ka Ketuvot 9 a. If the two doubts are equal in terms of their halakhic meaning, even if they are caused by different realities, this is not considered a doubt of spiqa. For example: a man who sanctified a woman at the age of three and married her when she was an adult, and after the marriage it turned out that she was not a virgin. Now, it is possible that she committed adultery when she was a minor and was not forbidden to her husband, but even if he committed adultery when she was an adult – it is possible that she was married by rape. The above Thos states that such a possibility is not considered a “doubt of spiqa”, since both parties are essentially equal, since even a minor temptation is considered rape and in fact there is only one doubt: whether the act was committed by rape or by consent.
Shalom Rabbi
Thank you very much
I am perfectly fine. After 9 months of working, I returned, thank God, to study in the kollel with an excellent group of friends, and I hope that with God's help this will continue for many more years (the study and the group). I started meeting in matchmaking (until now I have avoided it because I wanted to finish paying the ketubah for my ex-wife and I also found it very uncomfortable to go to matchmaking when I am working, (please don't be angry, but it is important for me to marry again with someone who is important to Torah)), but so far nothing serious has come of it.
I wanted to ask 2 more questions that I forgot yesterday.
1. The question is based on some assumptions that I understand in your worldview, so either that is my mistake or there is a question here and I would be happy to answer it.
You wrote to me that there is such a thing as the Genizat HaDaat (an article by Rabbi Hutner) and you also wrote to me in the article on validity that each mishnah is a certain statement with a true objective nature that some higher world. Now-there are Mishnayot that have a disagreement on the Tannaim regarding the lesson of a 3 by 3 finger-length piece of scarlet found in a trash can whether it is impure or not, and Rabbi Shimon disagrees and says that it is certainly impure and that this lesson was not said except to restore a lost item. I have encountered such Mishnayot several times and it is understood from them that ”that was lost” the real halacha is it in the context of impurity or restoring a lost item and there are differences of opinion on this. Now-I understand that certainly one of them is wrong and only one is right, because there is a Mishna here that is unnecessary once the truth is revealed. So it is not possible for every Mishna to express a spiritual idea from a higher world if it did not really need to be?
2. There is an interesting mishna in Tractate Nida where there is a dispute between Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Eliezer whether 4 women should be judges of their time or only a virgin, and it is written that throughout Rabbi Eliezer's life they ruled the halakha like Rabbi Yehoshua and only at his death did they return to ruling like him - because they feared that during his lifetime more things like him would be ruled and they would not be able to protest them because of Rabbi Eliezer's honor. I don't understand how this is possible if you believe that this is how the halakha should be, how does such a consideration enter into the ruling of the halakha?
Thank you
Hello Y’.
First, why get angry? Why would I get angry about your taste in matchmaking? Second, even if I am angry, so what? You are supposed to do what you think. Good luck.
To your questions:
1. I did not understand the question. A mishnah that does not reach the truth is not necessarily something that is not Torah. Even if it is not ruled by halakhah, it is Torah, and especially since sometimes the ruling of halakhah does not reflect truth but another consideration (as in your paragraph 2). There is no doubt that the Talmud and halakhah are full of errors, as are human beings. So what? Is that why they are not Torah? I am attaching three articles that touch on In this:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%97%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%94%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%A0% D7%95%D7%AA/
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%9 9%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%94%D7%94%D7%9C%D7%9B%D7%94-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%90-%D7 %A4%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%98%D7%99%D7%AA/
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9B%D7%9C-%D7%94%D7%99% D7%9B%D7%90-%D7%93%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%9F-%D7%91%D7%95-%D7%91%D7%99%D7%95%D7%9D-%D7%94%D7%94%D7%95%D7%90-%D7%99%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%90-%D7%94%D7%95%D7%94-%D7%99/
2. There are many considerations in halachic rulings, and not all of them are considerations of truth or untruth. For example, zilutha debi dina (concern for the honor of ancient poskim), as explained in Shas in several places. For example (see the second article I linked to above) in the Gemara in Iruvin 13 that they did not rule like Rabbi Meir because his friends did not reach the end of his mind. In other words, he was wiser than them and if they disagreed with him, they probably did not understand him. And yet they did not rule like him. I explained this by saying that there is a value of autonomy that outweighs the value of truth. So too in the sermons of the Rabbi (as I believe Drosh Y) who discusses the question of why a sage who has reached the teaching should obey the great Rabbi if he knows that they are wrong. After all, he will suffer spiritual harm because of the offense he will commit. And he answers that not listening to the Rabbi also brings spiritual harm. The same is true for the subject of the debate. Also, preserving the honor of the sages and additional side considerations are considerations of halakhic value, like the main part of the halakhic law that is being discussed. Therefore, they are also taken into account in the ruling.
Hello Rabbi
Please, I have a few questions about Kabbalah.
1. Two different people, each studying Kabbalah in a different method, in which one says that the reduction is not literal and the other that it is, told me the same parable: There is sun and there is dirt on the window (or that we have sunglasses).
On the surface, it sounds like it is not literal, so I have a little difficulty with the one who studies it and brought this parable, especially since the other side also brought it. What do you think?
2. Does the question of whether evil is just the absence of good or a being in itself depend on the dispute of the Sha'at?
3. I read that there was a great Kabbalist named Rabbi Emmanuel Chai Shreki who wrote that it cannot be that the reduction is not literal because the entire material world is certainly not Hashem. But from what I have checked, no one claims this
Even those who say that the reduction is not literal, is this true?
Hello Rabbi.
1. The claim that the reduction is not as simple as it seems is nonsense on its face. It means that everything is God and nothing exists. So what is everything I see and experience? An illusion? Whose (after all, I don't really exist, so the illusion is not mine)? These are just words that are spoken in vain.
2. I don't understand this question. In my opinion, these are meaningless words. What is the difference between the options? There is no such thing as evil in the sense of some metaphysical entity, but only good and bad deeds or good and bad people (according to their deeds). Evil is a category, not an entity.
3. Rabbi Emmanuel Chai Rikki (and not Shreki). See section 1. Hasidism holds that the reduction is not as simple as it seems, and it is common to think that this is a dispute between them and their opponents. I am attaching a letter from the Lubavitcher Rebbe on this subject:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1u06O9nWOR04sU05YP8IoDt1ZQPv0-mpH
Hello Rabbi
How are you? I have a few questions, please.
1. What is the logic of writing in the Mishnah simply and then a dispute and the opposite and not simply writing the Mishnah that a Rabbi believes is correct? Also, someone told me that if you mean simply and a dispute, there is no halakha as such, so it is not possible for a Rabbi to be silent as a sage and then write a dispute of the sages and a single Tanna because then it means that the halakha is like him against the sages and this cannot be. Is this true?
2. How would you define the concept of halakhic truth? After all, there are apparently several parameters for determining halakha, and not all of them are the aspiration to adhere to the truth itself, as in the example of the Mishnah in Tractate Nida, where Rabbi Yehoshua ruled not like Rabbi Eliezer during his lifetime and also ruled so upon his death, and therefore if this is true then if the halakha does not strive for the truth itself, then why is it so? (I hope I explained myself well).
3. Someone asked me what the logic is in the equal division. He is trying to understand the halachic logic on the subject out of curiosity. Do you happen to have an article or concise explanation on this?
4. I still can't understand, after everything I've learned, the "contradiction" between the Bat Kol of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel and the Bat Kol of Rabbi Yehoshua and Bari Eliezer in Akhnai's oven. How is it that one time it is taken into account and it establishes halachah for generations and one time it is not taken into account at all?
5. Someone claimed to me that in Baal HaLesh it is written that in the beginning the Sefirot were created and then they became God and he understands from this that Baal HaLesh learns that the reduction is not as it is, is that true? (I know that you have completed the book of HaLesh and that you think that the reduction is as it is, so it would have seemed strange to me).
6. Do you think there is a contradiction between the two passages "He who comes to purify himself is told to wait" And ”Open me a door the size of a needle's eye and I'll open you a door as wide as a hall”? On the surface, this seems contradictory, because if it's enough to open a small door, why do they immediately stop me and sometimes even have to check how serious the person is?
Shalom Y’.
1. The Mishnah in the Testimonies asks why they brought opinions that are not in accordance with the law in the Mishnah and answers that it is so that we know the source of the opinions that we may encounter. Beyond that, it seems that there is a point in this because opinions that are not in accordance with the law also have truth in them and it is worth studying them as well. I did not understand the question in the rest of the section.
2. There are other criteria in the ruling of the law besides truth. For example, what the sages think. For example, in the Eruvin we find that his friends did not rule like him because they did not reach the end of his opinion. If he was that great, then it is likely that the truth is with him. So why did they not rule like him even without understanding? Because their understanding was different and there is a point in doing what your understanding says even if it is not the truth. See my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%90%D7%95%D7%98%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%94-%D7%95%D7%A1%D7%9E%D7%9B%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%91%D7%A4%D7%A1%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%9C%D7%9B%D7%94/
And Here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%94%D7%94%D7%9C%D7%9B%D7%94-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%90-%D7%A4%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%98%D7%99%D7%AA/
Sometimes we stop at what is true for the current reality even if it is not the absolute truth. Sometimes judges do not rule according to the truth because of the Silutha debi Dina (so that they will not come to disparage the judge before he has ruled otherwise). And so on.
3. First, why would there be logic in this? This is a standard that we received from Sinai. Like a code according to which the Torah is written. It does not have to be logical. But beyond that, there is literal-lexical logic in this. If the same word is used, it is reasonable to interpret it in the same way. It is true that this explains more the revelation of a word and not a gezâsh. See Anzi’ ‘Gezâra Shâ’ on the distinction between these two.
4. This is a question of context in Eruvin 6, 6. In my opinion, the distinction is simple: it is not usually a generalization, but the generalization means that one must follow the rules of halakhah and not a bat kol. And what do we do when the rules of halakhah do not provide an answer? There they do follow Bat Kol. This is what happened in the disputes between B’S and B’S. Tos’ in Iruvin explains that the dispute was not decided because B’S believed that they were following the qualitative majority (the majority of wisdom. They were sharp-tongued), and B’S believed that they were following the majority of people. Such a question cannot be decided, because even a vote on it would get stuck on the same point. That is why Bat Kol came out, and that is why they followed it.
5. Absolutely not. The author of the Halshem insists in several places that the tzitzum literally means the opposing method. I also do not see any connection between the claim that the sefirot were created first and the interpretation of the tzitzum. On the contrary, if the sefirot existed without being God, this would mean that there is a reality that is not God, that is, the tzitzum literally means the tzitzum. I not only think that the reduction is simple, but the claim that the reduction is not simple is nonsense that makes no sense.
6. There is also a saying that one who comes to purify himself is helped. I do not know of a saying that one who comes to purify himself is told to wait. “They are told to wait” is quoted in Yerushalmi regarding Esham and regarding Yibbom.
Hello Rabbi
How are you?
I have a few questions please.
I spoke with a religious person who strongly believes in the theory of evolution and he made some claims that I wanted to ask what you think about them.
1. He said that Darwin was not an infidel or did not have such a motivation as they say about him, but the opposite, and in his book 7 times he writes that he is trying to explain how God created and made the world. Is this true?
2. He claimed according to the model of the ”Tiferet Yisrael” that in the past we were rolled inside dinosaurs and what science has discovered is true and proven from the teachings of Chazal and Zohar and the writings of the late Ari, and the world has existed for billions of years and once there was a world of dinosaurs and our souls were rolled in them and then God destroyed their existence and created a new world in which we are, etc. This is according to the explanation of the ”Tiferet Yisrael” Midrash that Hashem created and destroyed worlds in the face of the discoveries of science in his time. What do you think?
3. He also said that anyone who wants to claim that Hashem placed the dinosaur bones in the ground of the world as a test of faith will go crazy for a generation that heresy will strengthen and there will be things that will hide the belief that Hashem intentionally placed the dinosaur bones there to test us, making (as he defines it) the Almighty a liar, God forbid, and also that he understands that the world belongs to the Hereafter and disconnects it from Hashem. What do you think?
4. I searched and I can't find an email you sent me on the subject of love of God. I only remember that you referred me to an article you wrote about it and about the Rambam, and as I recall, you specifically stated that it is an intellectual mitzvah and preoccupation with Torah, and there were comments from people on the site (I remember one such) that it was not meant by the Rambam, but rather by him that it was a mitzvah of emotion and not of reason, and you argued about the Rambam. I understood from you then that it was an intellectual mitzvah, and in one of the last emails you wrote to me, it was implied that you don't think so, and so I would be happy to briefly understand how you perceive the mitzvah of love of God. Also, you do believe that women should study Torah, but those who understand the mitzvah of God to be intellectual and not emotional. Do you think that this necessarily conflicts with the fact that women are exempt from studying Torah (at least until recently) and hardly study at all, so how will they fulfill the mitzvah? Is this evidence that perhaps this is indeed an emotional mitzvah that does not depend on reason? Or to put it another way, how did the Rambam understand the obligation and the way to fulfill the commandment to love God in his generation with everything he thought about women? (This question is especially important to me because I started writing a column in the Shabbat newsletter here
Be Ma'alot that deals with this mitzvah, so I was asked to write a column for several Shabbats for the newsletter on the mitzvah to love God, and so I would be very happy to help you.)
Finally, I wanted a little advice, please. I receive all kinds of matchmaking offers at all ages from 32 to 40 (which is my age). In terms of the obligation to strive to find a partner with whom you can have children, is there a certain age that you think should be limited?
Thank you very much
1. I don't know enough. Darwin was indeed religious at first, but I don't know what his views were at the end. Why is that important? The question is what is the truth, not what Darwin thought.
2. This is a problematic explanation. Science today shows that there was life tens and hundreds of thousands of years ago. And this is in our world and not in other worlds that were destroyed.
3. The excuse that God planted the bones seems unconvincing to me, but I don't think the conclusion is that God is being made a liar here. He also created epidemics and evil, so he is evil? He also made attempts on Abraham our father, so why can't these attempts happen?
4. I am attaching the article on emotions in halacha:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1UqgalPwakD2p8pHrwkev_ArXsy-p3E5T
It is advisable to consult experts regarding the age of fertility. This of course varies from woman to woman, and it's best to ask the women themselves what their plans are and whether they have any limitations. Find out that younger is better, but that's not the only consideration when finding a partner.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
