A pure and strong faith in our sages is more than a genius head like Michael Abraham, bordering on heresy.
I have seen several times that you strongly argue that someone who is afraid to examine their faith and confront it so that they do not fail and fall is actually a “covert atheist.”
\”The faith of a person who does not examine his faith on a philosophical level in order not to fail? Is it even correct to refer to him as a believer?\”… \”If Simon the atheist had presented him with some logical arguments, Reuven would have changed his view and become an atheist\”
I failed to understand you: If when I study a question and look through the books of the first and last scholars, I see that in many places it seemed to me that there was no way to explain the questions that arise, and I see the hearts of the first scholars, how they resolve the question with wonderful wisdom, even if I lived a hundred years, I would not be able to answer a single question that they explained.
Why would I let myself in and allow my son to walk not in “innocent faith” in the face of philosophical questions from people who were truly wise and even though I have the brain of the Rashba or the renowned Jew, or even for that matter the mind of Michael Avraham, who himself walks a fine line between heresy and faith and he himself does not know whether he truly believes or not,
Why shouldn’t I naively trust my gentlemen, many of whom studied philosophy and confronted it, and if they came out in peace and continued in their faith, then so should I, whose simple intuition that there is certainly a Creator of the world and the Torah of Israel is true? Why should I put myself in a place where I can’t give an answer and fall into the arms of heresy? Isn’t it better for me to trust them?
Why wouldn’t you say the same thing about Einstein? He was also a wonderful wise man, so why wouldn’t you trust him? Or Anselm the Christian? If you trust wise men, you can’t escape choosing who the wise men are, and in that you have chosen the outcome.
By the way, young scholars today resolve problems that the early ones were embarrassed by in many ways and with great ease. I think we are much better than them in scholarship and scholarly analysis.
Apparently this is the source of all your mistakes and epicureans, give one example that our contemporaries are more learned than the ancients.
Look at how much great geniuses like Rabbi Chaim Brisker and others worked to explain and understand our ancient sages. Where does the light-heartedness come from to disparage such worldly geniuses??
You first ask for an example of greater scholarship among our contemporaries, and even before the rabbi answered you decided that he was disparaging them. Perhaps you should wait for the answer. And if you are firm in your opinion before the rabbi answered, why are you asking for an example?? Patience is good for the wise, and patience for those who are less
Traditionally, this is a question for an ignorant person. Every beginning student knows examples of dozens of problems that have been solved in toto by modern scholars and young writers. Just examine the Maimonides' "wonderful point" in the Pihamash on the Kiryats, and you will see how enthusiastic he is about the kind of distinction that is made today by average students. You yourself mentioned R. H. Brisker's explanations of the difficulties (some of which were raised by rishonim like the rabbin) in the Maimonides. Isn't this an example of the latter solving the problems of rishonim? In any such place you can open Frankel's Key Book and find a multitude of additional examples.
But I really see no point in discussing with someone who does not engage in a dialogue but instead spouts slogans and declarations of ignorance.
By the way, I really don't belittle the first. I magnify the last (and several first and last have already written the parable of the dwarf on top of the giant, so your question to me has already been answered in the first and last). As an admirer of R”H. Brisker, you are probably familiar with the story about how he does not ease the laws of Shabbat but rather tightens the laws of Picun. And the rabbinic here.
If the first ones were not in the business of modern medicine, why should they be able to prove their point? Today, there are mechanical tools that can lift the stones of the Western Wall and create one like it. But the Western Wall was certainly not built using the technologies we know today.
Regarding the Maimonides' amateurism compared to the professionals of our time in matters of study, here is a quote from a friend:
Regarding Maimonides' wonderful point in his book on the cuttings that bothers you a lot:
See also Avot D/B and the end of the strokes and the beginning of a section “But this is the wonderful point, I want to say the world to come, you will find little in any case that it would occur to him to think or to take this as the main thing, or to say this is the name of what he is falling for: whether it is the purpose of good, or one of the previous opinions is the purpose. Or to distinguish between the purpose and the cause that leads to the purpose”.
A wonderful point in his book is not a technical legal distinction, but a fundamental principle, but this does not negate his being aware of subtle or even scholarly distinctions.
In the cuttings of the Pi’ The simplistic one is quite puzzling in his words (because the additional sūs isuwān in cooking with milk).
I think what he means there is that since the teachings of the sages from the verse are not the root but the branches, they are interpretations and not the text itself (as explained in the verses 1, 2 of the sām and regarding the holy silver from the rabbis), even if they are binding at the level of Torah, since at the explicit level in the Torah there is no addition to the prohibition of meat and milk, then this prohibition is not an additional prohibition and this status of the prohibition remains, even if in the interpretation of the sages (which, by the way, can be repealed by another Sanhedrin) the prohibition was extended to pleasure as well.
It is the law at the beginning of the verse, which says “for the rest”, when Chazal asked him about his wife who is permitted to defile herself. And yet her mourning is not Torah!
Moshe, what you are wondering about the wonderful point is the Rambam's misunderstanding. And what you explain about the wonderful point is written in the Rambam's own commentary. I did not understand what you add to his words: the prohibition of pleasure branches off from the prohibition of eating (Rambam Abbahu in the Paphashim that one is the prohibition of eating and one is pleasure in the sense). See the Rambam's words on the 13th mitzvah (?) on meat with milk. I expanded on the branches and roots in the second root of the Rambam in my article in the book Yishlach Sharashiyo.
The distinction between the stem (the scripture "naked") and the branches (the sermons of Chazal) and that the sermon applies to the stem only is not a rhetorical genius but a fundamental distinction and it is the "wonder". This is a point that many disagree on. The Maimonides "was enthusiastic" about this.
There is no connection whatsoever to the question of the sermon. R’ Abbahu relies on a simple text, and it is Chaskia who demands the Bible and there is no halakha like it. The Rambam himself explains R’ Abbahu this way.
When you read his words in Pihmas Kiritot, you will see that the enthusiasm is for the Briskian analysis, and simply.
I read. I didn't see it and certainly not “simply”.
This is similar to the Gemara itself, the issue of Zanuzel. I discussed this at a panel at the National Library, "Meeting in Babylon."
To see what you discussed on the panel, do you have to travel back in time or is it available online?
I think it's available online (and if so, then here on the site). If not, then just travel in time.
Well, I decided to save you the button press you saved yourself, and direct you straight to:
Next, I'd be happy if you took ten seconds to search for yourself. That way, you'd save yourself the time traveling or I'd search for you.
Thank you
Looking up a few sentences in 90 minutes – It's like searching the internet. Thank you for your willingness. I think I didn't make myself clear enough because from skimming through the video I couldn't find an answer to your question, so maybe we both don't understand each other.
Minute 39:00 in the video, just fall down laughing.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
