Disgrace to the scholars
In today’s daily paper, Shabbat Kit: The issue of the destruction of the house is brought up, and there are several statements about the desecration of the Temple Mount, I will quote:
Rav Yehuda said that Jerusalem was not destroyed except because they despised the Torah scholars, etc. From the beginning until the end there is no cure. Rav Yehuda said that anyone who despises the Torah scholars has no cure for his wound.
And more Aisha.
(And look at the author on a website that explains that the root of the matter is that he insults those who rebuke him and thus cannot repent.)
And look again at his wonderful words there at the end of his words, page 122. At the end of all the sayings cited in the book.
I asked:
The Rabbi, as is well known, does not spare his tribe, and criticizes every person, no matter how great he is in the Torah, if his actions do not seem to him to be justified (the Rabbi, ibid., ibid.).
1. What is contempt for the Jewish religious leader if criticism is not considered contempt? And especially if the criticism is steeped in great cynicism, as in the recent columns in which Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky and Rabbi Edelstein were mentioned?
2. Why does the rabbi support a satire program like “Jews Come” even though satire is an essential and positive thing in a democracy (Aalak, I don’t see such satire on the saints from the LGBT community or, God forbid, on the fallen IDF soldiers and victims of hostilities, may God have mercy on them).
After all, their words (if for some reason yours don’t) certainly fall into the spectrum of denigrating Torah scholars.
And the words of the Jerusalemite Yoma are already known: Every generation that is not built in its days is treated as if it had been destroyed.
- When I criticize TA, it’s not insulting. I insult very rarely (cynicism is not insulting) only when it’s deserved (where there is blasphemy). The reason that satire exists mainly on the left is that leftists are more talented in this matter (the right is only at the beginning of its journey in the media). I estimate that this will change over time.
2. I understand that I won’t try all the media tricks for you. So I have updates for you. There are satires on everything, including the Holocaust (although the dosage is not the same, for the reason given in the previous section), and that’s a good thing. Satire is a form of expressing criticism, and as such it is not insulting. This doesn’t mean that I identify with everything that happens there (I don’t know, because the show doesn’t seem that funny to me), but if there is someone who thinks so, they should express it. Whoever prefers to whine and get close – good luck to them.
1. Do you have a definition of what is desecration?
2. If you assume that there is desecration of the ’ and it is possible to criticize without desecration, a. Is it permissible to desecrate, then both can be observed. b. If there is a dispute about the very desecration of the ’ whether it exists, shouldn't you be stricter because of doubt from the Torah to the grave?
1. No.
2. A. We don't need to have both, especially when the harsh criticism is necessary. B. Indeed.
1. If there is no definition, why is cynicism not contempt? At least from the 2nd point. B. Namely, because of doubt from Torah to the grave.
2. I would be happy to provide a reason why both should not be observed, such as that contempt is not necessary.
1. Does every concept in yours have a definition? Don't you use concepts for which you have no definition? Maybe you delude yourself that you do, but the answer is no. All of our fundamental concepts lack a conceptual definition, and we still use them. There is common sense (for those who have it) and it should be used.
I will ask you: How can you write to me here with such cynicism? Isn't there contempt here? (of a person, not a T.H.) And what about the "saints" from the LGBT community? Didn't you insult them with this? I think not and what you wrote is perfectly fine (in that respect), but in your opinion you should present a definition. Or is it only the others who should do this?
By the way, the Ramban writes about Ba'am "ancient words from the mouth of a new old man." Didn't he insult him with this? No. He criticized him cynically. That's all. And many others are like that.
2. Both should not be observed because we are not obligated to respect such ”H. And, as I wrote, the contempt is part of the criticism to show that these are not ”H. and that there is no obligation to respect them. By the way, those “H.”H. despise others without any calculation and without justification. But of course this is whatabautism.
Well, I think we've exhausted it.
[Incidentally, it turns out that the Ramban's expression is taken from the language of a midrash. I don't know what sin the rabbi committed that some of the sharpest polemical tongues in literature were directed at him by the Rabbi (with whom he even argued back and forth about his stinging polemical policy) and the Ramban. And regarding the Ramban's tongues themselves, it should be noted that the Ramban returned to them in the second introduction and explained that the young men were putting fire in their noses, etc.]
The skinny man "sinned" by being 19 years old when he got into trouble over the Riff.
In this respect, I always had a strange sympathy for him. One rose up to rebel against authority (which, unfortunately, I have never been able to understand from where such authority arose in the Rif) and immediately the hammers in the group ordered to cut off his head. My heart tells me that there is some point of renewal, a significant plan in the words of the Riz, and because of which everyone has taken up their swords, but I am not wise enough to stand up to the matter.
By the way, regarding Gil 19, there have been disputes over whether this poem (and not Tima Zeirin Shinohi and Zirin Begin Di Man Esherim Zira Lia Shata”) was indeed written for the illuminated work. There is no hint in this poem to the core of the book, which is the Heggot on the Riff, while the introduction focuses on this. And unlike, for example, the similar poem by the Ramban in the introduction to Paski Bekorot, which explicitly mentions the content of the book: “Arum Rav Khartoumin Abed Kol Matamemin… and Din is Parvankia Dati Khariki”. In other words, because the great wizard has already done almost everything, and now this is (I, the Ramban) his emissary who came in his place and according to his own way to complete the little that was lacking.
The rabbi did not have any special "authority", he was simply considered the "greatest of the generation", and therefore they did not argue with him, just as today an average religious person would not argue with the Shulchan or even with Rabbi Ovadia (at most he would say that he is a ruling figure like Rabbi Eliyahu).
And just as today rabbis would not like it if someone young disputed the aforementioned rabbis (even if they had serious arguments), so they did not like it then either. – By the way, there is logic in the claim that denies the privilege of arguing with the sages, because if he were here, he would probably answer the arguments and remain in his position.
Beri and Menachem, apologies in advance for interrupting the interesting historical discussion on the issue of the expression of the riff and the ramban.
I simply did not understand the rabbi's explanation.
A. Cynicism towards offenders who are called an abomination, such as the holy community of the LGBT community, about whom and their likes the Torah wrote that it would not be holy, etc. (a prostitute for those who do not know) is a commandment because there is a commandment of and to purge the evil from your midst. (To the rabbi, at least here in the current question, I did not write cynically, and even when I wrote, I used his style in terms of your opinion).
B. The very fact that there is a prohibition against denigrating scholars requires that there be a definition, and the definition is a slur, what is acceptable to say about a person who is not customary to respect, and what is acceptable not to say about scholars, and cynicism, as I believe, is unacceptable.
C. When they attack someone, they usually don't claim to be a scholar, but only pretend to be one. I don't think that the rabbis and the rabbis are not scholars, even in your opinion. In their opinion, you are an outcast and should be put in the pit and not raised. So, if they treat you, they probably won't consider it a form of disrespect for a scholar, but rather a form of disrespect and corruption of the treasure of wisdom if they leave you in the pit (of course, this is one of the main points of the Rambam).
D. If we assume in your opinion that they caused the desecration of the local temple, the desecration was not done intentionally, at most by mistake, or because they lacked knowledge of reality, are they no longer scholars?!
A quote from your words above: “The contempt is part of the criticism to show that these people are not scholars and that there is no obligation to respect them”.
Regarding the age, it's interesting that there is an appeal against the poem. – Are there any other arguments against the attribution of the poem (other than the claim that it doesn't speak to the content of the book)?
In section C, you sent the draft without editing.
Menachem, regarding the appeal, I don't know.
Amazing, I finally have a halachic justification for desecrating life. K, the cannabis device for Passover and all year round
Letam,
Long time no see on the site.
I saw that among your words about the LGBT community, you mentioned that they are called ‘abomination’.
Surely you are relying on the scripture that said ‘abomination is’ for these acts.
But a yeshiva member like you (as you witnessed the Baha'i Atra) is expected to know how to read what is written.
‘abomination is’ – the action is abominable, they themselves were not called abominable. The Haftza – yes, the man – no.
The Torah was very careful not to call a person an abomination but only his actions.
In individual places, the Torah decided to call the person himself ‘abomination’ One of them is someone who wants to weigh the scales.
Examine yourself and your neighborhood, whoever you find to be a liar is a liar – if indeed you can call an abomination in the name of the Torah.
With blessings,
From me ‘ I am setting ignorant dogs on their error ‘.
(It should not be difficult that I was under a different name because in the measure of my Creator I am wallpaper glue one time I am revealed in one way and another time in another way).
By the way, the prophet will be examined under the name of abominations, these are deceitful, untrustworthy people. Not secular, not gay. People who are bad in a man for his fellow man. Six here is the ’ and seven are the abominations of his heart, search in the proverbs about whom it was said and also here and there the prophet.
I have not seen these things less common among the Haredim.
* Error in paragraphs
Instead of ‘Whoever wants to lift weights’
‘Whoever cheats with weights’.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
