Is My Theology Anorexic? On a New Hellenization (Column 352)
With God’s help
Disclaimer: This post was translated from Hebrew using AI (ChatGPT 5 Thinking), so there may be inaccuracies or nuances lost. If something seems unclear, please refer to the Hebrew original or contact us for clarification.
A few days ago I received on the site the following question from Adiel:
| I watched the conference launching the trilogy, and I think I didn’t hear you respond to Rabbi Yehuda Altusheler, the head of the kollel, to his suggestion that instead of only negating and negating, you present an alternative—what, positively, do you propose to do; some path of what yes to do.
Rabbi, I think that you (not just I) have emptied Judaism of any religious content (perhaps you don’t see yourself as religious?). So what’s left for you: you have no interaction with God; you don’t pray to Him except for the three prayers that the Sages instituted; you also don’t believe that we came into this world in order to be tested—whether we will withstand the trials that God sends us—like Mesillat Yesharim says, nor that this is the purpose of our free will (for test and trial). And that we are subject to fate and there is no message in the suffering that people undergo in the world. And that there is no reward and punishment and no individual providence, and you don’t know whether there is a World to Come; and you also disqualify religious experiences. So what is the difference between you and Leibowitz—aside from keeping commandments there is no religious dimension left in the way of life that remains. Perhaps you’ve missed something here, and maybe not everything has to pass the stringent test of the intellect. You know, there are mystical elements in religion; perhaps here what’s needed is a bit of simple faith, faith in the sages, and humility? |
You can read, there, the brief answer I gave him. Here I wish to expand a bit, since this question keeps coming up (see, for example, Columns 262 and 340 for the arguments by Rabbis Shilat and Ret about the “anorexia” of my theology), and apparently it deserves a more systematic treatment. Almost all of what follows has already been written in one way or another and detailed in various places; here I’ll just try to gather and consolidate it into an orderly framework. Therefore I won’t elaborate beyond what’s needed for my purposes here. I decided to put this column up now, on “Zot Ḥanukkah” (yet another hollow notion from the workshop of “Jewish thought,” to which, as is the way of the world, an ocean of superstitions has been appended), since at the end I will also get to Ḥanukkah. How could I not?!…
Jewish Identity
I’ll begin with the question of what Judaism is and what Jewish identity is. I devoted several columns and articles to it (see especially the series beginning with Column 336 and on). So there’s no need to repeat my conclusion: Judaism is halakhah—no more, no less. Everything else is trimmings and ornaments, which may be true or not, and anyone can insert or remove them from his Jewish framework at will. My claim is that they are not part of the binding framework itself and, in many cases, also baseless and untrue.
Moreover, I argue that they cannot be considered Judaism in a particularistic sense (that is, for distinguishing a Jewish view from a non-Jewish one). What makes Judaism distinctive is only halakhah. Of course a Jew also thinks, feels, remembers, and wills; he also engages in science, thought, and philosophy, consumes art, eats, and sleeps—but all that is not “Judaism” but “humanity.” Furthermore, the realms outside halakhah (“Jewish thought”) are, by and large, factual in character, even when the “facts” are very hard to verify (such as the coming of the Messiah or God’s providence and involvement in reality).
The factuality of these realms matters in two main respects—namely, three:
- No one has formal authority regarding these realms. You cannot demand that I accept things because so-and-so said them, unless I am persuaded that they are true. True, if I am persuaded that so-and-so is an expert on the matter, I will of course weigh his claims seriously. That is what I called substantive authority (as distinct from formal). But I deny that there is such expertise in the realms of “Jewish thought.” In my estimation, Maimonides and Maharal understood no more about this than you or I.
- These realms contain no statements with binding “Jewish” valence. And this must be applied on two planes: on the side of the speaker and on the side of the addressee.
- The speaker. A given claim or conception can, of course, be labeled “Jewish” if it comes from the mouth or keyboard of a person born to a Jewish mother—especially if it’s written in Rashi script and wrapped in a brown or black cover with gold letters—but that is of no importance. What is true is true whether Moses our Teacher said it or the last cobbler in the market of Caesarea said it. And what I have concluded is not true I will not accept even if Moses said it.
- The addressee. If a given claim or conception is true, then it is true for every human being, Jew or gentile. If a fact is true, it is true for a gentile as well as for a Jew. If it is true that at some point the Messiah will come to the Valley of Arbel, then a gentile should accept that as well. And if it is not true, then neither gentile nor Jew should accept it.
A Gentile Who Keeps the Commandments
In Column 222 I dealt with Yuval Dayan’s departure from religious observance. At the end there I touched on why a “thin” theology matters and also on what, in my view, distinguishes Jew from gentile. I don’t mean in some essential or spiritual sense, but in the definitional sense of Judaism. Does any difference remain between a Jew and a gentile on my account, or is my doctrine nothing but an anorexic theology that has emptied Judaism of any specific content (as the question above describes)?
I wrote there that, in the normative sense, it is correct to see me as a gentile who keeps the commandments. Beyond keeping the commandments, there is nothing specifically Jewish about me. Of course, there are Jewish features to my thinking and culture, as every person has features shaped by his nation, environment, and religion; but those features are facts produced by our history and biography, not binding principles. In other words: even someone who, for whatever reason, lacks those features is a kosher Jew just like me (and perhaps more so).
My morality is universal, as I think it ought to be for every gentile. My philosophy is universal, exactly as I think every gentile ought to think. My conception of reality is also universal, like that of an ordinary gentile. I am not inclined to see metaphysical dimensions involved in the world—just as, in my view, any rational person, Jew or gentile, ought not to. Of course, there are plenty of disagreements in all these realms, and I am not claiming that there is only one morality and one philosophy in the world. I am also not claiming that I am necessarily right and that everyone should adopt my position. Clearly, from time to time (though very rarely) I err. My claim is only that my positions in these realms are not “Jewish.” Every listener must examine these claims and conceptions and decide whether to accept them. Perhaps I am right and perhaps I am wrong, but the fact that I am a Jew is irrelevant to the discussion and compels me in no direction. My considerations will be exactly those of a gentile who has gone through what I have and thinks as I do.[1]
The Conventional Conceptions
Needless to say, the picture I sketched here in brief stands in tension with the conventional conceptions. And again, I don’t mean specific contradictions here or there, but the very “anorexia.” People assume that Judaism is supposed to fill the entire space—accompany me at every step of life, guide my thinking and my values, and perhaps even encompass my science, philosophy, and culture. No wonder that beyond the disputes over this or that point in my doctrine, broader claims arise like those presented in the question cited above. I am, essentially, a new Leibowitz—Lord have mercy (indeed, following Rabbi Zvi Yehuda Kook’s instruction, we should say: Prof. L.).
The question of how similar my position is to Leibowitz’s is irrelevant. That’s ad hominem demagoguery. In my view, one must examine the position on its own terms; classifying it under this or that thinker is irrelevant. So I shall note to myself to ignore and not address the issue of influence and resemblance to Leibowitz’s doctrine.
I must emphasize that, in my “thin” theology, I am not opposing the notion of “In all your ways acknowledge Him,” according to which one is to set God before oneself always and behave as if one is always standing before the King of Kings who scrutinizes our conduct. As the Rema, the author of the Mapah, writes at the beginning of the Shulchan Aruch:
Gloss: “I set the Lord always before me” (Psalms 16:8) is a great principle in the Torah and among the virtues of the righteous who walk before God. For a person’s sitting, movements, and dealings when he is alone in his house are not like his sitting, movements, and dealings when before a great king; nor is his speech, the freedom of his mouth to say whatever he wishes, the same with his household and relatives as it is in the king’s court. How much more so if a person sets to his heart that the great King, the Holy One, blessed be He, whose glory fills the whole earth, stands over him and sees his deeds, as it is said: “Can a man hide in secret places so that I shall not see him?” says the Lord (Jeremiah 23:24)—immediately fear and humility will come upon him in awe of the Blessed One, and he will be ashamed before Him always (Guide of the Perplexed, III:52), and he will not be ashamed of those who mock him in the service of the Blessed One. Also, in walking modestly, and when he lies upon his bed he will know before Whom he lies, and immediately upon awakening from his sleep he will rise eagerly to serve his Creator, may He be blessed and exalted (Tur).
All the more so, I say that all of this is indeed correct and worthy in my eyes. The finest fear of Heaven is that which accompanies a person in all his ways, times, and manners. But this is a statement about setting God before us and examining our actions by the testing crucible of halakhah and morality. There is no hint here that all our realms of activity must be guided by “Jewish” principles. My “anorexia” pertains only to the discussion of which realms Judaism addresses—not to the share of our time to which it is relevant. The fear of Heaven that accompanies us in all our ways comes to ensure that we act according to halakhah, but not necessarily that all our actions be “Jewish.”
I’ll say even more. Even when I weigh a value or moral consideration, it is true that I must set God before me and act according to the morality He expects to guide me. I have written more than once that moral conduct is the fulfillment of His will, and as I explained in my fourth notebook (Part III), I also argue that without belief in God there is no valid morality (although, as I have often written, morality is an alien category to halakhah and independent of it). And still, my morality and values are not “Jewish,” because there is no such creature as “Jewish morality.” Every person, Jew or gentile, ought to conduct himself according to moral and value principles that derive their validity from that very God who imprinted them within us and expects us to act by them. It is therefore fitting that one behave as if standing before the King of Kings who expects proper conduct. This is true for Jew and gentile alike; hence there is nothing specifically Jewish here.
What Is Meaning
Adiel’s question, of course, assumes the opposite. He claims that Judaism contains many additional components. The examples he chose—naïveté, mysticism, faith in the sages, and the like—make my task a bit easier. If that is the alternative to my words, then I think it’s rather easy to prevail. He also claims that I should be more humble and not dismiss those elements out of hand. But in saying so he misses two very important points.
First, if I have reached some conclusion, I cannot accept a contrary position merely out of humility. Humility is not a tool for formulating positions and an intellectual doctrine; it is at most a condition upon which they may be formulated. The formulation itself is done by reason. Humility will make me listen and weigh every argument and position seriously. Therefore, if, as a result of listening and contemplating, my intellect concludes that there is merit to mysticism, I will indeed adopt it. But I have no tool other than reason. “Faith in the sages” is also irrelevant, for if I don’t think they were sages in these realms (as distinct from the halakhic realm), there is no sense in adopting someone’s position just because he said it. That’s absurd. Why shouldn’t we have “faith in the sages” in Einstein, Aristotle, Buddha, Muhammad, or Confucius? I must decide who is a sage before I will be willing to adopt a position just because he said it. And how am I to make that decision itself? With naïveté and humility—responding to my religious experiences—I might arrive at the conclusion, plausible to me, that Confucius or Buddha were champions of religious experience, probably far more than Maimonides. In short, these are empty words. Contentless preaching. Why doesn’t Adiel rebuke himself for lack of humility and listening? Why doesn’t he accept my words by dint of simple “faith in the sages”? Apparently because, in his view, I am not the sort of sage to whom such deference is due, at least not in these realms. So I allow myself to make similar judgments with respect to other sages.
Second, once I have formulated some position, and suppose it has brought me to an “anorexic” Jewish conception—what am I to do now? Because of distress, and because of the a priori assumption that an anorexic Judaism is not good or not what I would expect, should I create ex nihilo additional principles in order to fill that vacuum? Should I, as a result, gird myself with courage and humility and adopt Adiel’s doctrine even though I don’t agree with it? If those principles are true, I will of course adopt them even without distress and need; but if I have concluded that they are not true, how could I adopt them just because I am in distress?! That is a catastrophic confusion of “ought” and “is.” The fact that I want something and am in distress does not mean that if that thing is not true or does not exist I should adopt it anyway—and conversely: the fact that it is true does not mean that without it I will be in distress. Distresses are irrelevant to this inquiry.
Does Adiel expect me to graft into my worldview something I don’t believe in just to derive strength and meaning from it? And what has humility to do with any of this? In Column 159 I explained that, contrary to the common view (mainly following Viktor Frankl), meaning cannot be manufactured or invented. Meaning derives from some objective truth. Invented meaning is an illusion. It may help a person with his psychological distresses, but it has no significance on the philosophical plane. In short, meaning is not something a person should invent for himself, but something that exists. Inventing meaning does not confer meaning. Finding meaning—does. If the picture a person reaches does not provide him meaning and leaves him in distress, the advisable counsel is to go to a psychologist or psychiatrist and get a sedative. Deciding that he is Napoleon, or adopting a conception that thousands of demons surround him at every even minute and ten thousand on his right at every odd minute, is not a recommended treatment for psychological problems. That is part of the problem, certainly not the solution.
The Significance of a Theological Framework
At the end of my reply I wrote to Adiel that, contrary to his depiction, I do not dismiss religious feelings. I simply don’t have them. Whoever does—good for him. I just don’t see them as important or necessary, and I am also not inclined to see them as an instrument for knowing reality (atheists also have religious feelings; we are built that way). This is distinct from spiritual intuitions, which can be a tool for knowing reality—though even here it is very important to be careful and examine them thoroughly, since they are very similar to religious feeling. And don’t ask me for a criterion. I don’t have one.
In general, in my trilogy I deal only with formulating and presenting a necessary framework for Jewish theology, but I do not negate specific contents that anyone may fill it with as he understands. Regarding most of what I rejected, I did not claim that it is untrue, only that it lacks foundation and is not binding. My intention was to build a necessary framework for Jewish theology, but not to hammer in final nails about what is true and what is not. Of course, any additions a person wishes to add within this minimal framework should be examined in the crucible of reason or tradition, and he should not be satisfied with needs and distresses as theological criteria (as usually happens, and Adiel’s questions are an excellent example). In the final analysis, anything beyond the framework I outlined is not binding and does not define Judaism. It is a person’s private theology, as he built it for himself based on his own considerations. By the way, that of course includes Maimonides, Saadiah Gaon, the Kuzari, Maharal, R. Tzadok, Rabbi Kook, Rabbi Berland, Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef, and other thinkers. Their theologies as well are but personal doctrines that each built for himself based on his considerations; and each of us is permitted and obliged to adopt or reject them by his own lights and to build his own doctrine—“in his Torah he meditates”—a Torah that is his.
Am I Becoming Hellenized?
One cannot avoid a comment related to these days (Ḥanukkah). The picture I describe here may seem like Hellenization. Essentially I am claiming that the Hellenizers were right in adopting Greek culture (so long as they kept halakhah). So what was the war about at all?
First, I wasn’t there, so I don’t know what the war was about. But it is clear that, first and foremost, it was fought for our religious and national freedom—for the right to believe and keep the commandments as we understood them, including sanctifying the new month, circumcision, and Shabbat, and for our political independence. I don’t think the war was waged because of Greek philosophy and culture as such, as many wish to describe it. On the contrary, the Sages tell us that “the beauty of Japheth shall be in the tents of Shem,” meaning we warmly embraced Greek wisdom and philosophy. In my estimation, the Oral Torah is to a great extent the product of the encounter with Greece and its culture.
Second, the additional dimensions—beyond what I described—that each of us injects into the struggle with the Greeks are nothing but expressions of his own desires and personal conceptions. It’s best not to take these personal interpretations too seriously, and certainly not to use them as a criterion for what Judaism is. That is begging the question and circularity. One who assumes that Judaism is a philosophy other than the Greek one will, of course, explain that the struggle with the Greeks was about that. And from there he will infer that our philosophy is indeed different from theirs—otherwise, what did we fight about?!
Of course, when a fierce national struggle is on, especially a war, it is only natural to fight also against the enemy’s culture and to reject it. But after the struggle is over, there is room to re-examine whether it contains positive elements that are worthy of our adoption. That is apparently what the Hasmoneans did, and after them the Sages as well.
But I will say more. Even if the Sages—and even the Hasmoneans—thought that this indeed was what the war was about, and even if afterward they continued in their view opposing Greek culture, that does not necessarily mean that I must accept it. I am permitted to interpret the struggle differently, and perhaps even to oppose it. I do not see myself as bound by the Sages’ intellectual and cultural conceptions. Their authority is in the realm of halakhah, and there only.
Many today, like me, think that literature, cinema, and theater—quintessentially Greek components—are important, high, and worthy culture. Must we retreat from that just because the Sages thought otherwise (if indeed they did)? I also don’t know exactly what sort of “culture” the Sages had in mind when they spoke about “circuses and theaters.” But even if they rejected Kant and Dostoevsky, must I necessarily accept that? This is not a recommended way to draw theological conclusions, for several reasons. Also because the Sages have no necessary authority in these domains. Also because it is unclear what exactly the reality was, what the Sages thought about it, and what its relation is to our present reality. And finally, for all these reasons—and as I explained—such a method is prone to beg the question. I project my beliefs onto the Sages and onto history (for it isn’t clear what really exists or existed there), and then I adduce proofs from history that these beliefs are the correct ones.[2]
And may it be pleasant to the hearer…
[1] Yes, I know that sounds circular. But if you think again, you’ll find that it is not.
[2] By the way, that is what usually happens when studying Tanakh and Aggadah, and I have pointed this out more than once in the past. But that is another matter that I won’t enter into here.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
As usual, I enjoyed reading the words, which the Rabbi is so proud of!
But how can one separate Halacha from the rest of “Judaism”? After all, both in the written Torah and in the spoken Torah, Halacha appears in complete confusion with stories, tales, morals, legends, etc. The attempt to turn Halacha into a kind of independent science is a relatively late product (Brisk and the like), and this approach also had many opponents (for example, Rabbi Kook, who saw the need to create a connection between Halacha and legend). Dealing with Halacha as something that is close to being disconnected from the context does give the feeling of an analytical engagement (there is a system of axioms, and we are left to logically discuss the conclusions). But it becomes a very strange hobby when it does not have theoretical backing in the form of ardent religious faith.
Chen Chen. I've explained this dozens of times. Please search the site and the spray (especially the second one). There's no place for that here.
Thank you very much for the column
But there is a point missing here that I have already written about several times. Judaism is a covenant of love between us and God, and from it we are obligated to the law, like a man who is obligated to his wife in all kinds of obligations because of the connection and covenant between them. But if a man says to his wife, "Look, there are better people than you, but by virtue of morality, I am with you," woe to such a marriage. The rabbi often brings up Kant's categorical imperative, but it does not seem that this is what God wants from us in the Torah. It is written many times that He wants and desires us in a covenant of love.
No one is clear, hello!
Every couple in the world can find better partners, this is a fact. There is no way that we all married the best partner in the world, right?
Ultimately, every marital system is based on a commitment to an agreement, and on the fact that we chose (for irrelevant reasons) to devote ourselves and commit to one and only and ignore the potential inherent in all the others. This is the factual truth, you can ignore it but that is just burying our heads in the sand, 99.9 percent of us could have found a better partner than our current partner if we had searched carefully among all the women in the world, for sure! The matter is that we chose and committed to one… that is all.
This is the amazing insight that the little prince understood when he saw the vast rose garden when he arrived on Earth, suddenly he saw that there were endless potential roses to fall in love with. But then he realized that it was possible to ”home” A certain rose and then it becomes your rose, and then it becomes more special than all of them. Not because it is truly special from an essential point of view, but only because it is the rose that you have chosen to invest in, to domesticate it, to make it yours. (Torah Delia?)
From that commitment, love naturally develops, which causes us to also enjoy this commitment, but commitment is always the basis, and if it is not there, love without commitment has no meaning.
And in the same way, the commitment to the observance of Torah and commandments is the binding and only foundation without which there is nothing. If a religious experience (love) has also developed, that is good, but it also has no meaning without religious commitment.
With blessings!
Joy, things like spurs. Even with his unfounded assumption that the relationship is like that between spouses.
Thank you very much for the response
You are indeed right, but the root of the commitment between spouses is a covenant of love and by virtue of it actions, and not vice versa. Indeed, if there are only actions, the situation is difficult for spouses, and from the Torah it seems that the requirement is for a relationship and the actions are by virtue of the relationship between God and the people of Israel.
The commitment itself is a commitment to love and not a commitment to actions. Beyond that, the main point of the relationship is love. In general, the analogy would be with a person who listens to his father's voice only out of obligation, but really tries to always think about the commitment and sees the relationship as unnecessary. Does his father want this? The prophets spoke of those whose hearts were far from him, and what was in their tongues and hearts was respect.
I think that the commandment to love God is a commandment.
In the parable of the 2nd of Tevet 25, the love of a man and his wife is built not only on commitment but on the feeling of the uniqueness of the object of love. It is not for nothing that the foundation of a relationship is ‘love as one's own body and respect more than one's own body’. This means: P The feeling that there is something unique in the partner that is and only he completes me – is what brings about love. And all the more so that the things are true in the parable, in the love of the Creator, who is the sole source of all good and true life.
With greetings, Yaron Fish’l Ordner
Yaron Fishel Ordner Hello!
I disagree! It is clear to me that there are women who have much more special things in them than the specialness you found in your partner! Do you really think that there is not a woman among all the women of Israel who suits and complements you more than your wife? It is childish to think so.
The only specialness that exists in a daughter or a partner is the choice! The very choice of her and the commitment and alliance with her are what created the commitment! The thing that distinguishes your partner from another is that you chose her over another, that you decided to invest all your commitment only in her, and not to deviate from this commitment as long as there is a binding relationship between you.
Of course, without love it would be very difficult to meet this commitment, but love is a byproduct and not the framework itself.
With best wishes, Simcha.
On the 2nd of Tevet 20th of February
To Simcha – Greetings,
According to you, it was possible to match everyone using the method of the matronita who had 500 slaves and 500 maidservants and she matched them randomly 🙂
In reality, however, people are looking for compatibility between the couple, and since each person has their own unique character – the choice is quite limited, and people are looking for the unique mix of character traits that will suit them especially.
It is true that the choice and mutual investment also inspire love and mutual gratitude that intensifies love. The initial recognition of the unique virtues of the partner – intensifies as the recognition deepens and as the gratitude for the help received is added.
Best regards, Simcha Fishel Halevi Plankton
Judaism or not, the thing that the Rabbi misses here in answering Adiel's question is of course: 1. The need for meaning (accompanied by the intuition that it really exists, but it just needs to be found). 2. The metaphysical dimensions. 3. The search for God (experiencing Him, seeing Him)
Because in truth the Torah and all prophecy in general are several floors above the search for meaning. God did not reveal Himself to Abraham or Moses just like that. We are probably talking about people who observed the world and ”searched for God” and in the end found Him (revealed to them). The real problem with the Rabbi (in his current version), as I have already written here, is that in these matters he is simply autistic (or a zombie in the worst case). He does not feel the need for meaning or despise this need as a psychological need (for reasons that I actually understand. He looks at all the people who do seek and tells himself that he does not want to be like them) but it is equally possible to despise the need to eat as a psychological need (feelings that arise in us) even though it is a real need – not just satisfying hunger but also real nutritional needs – and one must truly seek and find nutritious and real food. And nutrition is a real thing even though it starts with a need. The same thing with meaning. There is a feeling – beyond the need – that there is a meaning to existence and nothing else should be done until it is found (whatever it may be). The problem is not with the rabbi's problems with regard to the quality of the answers with regard to what this meaning is but with regard to the very search for it. The rabbi simply avoids it and denies it. The problem is with the mental attitude. This is what everyone sees and the rabbi does not see. If the rabbi does not have this feeling, then something is truly degenerate in him.
The same thing with regard to metaphysics. Here too, we are talking about the feeling that the world as it is is lacking (this is also related to the sense of meaning and the existence of God and the universe). The question of what these metaphysical dimensions are and whether those who see them are right or wrong or imagining is a good question, and indeed the charlatanism that celebrates in this area will create rejection in any critical person. But even with regard to criticism, one must be critical. The rabbi has already gone so far as to say here on the site in a rant (Freudian or not) about something by Rabbi Kook that he did not understand, that it was nonsense and meaningless, and further claimed that as the Messiah according to his perfection, this is indeed the general path of Rabbi Kook.
Even the rabbi spoke here about the fear of God that one should always compare God with Him. So how do you do that? After all, it's just a childish imagination from kindergarten. After all, we are talking about a mental image here. And this is not a condition for fulfilling Torah and mitzvot, it is actually mitzvah number 4 in the work of the Rambam. And it is not fulfilled like taking a lulav. It is impossible to be afraid and fear artificially and purely according to a commandment. It is quite clear that the commandment is to observe the world (Rambam took the trouble to detail this in the first chapters of the Foundations of the Torah so that we would know how to fear the world and fulfill this commandment (and also the commandments of knowledge, unity and love of God) – “and when you observe these things, etc. “). So if you want, the Torah of fear of God (Kabbalah, Hasidism, Jewish thought) are also part of ”Judaism” if only as a kosher mitzvah for this mitzvah (and here it seems to me that it is even more than building a sukkah. As if it is part of fulfilling the mitzvah itself and so on). And that's why there are books like the stories in the Torah, the legends of the sages, and ultimately Jewish thought and Kabbalah. Don't avoid it. Then you're autistic.
So I'm probably autistic.
The mature response of the decade. Congratulations.
And who said there's no humor on this site 🙂
My soul thirsts for God, for the living God.
On the 7th of Tevet P’A
To Immanuel, greetings,
It seems to me that devotion to Him has several faces and directions.
There is devotion to Him through a feeling of deep love and awe, as you described;
There is intellectual devotion to Him through the study of His Torah, in Halacha and in thought, for He is His wisdom and His will is one, and when a person’s intellect grasps the wisdom and will of his Creator, then he is devoted to Him, as described by the author of the Tanya and the Nefesh of Life;
There is devotion to Him through the study of His Torah, in Halacha and in thought, for He is His wisdom and His will is one, and when a person’s intellect grasps the wisdom and will of his Creator, then he is devoted to Him, as described by the author of the Tanya and the Nefesh of Life; By doing His will and keeping His commandments, as Ramadhan describes. When a person asks himself at every step of life, “What does He require of me?”, then he is constantly living with God, and constantly engaged in doing His will.
There is adherence to Him through morality and virtues, in which a person maintains “to adhere to Him, you too should be merciful; what is kind, you too should be kind.”
And there is adherence to Him through love and attachment to the whole of Israel, because part of God is With Him, and in particular in connecting with the Torah scholars, which the sages also included in their adherence to Him.
Just as a person's personality is complex and multifaceted and layered, and needs to be nurtured on all levels, each with their own unique emphases and dosages, so too must the connection with Him develop on all levels, personal and social, intellectual, emotional and practical, all of which complement each other.
With best wishes, Simcha Fish Plankton.
Correction: The rabbi is a gentile who is committed to observing the commandments, or in short, a Jew (the rabbi's column on nationalism).
In my opinion, the rabbi's theology is quite complete. It assumes a God who gave the Torah, and who watches over whether we keep it. In my opinion, this is quite a lot compared to all sorts of immanent Spinozist approaches that roam the space of apostasy at Mount Sinai, openly or secretly, and promise all sorts of religious experiences de la Schmatte.
Correction to correction: A Jew is a person who is obligated to observe the commandments. A Gentile is the negation of a Jew, a person who is not obligated to observe the commandments. Therefore, a Gentile who is obligated to observe the commandments is an exomiron. If he is obligated to observe the commandments, he is no longer a Gentile. But both Gentiles and Jews are people.
The description "observes the commandments" is a factual and not a normative description; there are Jews who do not observe the commandments and are still Jews. On the other hand, "obliged to observe the commandments" is a normative description and is therefore more correct.
According to the rabbi, the halakha correctly describes the obligation to observe the commandments, but following Leibowitz, this has received a sociological connotation, the halakha is what Jews do and because of this, this is what Jews should do. But there is no normative description here, Jews are obligated to observe the commandments because the Lord commanded them. Hence Doron's claim that the halakha argument is an analytical and not a synthetic argument. We note that with Leibowitz, he really has no choice. As a Rambamist, he denies God any benefit from the commandments. As a Kantian, he denies man any benefit from the commandments. As a result, the commandments lose all meaning and become a sociological custom. The Rabbi, on the other hand, is not a Rambamist and therefore has no problem attributing meaning to the commandments, even towards Heaven (commandments of a higher necessity). In any case, it seems that instead of the Halacha, the accurate description is accepting the yoke of the kingdom of heaven and accepting the yoke of the commandments.
Y.D.
I am only referring to the end of your words.
I agree with the general direction you are taking, but it seems to me that I am taking it more seriously than you are willing to take.
Accepting the yoke of the kingdom of heaven can be done in an infinite number of ways. The Jewish path of the Torah (the yoke of commandments) is only one of them.
Hence, the Torah finds itself in the paradoxical position of commanding its most devoted followers to fully observe it by abandoning it.
Time to do for the sake of the pro-Torah.
Good luck with that
In the book of the rabbi, the one who reveals to all the people of the earth,
Hi, rabbi,
Apparently, what is the difference? Both Gentiles and Jews are obligated to obey the commandments, the Gentiles to the seven commandments of the children of Noah and the Jews to the 333, and even within Israel there are some exceptions, for example, priests are obligated to obey more commandments than others.
On the surface, it seems that the essential difference is that a Jew is part of the ’pioneer army’ whose role is to be ‘a kingdom of priests and a holy nation’ that imparts to all humanity the faith of the Torah and its values. The Jew is destined to be the ‘heart in the members’ the one who reveals to all the people of the earth’, who inspires humanity to walk in the ways of the ’ And to fulfill the values of justice and honesty embodied in the seven basic commandments, and it is he who will guide them to walk in the ’ways of the God of Jacob’, which will bring humanity to peace and unity in the future.
With greetings, Yaron Fishel Corinaldi
Dear Mr. Corinaldi
You are indeed right. The Jew is the vanguard of the world and has the holiest mission of all (this is all part of the third floor that people like Michi and Hoot are desperately trying to deny).
His mission: to give up the Torah he is obligated to uphold. If you have followed the discussion so far you will be able to reach this conclusion on your own.
(I am of course kidding myself for nothing… your expected Cuckoo answer
would be to find some “harmony” where everything goes well with everything…).
Even if you can't learn anything from the Bible today, it was written with the aim of learning something from it beyond Halacha, right?
I guess. I have no information on the matter.
Since theology is thin and gluttonous, its adherents should follow the path of medicine and eat lots of doughnuts soaked in oil and sugar, chocolate jam and caramel, as the poet established: "Eat fat and rich oil, dates and pigeons"; "Eat fat and rich oil, turnips and pigeons"; "Eat fat and rich oil, sell, rent, rent a fat house for the purpose of Chanukah",
And Chanukah is only an introduction and education for the excessive eating that is consumed all year round in order to maintain "Let there be no thinness in our fat", and "May your deficiencies be renewed in the return of fat and fresh", translated by R. D. Rosenstein in the new poetry collection "Fat and Wet".
Best regards, Baruch the Shmandrik, the Wise Man of the Thin
This is Chanukah 5771
In choosing a method of thought that will provide a solid and stable foundation of faith, there is significance in being concise, but not in the sense of minimalism in principles, but in the sense of a concise expression that presents briefly and clearly, while establishing its principles in the Holy Scriptures, in the sources of Chazal, and in direct explanation.
The one who did this most successfully was Maimonides in his introduction to the chapter, which presented the thirteen principles of faith: the creation of the Creator and His uniqueness, the truths of the Torah and prophecy, their divine origin and eternity, providence and reward in this world and the hereafter, and the expectation of redemption and resurrection of the dead.
There, Maimonides not only defined the basic principles – but also established them with explicit evidence from the Holy Scriptures. In doing so, Maimonides created a basic infrastructure, on which a very broad consensus was created. The principles that Maimonides defined – will be signed by philosophers and kabbalists from the first to the last. There are discussions and disagreements on details and private matters, but on the basic principles – there is general agreement.
The fact that the principles are founded on logic, based on the Holy Scriptures and sources of the Prophet – and on the explanation – gives solid confidence in their truth; their clear and concise formulation – enables their absorption and internalization. To study in depth a few pages in the golden language of Maimonides, ‘a little that holds the many’ – leading their learners to a sure and clear goal.
With a bright Hanukkah blessing, Yaron Fish”l Ordner
Miki, as is his habit in the holy (or perhaps in the holy), presents an article that is brilliant and unsuccessful at the same time.
His fight against traditional and confused “ideal” Judaism is justified, of course. But the “Abrahamic” alternative is at least as bad.
Notice what Miki says about the essence of Judaism:
” Judaism is halakha. And that's all. Everything else is fluff and fluff, which can be correct or not, and everyone can insert or remove them from their Jewish framework as they wish. My argument is that they are not part of the framework that binds itself, and in many cases are also baseless and incorrect.”
Really, Miki? Halakha is the first floor and from which everything is derived? And who revealed this meta-halakhic secret to you? The answer to this question - an answer that he simultaneously embraces and rejects (hence his confusion) - is the narrative of the "Torah from Heaven".
This is the foundation and this is the basis.
If Michy, or any other Jew (and probably not even non-Jews) had not believed in the Torah from heaven given from Sinai and within it ((!) also (!) the “dry” religious law, then in the first place he could not have held a position that attributes centrality to that Halacha.
Therefore, even if Michy is right in the point that Halacha is central to the Torah, the centrality of Halacha is only second-rate, and not first, as he insists on saying (and on this occasion contradicts himself).
Now let's imagine a parallel imaginary world in which a secular white man like me truly cares about Orthodox Judaism and the Torah. In such a world, I would be very sorry to be condemned to choose between the confused Adalian Judaism on the one hand and the equally confused Abrahamic Judaism on the other. In such a world, I would try to extract a more successful “synthesis” from those two failed positions.
To do this ( The fantasy continues to take shape) I would say something like this:
There are at least three necessary floors in Judaism:
First floor - the floor of the narrative (Torah from heaven)
Second floor - the floor of Halacha
Third floor - the “ideal” floor that includes myth, morality, the secret doctrine, philosophy, folklore, politics, etc.
The important difference between my proposal and that of Michi is that in my opinion the third floor is not “tits and flowers”. Although the debate about what will go into this floor must be concrete - so that unnecessary “ideal” elements do not leak into it - but its very existence is a given if we have already taken on the first floor.
That's it for now.
Since you addressed the speech towards the audience, I will allow myself to be pushed. You said nothing. First, it is not clear what you want from the first and second floors. No one disputed that there is a first floor (factual belief). Second, you inserted a connection between the first floor (Torah from Heaven) and some third thing (Torah of Secrets, feelings of devotion, belief in providence and reward and punishment, etc.) without any justification. So don't insert it.
Look at the thread…
You stated that in my”speech” I am supposedly criticizing the ignoring of the first floor when in your opinion “no one disputed this”.
I suggest you reread Michi's article or at least the quote I quoted from it at this very point (tits and flowers). Perhaps in light of this you will consider changing your assessment?
You are of course right about the fact that I did not provide a reason. But I had a very practical reason to avoid it, and that is the fear that readers who are not so careful (there are not many of them here) will have difficulty understanding what I read anyway. What do you think? Was I right in this practical consideration?
Here, in a separate response that will come long before the arrival of Ben David, Ben Yosef or Ben Na'vut Mardot, I will present the logical and perhaps also historical connection between the first and third floors.
Sha Bracha
Stuss and the stamps. Are you claiming that the man (Miki) does not believe in the Torah from heaven because that's what you understood from his column? That he allows Judaism even without such a belief? That the aforementioned man is caught in a contradiction within his teachings because on the one hand he believes in the Torah from heaven and on the other [on the other hand what?] and therefore even if he tells you that he believes, you will be surprised that if he does, he must give up something else in his teachings? If you intended to address him directly, then I will disagree. In your separate response, try to focus on the logical connection (by the way, a hint, for free: there is none) between the Torah from heaven and the multitude of things you have arranged on the table on the third floor, because no one disagrees with the historical connection and it is not important.
In my opinion, the Torah itself should be read seriously (it seems to me that it is a matter of Bible study and the concept of theology).
Verses like “The tree of life is for those who take hold of it and uphold it, a sure sign of what the Torah is supposed to give me besides the commandments,” and “And you shall seek the Lord your God from there and find him, for you shall seek him with all your heart and with all your soul.” Some kind of finding of God is mentioned here, that is, a connection, God is present!
So maybe it's worth opening the Torah and seeing what it tells us about this (not in the sense of "Lecha Mitidei Dala Ramiza" but because it is explicitly written)
With the blessings of a happy Hanukkah
S.G
Hello Rabbi. I would like to share with you my experience, which I think is common to many people who try to write what is on their hearts but have difficulty expressing themselves:
On the one hand, your columns fill life with light, many questions are solved, many difficulties of the generation and political, social and other problems are solved in the blink of an eye. But on the other hand, our history, our tradition is being severely damaged. So what is the point, you ask, if this is the truth we must accept.. True, but we have a strong intuition that our tradition is true, that the Arizal, the Rashbi and Rabbi Kook were not wrong! Not because we know how to explain why, but because we simply know, a deep intuition that is rooted within us, as if it were in our DNA. You are right that this could be the basis for all rebellion, everyone will follow the inclination of their heart? Daesh and their ilk also probably feel that their rabbis were right, etc. But still, why should we abandon the faith of our nation that walks among us? This is my experience with readers of this site. I know you won't give me an answer and say that intuitions cannot be argued with, but it is important to me that we put intuition on the table, which quite a few of us are members of.
You put it perfectly. I have no choice but to agree. This is indeed the dilemma that many feel. Everyone should solve it for themselves, but it is important to note that distinguishing between intuition and the emotion that is built into us due to education and the comfort of remaining in accepted perceptions (inertia) is quite difficult. Therefore, a person should be honest with themselves and examine whether their intuition that all of them were right is stronger than the arguments against their positions, and whether it is intuition or emotion and the comfort of inertia.
You have a wrong starting premise, which is that Rabbi Michai educates or pretends to educate. He doesn't. The important role he took on is to challenge. Sometimes it spills over into trivialization. Not bad. Educators must take into account a multitude of important considerations that Rabbi Michai is unwilling to accept (that is, he accepts them as relevant to the educational field, and that too – at times of his own free will).
In my opinion, Rabbi Yehuda also made his argument based on this starting premise. It is impossible to transform Rabbi Michai's words into an educational mishna (even if you are trying to educate yourself) without adaptation. It worked.
Regarding the connection between the first and third floors.
Well, here the ideal Judaism more or less hits the mark and probably knows how to provide answers much better than I do. You know them very well…
The first floor (the super-narrative of Torah and the giving of Torah) is actually a story. And not just any story but a story: rich in historical, legal, moral, psychological, mythical, philosophical, political, economic aspects, to continue..?
Since this narrative has a constitutive status, that is, it comes to impart to us some content, it is logical to assume that these are the same contents that I just listed (and others). The problem is of course to derive those contents in a non-arbitrary manner and without “throwing” from them something that does not exist in the original text.
Usually a dualist (synthetic) like Mikhi should not have a problem with this. Emma what? The analytical wolf lurking within him sometimes takes over the celebration. In such cases, he is so frightened by the (sometimes real) arbitrariness of ideal Judaism that, out of sheer panic, he flees to the good old analytical refuge of logic (in this case, disguised as halakhic law).
I hope the reasoning is satisfactory to your honor.
Are you saying that the Torah contains more things besides Halacha and therefore all of them are ”part of Judaism”? Is that the claim? (By the way, what about the importance of Chedorlaomer's reign over the land of Elam?)
Are you seriously asking me if there is a connection between what appears in the Torah and Judaism?
If so, I urgently need to speak to the supervisor at your yeshiva. Maybe even the first kindergarten teacher you had. Something bad happened along the way…
So your claim is that the Torah contains more than just halakha, and therefore the rest of the stuff (“myth, morality, secret doctrine, philosophy, folklore, politics”) is what exactly? That someone who doesn't accept parts of the myth (for example: doesn't think Abraham defeated the four kings) is what? Before we even discuss the claim, it's recommended that you explain it. Try to minimize the piyyutim and answer briefly and clearly.
[You wrote the first message in the language of “pay attention” as one who speaks in the city square to all who hear, which is why I responded. If this is just a figure of speech’ then let me know and I'll go home.]
I thought everything was clear.
A third quama is necessary in principle. If you want to get down to the details, then it is much easier for you as a dos (if you are a dos, as I think) to draw the line between authentic Jewish phenomena that are faithful to the Torah and its spirit and those that are not. The example of the Four Kings is a question of the weighing that the believer must do between his knowledge (assuming that it is also informed by historical research) and the sai of the tradition itself. This is the best answer that limited beings like us can accept. This is of course true for any interpretation of a text or an interpretation of cultural phenomena. There are no certain truths in anything, not even here.
And this is still very far from what Miki says. His position is not only a historical deviation from canonical Judaism, but it also deviates from the fundamental conceptual norm that appears in the Torah. The Torah is a holy text in its own eyes and as such it tells us that we must interpret it. In other words: it tells us something like: Live me with all your might. I'm giving you hints, because that's all I can give to creatures like you, but you have to keep up the work. And Idach is a complete loser, isn't he?
I am indeed a Dos. I am not interested in drawing a line according to ‘authentic Jewish phenomena that are faithful to the Torah and its spirit’ but rather drawing a line according to what the ’God requires of me. A historical deviation from canonical Judaism, even if it is true and even if it is unique (and not that there were many generations who deviated from the canon that preceded them and then what do you have to do with it, because you are a doer or a doer, etc.’) – That is not interesting. The “principled conceptual norm that appears in the Torah” I, although I am a Dos as I recall (and also the great-grandson of Dos, the descendants of Dos), do not know. I only know 33 norms (and a few more that are not listed but are summarized in the books of halakhah for their generations).
How much confusion in one short response…
Let's start with a general methodological comment: If you don't understand that a principled conceptual norm can be extracted from almost any educational text, certainly from a text like the Torah (meaning the Pentateuch), then you don't understand how philosophy works and in fact don't understand how the human mind works. Yours too. Of course I mean an approximate extraction of a norm, not something positive and sharp.
Regarding your issue of God's demands of you (as opposed to the Torah's demands of you)…. Well, here I am actually with you much more than you think. The problem is that Judaism is not with you on this issue.
Although in Judaism there is also a place for a ”direct line” to God, this is a marginal place. The irony is that this is the conclusion that you also reached earlier (probably without being aware of it) when you stated that no one disputes the primacy of the Torah's overarching narrative from heaven. In other words: You have already agreed that your narrative, or that of Micha or Moses or even my grandmother, is subject first and foremost to the narrative of the giving of the Torah. Who determined it? The Torah itself (and most of Judaism that grew on its back, but that is less important). Can you conceive of the idea that the Pentateuch was given to us as a kind of “sidekick” to our personal theological and practical choices? If you really think that way, you have invented your own subjective narrative that is not anchored in the fact of the giving of the Torah. There is something almost Christian about this idea. Not that I have a problem with it.
This already opens up a new topic that I have written about extensively here on the site, and that is Judaism's inability to separate the authority of the Torah from the authority of God. The main channel in Judaism for approaching God is a particular text, which prevents a Jew who is willing to accept this point - it seems to me that you are not willing - from distinguishing between the two.
And two more (albeit trivial) examples of “tenants” who, according to the Torah, necessarily live on the third floor: the divine promise to Abraham (territory) and the exclusivity that God grants to one lineage from among the entire human race (the people of Israel). One does not have to be a great genius to see that there is something here that lies beyond the first and second floors and is a required reality in the eyes of the Torah. The fact that there is an exclusive connection between God and a particular people and between the people and a particular territory is not a possible interpretation of the text but a necessary interpretation.
A. I don't know what the spirit of the Torah is, and loyalty sounds like a subjective feeling to me. That's why I prefer a factual formulation in the present: What is God commanding me now? One way to discover what these commands are is to search the Torah and according to the halachic interpretations of the sages of every generation.
B. The only one who has authority for me is the honorable Lord God. All the rest (Torah, Sages, Shulchan Aruch, Musar) are just telescopes and lenses to understand what He is currently demanding. It is true that the Sages also developed, created, and innovated, but after they did this, God is now demanding that I observe this exact halachic law. This is a factual claim (which is admittedly not testable) about God's will at the moment.
C. The "principled conceptual norm" What you wrote that you extract from the Torah is a demand to “live it” with all our might according to the breadcrumbs it scattered for us along the way. I don't know what you mean and certainly not from which finger you sucked that. I would be happy to explain.
D. Unfortunately, I don't understand what it means ‘how philosophy works’ and I probably don't know how it works (although I have studied some books by Western philosophers), and I didn't even know that it deals with texts or sayings (if that's what you meant, the truth is that I'm not sure that's what you meant).
E. I have determined that no observant Jew disputes the idea that something from the Torah was given from heaven. There are all sorts of colorful opinions here and there, but in my opinion they are not serious. The one who determined this is not the Torah itself, but me, according to what seems reasonable to me.
F. In your claim that I created a subjective narrative for myself, etc. Sir, after we clear the table of the rest of the introductions, with your permission.
A. “One way to discover what these commandments are is to search the Torah and according to the halachic interpretations of the sages of every generation.”
Tell me, are you working on me? In Judaism, the Torah is just one of the ways? The text that, according to your belief, came from heaven and we were all commanded not only to know it but also to keep its commandments is entirely “optional” from the point of view of Judaism. Maybe you would like to think again about this sentence and rephrase it?
B. “The only one who has authority from my perspective is the honorable Lord God”? “From my perspective”…? Who even asked you what you thought? We were commanded from above to keep the Torah. Period.
C. If I showed you a book that is defined as an educational book, you would probably try to understand what messages it wants to convey to you. This is a trivial conclusion that there is no reason not to apply it to the Torah as well (and in fact, in practice, you probably already do so). So simple, then dat.
D. Any interpretation, whatever it is, tries to extract the true meaning hidden behind texts. If it is a philosophical interpretation, it will formulate what it found there in philosophical principles, that is, abstract and general principles.
E. Once again, you are the one who determines... The Torah perceives itself as an objective reality. In its view, it is not some stream of consciousness of individuals or something like that. From this it follows that whoever wants to be faithful to it must calibrate his interpretation of it according to its way, not according to his own way. Of course, it is true that for flesh-and-blood humans, a subjective factor also comes into play. So what! The main part is the objective input.
A. Another way is direct intuition of what he demands (commands).
B. What opinion does the Lord want me to present to him? The opinion of Rabbi Hanina ben Tardion? Maybe the opinion of the Rebbe of Seret Viz’nitz? I can only present my own opinion (although I learned it from Rabbi Michael, for now this is my opinion).
C. I am really very interested in the practical messages that the Torah conveyed. For example, messages are six days you shall eat matzah and a mixed garment that atanaz may not come upon you. Any binding message is a practical message (obligation is an obligation to do something) and any non-binding message is not interesting.
E. The Torah is simply a protocol that records all sorts of things and allows us to discover through it what the mitzvah is commanded to do. It has no more self-perception than that, and who ever talked about a stream of consciousness. I feel like I am not getting to the bottom of your thinking, but let's leave that point aside for now.
A. Now I understand what you meant. I didn't mean that the other way comes instead of the Torah, but in addition to the Torah. Just like one of my ways to know how many teaspoons of sugar my sister wants me to mix in her tea is to read her message on WhatsApp, and another way is to remember what she asked for yesterday, and a third way is to think about how appropriate it seems to me because I know that today, alongside this tea, she is going to eat very sweet chocolate.
Your methodological failures simply leave scorched earth behind.
A. In Judaism, intuition is not a way equal to the Torah in discovering what God wants from us. Do I need to make that clear to you???
B. His Honor is indeed a subject, and as a subject, he expresses his own positions. So what? Do you think there is no external objective component to those positions? If you think so, then apparently in your eyes, human positions can only be arbitrary. Well, at least about these things of yours, you are probably right.
C. “A non-binding message is not interesting”? This is the norm that guides you..? And how do you know that it is a “binding” norm and not, God forbid, a description of a theoretical fact? By means of an additional, second-order norm..?
E. “The Torah is a protocol that documents all sorts of things”? You just explained that the Torah is practical, meaning it creates guiding norms, not “records” facts as it were. So in fact it does record..?
I don't understand your arguments, and I'm tired, and we've gone on long enough. You offered me a blessing in the past, and now I'll take my blessing and leave.
flap
Thread,
It is clear and known to me that Michai's psychology and specifically his belief or disbelief in the Torah from heaven occupy a central place in Jewish and general history, and this has far-reaching cosmic implications.
Despite all this, impersonalists like me allow themselves to turn their backs on essential questions and become interested in marginal subjects such as philosophy. Therefore, I refer only to his fundamental arguments, which I quoted.
If you feel like descending into such miserable realms as those in which I find myself and are also interested in proving me wrong, you are welcome. Michai is also, of course, an invited guest.
Doron, maybe you should read the columns that discuss this in detail?
Yishai, thanks for the suggestion, but I'm not sure what to do with it.
I've been a guest on this site for years, I've read dozens of columns by Michi, whom I, by the way, greatly appreciate and identify with most of his positions (at least the ones he states). I've argued with him and maybe dozens more times. So I think I know what his view is.
But other than that, why go any further? The things in this column are sharp and clear, and I've addressed them. Don't you think so?
Naturally, if you want to attack the rabbi on a certain issue, read my opinion on the matter. He writes about it in the columns of “Judaism and Jewish Identity”.
If I wanted to attack Miki, I would already be waiting for him under the house with a loincloth and a mask on his head. I only care about his positions.
I've read what you said before.
Anything else?
*His opinion
I read it and was filled with joy, thank you!
Thank you very much for the reply and especially for the expansion of the column, and a happy holiday to you and your family.
With joy.
Happy Hanukkah to you too (by the way, Hanukkah is simply not a holiday, since no festive sacrifice is offered on it. See Bitza 3:1, what is a holiday for her? Even a sukkah for her?. This is perhaps a rabbinical holiday, or a day of praise and thanksgiving).
In biblical terms, even the Amalekites celebrated (1 Samuel 30:16). To celebrate comes from the word to go around in a dance, and a holiday on a fixed date comes every year that repeats itself. Then in borrowed terms, the sacrifice is also called a holiday (the fat of the holiday offering shall not remain until morning).
In the book of Acts, the name of Joseph was mentioned when he came out of the land of Egypt in 1581.
Apparently, it is called a "holiday" and the day of the feast on which a sacrifice is offered, since it is said about Rosh Hashanah, "They blew a shofar in the month of the covering for the day of our feast." And the Sages explained, "What holiday is the month of the covering for?" This is Rosh Hashanah.
And yet we find that the days of Hanukkah were determined to be "good days of praise and thanksgiving," and so the psalmist established: "Hanukkah is a good holiday." 🙂 And therefore we bless: "Have a good day."
With a bright Hanukkah blessing, Amioz Yaron Schnitzel
The meaning of ‘Hajj’ also includes something that revolves in a cyclical cycle, as in the words of Isaiah 29: ‘They will add year after year the feasts they will gather’, which could be interpreted as: ‘They will gather in the circle of time’.
But there is also ‘Hogez’ that moves with strength toward the goal, as described by the poet of Psalm 44: ‘Adam to the house of God with a loud voice and thanksgiving, a multitude of people celebrating’, which Rashi brought from Midrash Tehillim, which is a Greek word that is pronounced for pools of water ‘Hogezgin’, and as the Clear Poet: ‘Otzem Hogez and flows like a river’.
May the days of Hanukkah be not only considered as ‘holidays’ holidays in a cyclical cycle, but also as a river that celebrates and flows with power and expands its channel with its flow.
With blessings, Yaron Fish”l Odner
It is also necessary to mention the one who celebrates and revolves during the days of Hanukkah, namely the spinning top that celebrates all the days of the holiday. The spinning top that continues to circle even after it falls – it does not fall in its mind, but rises from its fall and begins to circle again and is about to fall Hanukkah, a new beginning 🙂
I mentioned above the explanation of the Sages that the day of our feast is Rosh Hashanah, which begins on the day of the month when the moon is covered.
But perhaps there is room to interpret the day of our feast as the holiday of Sukkot, which is also called the holiday of the harvest. On this holiday, when a person gathers into his home all the fruits of his labor during the year, the joy of the farmer reaches its peak.
In preparation for the great joy, the blowing of the shofar on Rosh Hashanah comes. In preparation for the day of joy that is expected for the gathering of the fruits of our labor, we also gather all our deeds from the past year, and examine them carefully: Are they worthy of being brought into existence? Or should we go on to their foreign lands in order to reach the joy of the annual harvest clean and pure.
Best regards, Yaron Fish”l Ordner
You say you have no religious experiences. If you did, it would probably change a few details in your intellectual awareness. So really, how is it possible that you are not taking advantage of the blessed era in which you live? How come you don't go on a ten-day Vipassana retreat or at least dedicate a trip and one night to a group drinking of the divine vine gathered in Yaoske? If you go, I would be happy to join you for a ride 😉 A person must say that he enjoys with all his ten fingers what the halakhic world allows him. So how can we miss this? Great people and thinkers today use such mind-altering devices and it is the coolest thing there is.
In the year 1571, Pharaoh was resurrected
For the age of – Peace be upon you,
Pharaoh also recognized the benefits of the wonderful vine, whose fruit elevates his spiritual world to wonderful places. For this reason, he had to grant a pardon to his rebellious cupbearer, because there was no substitute for the peaks of happiness and elation that the master of the concoction managed to produce from the fruit of the vine –.
Until one clear night, Pharaoh was struck by a terrible insight. The wonderful experiences expire at the ’end of the day’, and the gloomy, gray, and empty reality – returns and strikes a person even more intensely. He is left with the abysmal emptiness and all the illusory experiences have faded as if they never existed, and their memory only increases the frustration.
But this time too, the butler saves the situation, but the intoxicating wine is not the savior. The butler recalls the figure of his prison companion, who managed to overcome his terrible condition mentally, not through intoxication and hallucination (after all, there was no shortage of drugs in prison :), but rather through the power of controlled thinking. Which knows how to anticipate a better future, and plan how to move towards it.
The master of intoxication offers the king the alternative, to reach happiness through the power of sobriety. Joseph comes to the king and offers him the path to happiness that has an eternal dimension, a happiness that does not ‘expire with use’.. Even in times of joy and enthusiasm, one must not get carried away. One must face the future, preserve small portions of exaltation so that they will last us ‘for the small days’;
The additional dimension in which Joseph offers his Pharaoh an existing meaning is the dimension of responsibility towards his people. The new Pharaoh is no longer the slave of the cupbearer focused on seeking uplifting experiences for himself. The new Pharaoh is Joseph's disciple, focused not only on himself, but constantly thinking and planning how he can benefit everyone he can.
And the third dimension that Joseph adds to Pharaoh is the sense of divine mission. ‘Only me’ says Joseph to Pharaoh. ‘I am not the one who acts and does, but ‘God will grant Pharaoh peace’ – I am only a messenger
When a person leaves the egocentric focus on himself, but sees himself as God's messenger, acting with the help of his messenger for the benefit of advancing his people and all of humanity towards a better future – then it is precisely the sobriety, the planning, the execution, and the reflection – that fills a person with a miraculous experience.
How did the prophet Micah define the ’good’ in his ’trilogy’: ‘Adam has told you what is good… to do justice and to love kindness and to walk humbly with your God’, for this is the whole of man.
With blessings of great dreams and successful accomplishments, Yaron Fish”l Corinaldi
The fruit of the miraculous vine is joyful when it is in the right dosage. It can lead to an intoxication of the senses that leads to the loss of the image of God, but in small amounts it awakens the heart, brings joy and brings closer and opens the mind to ’thinking outside the box’.
The same butler who specializes in ’And he forgot’, is also the one who could dare and suggest to the king to seek the ‘national savior’ in a slave who was thrown into prison – ‘Wine and fragrant with wisdom’.
And therefore ‘There is no sanctification except in the place of a feast’. The grain bread symbolizes the knowledge that ‘The baby does not say father and mother until he tastes the taste of grain”. Wine can lull the mind, but in small amounts it sharpens and intensifies thinking – ‘Chamra and the fragrant scent of the wise’.
With the blessing of Hamra and life for the rabbis and their disciples’, Amioz Yaron Schnitzel’
What is the difference between religious feelings and spiritual intuitions (by definition)?
I agree in principle, but in my opinion the rabbi needs to go one step further and understand that the rabbis have no authority in matters of halakhah (neither substantive nor formal). And that we need to start over and formulate new halakhah based on the Torah at the level of scientific research.
We must engage more in biblical research instead of drowning in Gemara, even if this leads to undesirable conclusions.
The rabbi knows that this is the future and that is where most of our work should be, and yet the rabbi deals with Gemara as if it contains the word of God.
I know that in the current form of study it is impossible to draw conclusions from the Torah's plain meaning, and everyone understands what they want, but it is the fault of the sages who screw things up on the plain meaning and allow the formulation of a local and inconsistent interpretation instead of engaging in the search for meaning in the form of research, so that only interpretations that are comprehensive, consistent and well-founded, and not local and narrow, remain.
Speaking of circuses and theater, what is the rabbi's (halachic) opinion on the subject (in the Gamma) of the prohibition of the Litzim seating (what kind of prohibition is this? Abrogation of the Torah? (The Gamma contradicts the statement "one shall not sit in the Litzim seating unless in the Torah of the Lord he so desires"), meaning the abrogation of the positive commandment of studying Torah?) It has always been clear to me that cultural, sports, and artistic performances in themselves (without things that cause reflection) cannot be prohibited. It is a kind of common sense (but maybe I am wrong). And indeed there is evidence of quite a few rabbis who went to the movies. But I did not know how to explain the Gamma and what the Sages forbade there at all. Even if we assume that they were talking about gladiator fights in which people were killed (and isn't a boxing show similar these days? And what about a fight on television?), but they also mention in this prohibition the mucoid lulion and bullion (Rashi: they are a type of fun). That is, a circus (today it would be football). I don't have a good and true explanation for this and for me it's like two scriptures that deny each other until the third scripture comes.
Carcasses are brought up as forbidden in Maimonides’ La’l, and there it is explained that it is because of the laws of the Gentiles. This is a matter that depends on circumstances and time. And in Ezra 18:2 it is brought up that it is because of the continuation of Ezra.
A gathering of lyceum is a worthless occupation. And in Ge’am it is brought up that it is because it leads to the abrogation of the Torah. But again there is an assumption here that it is worthless. Valuable occupations are not forbidden because they lead to the abrogation of the Torah. And see in Marsha where he wrote that if they contain words of wisdom or joyful matters then there is no self-prohibition and the entire prohibition is because they lead to the abrogation of the Torah.
But there is value in everything. So what remains of the original prohibition?
I must comment on humility. I don't mean to claim anything personal in the context of your humility, but I think you have overly limited the place of the influence of humility on the formation of a worldview. According to you, the place of humility is only in ”listening and seriously considering every argument and position” - just the basis for discussion. I think humility also has a role beyond that:
When a person deals with issues that cannot be decided with clear evidence, but rather some greater or lesser doubts must be examined, for example, such as the issue of the renewal of the world according to Maimonides, or more relevant in our case - determinations regarding the manner of God's providence in the world, humility is supposed to prevent a person from setting firm limits on issues that he cannot decide on, and on these issues he should also rely on tradition. This is how Maimonides recommends suspecting our minds when deciding on the question of innovation and introductions without deciding on a model and relying on the prophets of Israel, and this is perhaps also the right way to act on issues such as whether there is God's providence and whether He intervenes in reality.
In short, humility should not make you cancel your opinion in a situation where you have contrary evidence, but it should prevent you from deciding as a matter of course an opinion contrary to tradition when you do not have such evidence.
This is how the sages of Israel acted in all generations: they disputed about those who were before them, but only when they had very strong arguments did they rule against them. Sometimes when reading your words, it seems that you act with an attitude of what is in your heart: if it seems to me that it does not seem right - then why do I care if it is from tradition, and if it seems to me that it is right - then there is no need for tradition anyway. A bit like that Muslim ruler who burned the books because if it is not written in the Quran, it is not true, and if it is written, then it is already written.
The role of humility and the faith of the sages is not to nullify reason, but to see my reason as part of a huge school of thought in which there are many other opinions. And these opinions are no less good than mine when I have no good way to nullify them with clear evidence.
Absolutely not. What prevents you from firmly adopting a position when you have no evidence for it is logic, not humility.
Indeed, that's the case when it comes to a machine learning algorithm. Or especially rare people. We were lucky to win.
A Jew is one who believes in Moses our Lord.
All others are infidels.
Living according to the commandments is the core and that is all.
After all, both accepting the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven (the “narrative,” the “first floor,” according to Doron) and loving God (the “third floor,” according to Doron) are included in the commandments.
All the rest (the “buds and flowers,” according to Rabbi Michai) may pave the way for living according to the commandments. Some need them and some don’t.
Rabbi Michai may not have needed them. The map of the world is clear and bright to him. He sticks a pin in it and it’s there. Others do need a compass and a compass. Each according to his character, inclinations, abilities, and talents. There are those who need the teacher who is confused, and there are those who need the Baal Shem, there are those who must understand every letter and symbol in the verses of the Torah, and there are those who are satisfied with a “geschmack” of a Talmudic issue that has been clarified for them.
In contrast, for the purpose of the parable alone – there is a prophet like Moses our master – direct access to the heart. And there are those who need a harp and lutes or the singing of the Levites so that the spirit of God can rest upon them.
Those for whom music prevents them from concentrating – should not listen to it. Those for whom music helps them to concentrate – should choose the music that suits them.
Anything that helps lead to understanding the Torah and the mitzvot and to fulfilling the mitzvot, and does not contradict a single halakha at any stage along the way – is worthy and good.
And of course there is nothing new in what I am saying. Just trying to highlight a few things.
Dear B.
First of all, your words also contradict the basic position that Miki himself tries to promote (only fails at it from time to time). Commandments (and laws in general) exist on the normative plane - the “desirable”. The narrative exists on a completely separate plane - the factual plane (“present”). Any attempt to blur this basic distinction produces empty discourse on the theoretical level.
On the practical level, no one lives by it anyway (just as no skeptic jumps into the abyss just to check if gravity always works).
Secondly, it seems to me that you are giving Miki a little too much credit. The man is multi-talented and brilliant (and his contribution to Israeli culture in general will still receive recognition), but your claim that he did not need the third floor at all is unfounded in my opinion. I am of course not determining this based on my personal acquaintance with the man - I have no such acquaintance - but rather on a philosophical premise regarding the nature of human motivations. In this case, we are talking about Michi's passions for (theoretical) truth and his burning vision to reform Judaism, etc. All this passion belongs to the third floor no less than the passion of the delusional scoundrels who dance at intersections or that of the hill boys who go out to beat "arbushim" in order to fulfill the commandment to kill the Amalekites.
Doron, it seems to me that you did not get to the end of my words.
Of course, I did not pretend to present Rabbi Michi's position. I spoke only on my own behalf. It is reasonable to assume that he does not agree with what was said.
In any case, I have no doubt in his sincerity, his dedication and his intellectual integrity. Without knowing him personally, of course.
It seems to me that the skinny Jewish suit cannot fit everyone's measurements. But there are those for whom it will fit.
Still trying to understand.
PS
Let me tell you, brazenly, that not only did you not understand me, but you also don't understand your own words.
The question of the suitability of the thin Jewish suit for Man Dehu is a factual question from the field of psychology. Philosophically (that is, in terms of truth) it is not interesting and in fact irrelevant.
My argument is philosophical (and therefore it also includes a sub-argument about our psychology): We are all, as limited human beings, condemned to exist on the third floor as well. It is true that there are talented people like Mikhi who can “slim down” that floor - and for that they will be blessed. But to escape from it completely…. There is no such thing.
Therefore, the problem with Mikhi's philosophy (in general, but also specifically on the subject of the essence of Judaism, which he often deals with) is not actually the attempt to reduce the third floor. The problem is that its (analytical in nature) pretension is completely null and void.
This is of course also the pretension of the Torah itself.
As a religious person, I would be much more concerned about the latter matter than what Michi says…
Truth is embodied in the observance of the commandments. Therefore, everything that brings about the observance of the commandments as they should be observed is relevant. Call it whatever you want.
Forgive me, Your Honor, these are idle chatter. If truth is embodied in the commandments, there is no truth at all (since truth is numerically identical with the commandments). In any case, there are no commandments that rely on it. The fact that you recognize the existence of the commandments, in 27, means that you do not believe at all what your mouth says.
As I mentioned somewhere: the analytical thesis that you return to in this context draws its inspiration from the basic model of Judaism (“Torah from heaven”). There, the role of “truth” is replaced by God, and the role of “commandments” - the Torah. And there too, according to your theory, you can go back and say that ”God is embodied in the Torah” and nothing more… that is, there is no God without the Torah… And in more plastic language: The miserable God depends for his existence on the Torah…
I recommend returning to Michi's teaching on this matter, and even better - read Ze'ev Bahler.
According to the rabbi, no sage has knowledge that we do not have about Judaism and therefore has no authority to establish principles.
Based on this, I would expect that the halakha would also be outside the scope that the rabbi defines as Judaism,
After all, the Gemara was also written by sages whose knowledge does not exceed ours.
I would expect that the only source of what Judaism (and halakha) is from the rabbi's perspective would be the Torah and what is written in it (and the Bible), since it is the only source that was brought to us as it was from God.
If the rabbi accepts the tradition of the Oral Torah and the halakha, why wouldn't he accept the tradition of Jewish faith and theology?
If the rabbi does not accept the tradition and authority of the sages, then that will be it until the end
Not true. Halacha deals with norms and not facts, and therefore formal authority can be defined for it. That is, it is obligatory to obey someone even if he is not right. No such authority can be defined for facts. Search the website for a reference, because I have elaborated on this several times. And of course in my trilogy as well.
Shalom Rabbi!
The Rabbi paints a picture in which there is our Jewishness that includes a commitment to Torah and commandments alone, and alongside it exists our universal humanity that includes philosophy, art, morality, etc., etc.
I would like to suggest a precision that is perhaps more grammatical, and I hope not grammatical poverty, to my mind it seems important.
The Rabbi places these two worlds of content next to each other in a hierarchy, and I think (and I believe you also agree) that it is right for a Jew to put the fact of being a Jew committed to Torah and commandments above all his other pursuits in life, and to see in all his other pursuits a framework that allows him to be a worker of God and a marginal to this work. Therefore, although I agree with you that there is no such thing as Jewish thought or philosophy, there is a philosophy, folklore, and art of a Jew, a Jewish morality, a Jewish humanity, a concern with the vanities of the world of a person who sees the commitment to Torah and commandments at the center of his life.
I would appreciate your opinion.
Thank you very much for your thoughtful work.
Good night!
I don't understand what's going on here beyond semantics.
What the Rabbi is explaining here is why Moses broke the initial tablets.
He understood that he was dealing with infidels who would do all the intellectual tricks possible to disbelieve.
Therefore, the view that the Rabbi represents should be seen as a punishment given to infidels.
I asked once and I will ask again, what is the purpose of all this?
After all, there must be a reason both for us and for God.
From God's perspective, in the sense that He has a specific reason for which He said to keep the commandments, it is very easy to assume. Intuitively, many people feel that the ultimate purpose is to connect with God, to lift their thoughts from the vanities of this world and materialism and to immerse themselves in the ugliness of the Shekhinah.
In short, I think that there is a huge deficiency in a method that forgets the reason for giving the Torah and the law, when only by this can one judge what the reason is for keeping the commandments is. Beyond the fact that nothing can be ruled out, there is a necessity for an additional layer beyond the dry observance of the law and the commandments.
And from a human perspective, it is also very strange to me, because why should he keep a commandment that he does not know what will come of it? Also, what kind of strange instruction is it to tell a person, "I unequivocally oblige you to keep a thousand and one things, what will come of it for you? Oh, actually, maybe nothing.." Here too, there is a need for something more beyond what we know. Reward and punishment, the afterlife, heaven, something...
If you have faith in the Giver of the Torah, you assume that there is benefit in keeping his commandments. I have written this more than once. The reason for keeping the commandments that you want to judge is not identification with the commandments but faith in the Giver of the Torah. This is what I called at the beginning of the third book in the trilogy the principle of overarching, non-specific value.
The current column does indeed put some order in order!
Although the trilogy itself also casually mentions the reservation that there is room for additional approaches – however, the refinement in the column, according to which its goal is to distill the minimum necessary framework, without ruling out the possibility of additional levels above it, even if the fruit of the thinker's creation – is an important clarification. In my opinion, the need for it was accelerated in the trilogy, there is an intensive engagement with examples that illustrate the emptiness of “Israeli thought” on those issues – and the mix sounds to the reader as a challenge and a rebuke to the very legitimacy and not just those examples.
Thank you for the clarification.
I will add that even if someone feels (as I did) that in some places a certain vacuum does indeed remain – It is unfounded in my opinion to challenge the validity of the essay: could it be rejected for revealing flaws in accepted concepts – just because the foundation has not yet been built on the new foundations?!
This is analogous to rejecting the conclusions (or challenging the value of) the Michelson-Morley experiment just because it refuted the Aether assumption without being presented in a package deal with the theory of relativity and answering the question “what is it”… and the analogy is understandable.
At the same time, I would be curious to know one thing:
Doesn't the rabbi believe that the goal (observing Halacha) justifies at least some means?
I will clarify that I am not here to justify all the restrictions, and certainly not the baseless customs that have become established in parts of the Haredi community; I would even go so far as to say that not even their assertion that (whatever we say about them) they succeeded in maintaining a Jewish character in relation to other movements – I am not convinced by it, since the tendency of those who say this is to ignore and deduct from the statistics the massive secularization in the last two hundred years within those same communities (and perhaps due to certain fixations with regard to the tangible);
And at the same time, it is impossible to ignore the influx in recent decades of yeshiva students and large parts of the observant public into fields of thought in general and Hasidism in particular (with an emphasis on Chabad thought) – while sometimes openly declaring that they are seeking and needing a more complete ideological basis, as a motive for existence, perseverance and interest within the halakhic framework – that binding core that is distilled in the trilogy.
Alongside this – Also known is the devotion and excessive strictness in observing the commandments characteristic of Chabad followers (by virtue of those articles that reveal deeper layers in the meaning of the commandments in general and each commandment in its entirety and details, in particular) and of thinkers in their writings - writings that claim to be based on Kabbalistic thought - which in itself is not without merit in the trilogy (even if their interpretation of them is not a logical interpretation but rather contains intuitions, albeit perhaps very sharp, of the writers).
(And do not ask me about the Sukkah and the Prayer Time - which are a drop in the ocean in relation to the practicality of the 13 commandments today, and have already been clarified as a conscious compromise in favor of another, more important / fundamental aspect, sometimes in the same commandment itself, and so on).
I and many others tend to see this refinement as an empirical foundation for a concept that operates from a richer thought, even if it is based on spiritual intuition (provided it has not been refuted) - it has the power (and not on an irrelevant basis such as salary and other non-Lishma examinations) to harness the average Jew to the core that requires it: the result is not accidental in light of the a priori preoccupation with the same content. For example, a substantial part of the core articles in Chabad, for example, deal with the aspect of the virtue of being a servant of God, and why this does not contradict his existence and reality, and what is the virtue of work precisely from a sense of reality and separateness that is characteristic of most ordinary people - when work itself is of course expressed in the observance of the commandments and the study of Torah with an emphasis on the study and refinement of Halacha (continued 2016).
It is not without reason that I have taken the example of Chabad, because in the sea of charlatans that has proliferated in the era of halakhic law today, there is a fundamental value (even if not a formal authority) for the reliability of the thinker when we come to examine thought, most of which is claims that there is no way to verify. Therefore, I chose to demonstrate from the thought of Jews that there is a statistical-empirical basis for confirming their spiritual level by virtue of thousands of documented cases (in non-random percentages) of acts of intervention that are difficult to explain by natural means (even if each case in its own right can challenge the statistical skill of the person who did the deed).
Now come to your own conclusion:
If there is a perception, Q
a. It has a fundamental place, at least in the sense that it has not been fundamentally refuted (and don't answer me for a reduction that is not as simple as it seems - for the body of things, the writings of Chabad describe under this heading a balanced picture of and not an interpretation of "everything is an illusion", an interpretation that you assumed in the analysis of the letter that reviews the 4 methods);
b. It has (provenly) to assist and strengthen the observance of the obligatory core - which His Holiness also says that its existence is the will of God (and not just its instigation, and from there a righteous person in His eyes will do);
c. Those who observe it by virtue of it hold on to the right reasons (admission that it is worthy of worship, with illustrations and detailed observation to bring the matter closer to their understanding) and not reward or alternative transformations;
Isn't there an illustration in all of this (and perhaps even without it, in a priori conceptual analysis we would arrive at it) that it is not enough to "unravel the ether assumption" but rather that it is appropriate to seek a more complete theory that also provides the ability to perform mechanical calculations (including velocities/reference systems), and not just throw the baby (classical mechanics) out with the bathwater?
I ask because it seems that beyond the impressive philosophical work done in the trilogy on refining the nucleus, it implies a kind of agenda according to which it is possible and better to stay with the nucleus alone.
And I wonder, "What is the test of His Honor for what is appropriate to do?"
Isn't the degree of success of a method (among those that do not convert the aims of the work to an alternative purpose on alternative foundations that are not "its own") a measure of whether it is enough to be satisfied with the nucleus?
As I explained, my goal was to distill the minimum framework. Everything else is left to each person's decision. But the examples I gave show that often these additions are baseless and illogical nonsense.
In my opinion, the result of strict adherence to the commandments is irrelevant to the examination of the philosophical mishna. The question is whether it is correct, not whether it is useful.
Yes, but does the subject you are dealing with allow this separation on a conceptual level?
That is, does the fact that its content speaks of what is right to do – not inevitably bind between what is right (= correctly describes what is right) and what is beneficial to carry out what is right? (Provided that the tactical benefit of it is not based on principles contrary to ”what is right”)?
I didn't understand. It's clear that it's possible to separate and even mandatory to separate.
I mean something like “And you kept my watch” – Do a watch for my watch.
You have refined the “factual” basis.
Its content is what God expects us to do.
If we accept (even without the Midrash of the verse / tradition above) the assumption that there is value in His eyes in the scope of the observance of His commandments – doesn't this introduce into that very framework the same level of “watch” additional, which assists in this?
Just as a moral principle requires action according to it in a situation in which it points in a certain direction, thus making it a moral action – it seems to me that God's will regarding how *each one of Israel* will behave – It also concerns indirect actions (which are not explicitly part of the core) according to their effect on its existence.
That is, if we assume negatively that this is not the case - it means that God does not care at all about thinking and engaging in an ideological basis beyond the observance of the commandments - even though its absence may detract from and even harm the observance of the commandments (although in our day and age, the tangible cannot be denied).
In short, one must ask: Is someone who believes in private providence, in the eternity of the Torah, in the afterlife, in the coming of the Messiah and in the resurrection of the dead kosher according to the Trilogy, because these beliefs may strengthen him in observing Halacha, or is anyone who adds a principle to the principles of religion - the reality of the Creator, something given at Sinai, the people of Israel receiving the Talmud, and the main principle: Halachaic, moral and intellectual autonomy - an infidel (according to the Trilogy)
All of this will be taught by the teacher and rewarded (if there is any reward at all..), as Shai Gates, known as Shimshon Lez, blessed
I would appreciate a response from the author of the column(s) to my original question and not to appendices such as this one.
I focused on the question of whether a broader basis (kabbalistic or Gothic in general) that focuses on the content of the obligatory core – such as deeper aspects of the commandments – does not belong to this core itself?
I intentionally speak of belonging to the core – as opposed to the division into Torah in the haftza and Torah in the gabra that is made in the trilogy (according to which it can certainly belong to Torah in the gabra).
By emphasizing that the very fact that I *think* means that I exist, because it is necessary from within itself from the fact that at least there is someone who thinks.
So too here – if the core is not just a list but a list from which the things that God *wants* us to observe – Doesn't this almost force by itself (even without the midrash of “And you kept my watch”) the actions that help fulfill the will?
I will illustrate with an interesting example that I found in the Basic Law of the Knesset:
Regulations
37. (a) The minister in charge of the implementation of a law is authorized to enact regulations for its implementation.
(b) A law may authorize the Prime Minister or a minister to enact regulations on a matter specified in the authorization
Are such regulations, and we will call them in the discussion "dealing with the internal Torah of the reasons for the commandments" nothing more than an example of a regulation such as those that the Minister/Prime Minister was authorized to do here, and thus legally protected under the Basic Law of the Knesset even if their content actually deals with a side aspect?
I see no point in wasting time on this empty chatter. The example is not an example and the question does not exist. I answered.
So let's take examples and ask from the direction of explicit halakhah:
Rema's glosses, siman tseh:
Haga: And think before praying about the exaltation of God, may He be exalted, and about the lowliness of man.
Let's assume for the sake of discussion that we have accepted this ruling of the Rema as if it were an explicit statement of the Talmud itself / a pure interpretative move by the Rema.
Do contents that assist in the fulfillment of the halakhah of a teacher (after it has been verified that they illustrate the exaltation of God to the majority of their students, and have not yet been refuted) not show themselves to be called part (even if instrumental) of the obligatory core?
not.
In the book of Motzach and I will also ascend, the A
R. Yitzhak Bernstein – Shalom Rav,
And after all the baseless claims and difficulties of the author of the ’trilogy’ – there remains the ’hard core– of the 13 principles that Maimonides listed in his introduction to the commentary on the Mishnah, all of which are based on the Holy Scriptures, and therefore they are agreed upon by the majority of all the great men of Israel.
There can be disagreements about details – such as whether the redemption will be logical or miraculous, and whether the private forgetting is only in Israel or for all humanity, etc. – But in general there can be no dispute, since the things are explained in the Holy Scriptures.
There is no point in demanding approval from the entire ’trilogy’, but there is no need for such approval. The God of the philosophers who does not watch over his world – is not the God of the Torah, neither written nor oral.
With greetings, Sh”ts Levinger
Paragraph 1, line 2
… In his introduction to the commentary on Part One, which all…
Paragraph 3, line 1
… Approval from the owner of the ’trilogy’, but …
I do not seek such confirmation, and as you have noticed, I did not ask about his personal positions on these issues, but rather about the boundaries of the scope of such a minimal core – its unique value in my view is in its validity and relation to more speculative levels (without contradicting the fact that above him the author of the trilogy also seems to recognize the possibility of additional levels (acceptance and in general) – even if they are not as necessary and verified as the first one).
Therefore, I wondered whether for him the obligation of studying and engaging in ”I am the ’your God” and “You shall not have…” (The roots of the observance of the law and the law, which I understand to be a general root in the sense that they include the observance of all the commandments/commandments/Leviticus) are also not within the scope of the implementation of the thin kernel - as long as they help to commit to it and to observe it.
I'm not convinced that I understand why not (and that the overall desire, or the collection of desires that we observe every mitzvah from the Torah - does not also include a general desire to help ourselves observe them?) But I'll try to think about it.
Apart from the fact that the Rambam's thirteen principles are anchored in the Holy Scriptures, historical experience has taught us that the position of Judaism on the observance of commandments alone was attempted in two periods by extreme Aristotelians in Spain who believed that the "God of the philosophers" does not oversee or care about human actions. And by Moshe Mendelssohn, who also believed that Judaism is only commandments and laws, while faith stems from philosophy (which for him personally also included belief in providence and the immortality of the soul).
The view of the Aristotelians in Spain led to mass conversion to Christianity, for if the God of the philosophers does not care what a person does, and religion is needed only so that a person does not act in a depraved manner, then many concluded from this that it does not matter whether one is a Jew or a Christian. Likewise, Mendelssohn's view did not hold up. He himself still kept the commandments, but most of his descendants converted to Christianity.
Concepts of this kind – that Judaism is only halakha – can help those who have adopted a different system of ‘beliefs and knowledge’ inspired by philosophy, who have not yet completely abandoned the religious way of life. But in the long run, and when in the next generation – the yoke of commandments without strong faith and without life in the service of God – will not last.
Then ‘you will understand what is before you’.
With best wishes, Schutz Levinger
Paragraph 1, line 1
… that historical experience teaches…
Ibid., line 2
… in two periods: by …
As far as I know, Mendelssohn sought during his lifetime to change the law according to a fashionable moral-philosophical-scientific concept, to align with the authorities on the issue of burying the dead for three days, out of fear that death was not properly determined.
On the 12th of Tevet, 1772
Lan's ” Shalom Rav,
Mendelssohn's position on the question of burying the dead was complex.
The controversy over the custom of immediate burial arose in 1772, when the Duke of Mecklenburg forbade his country's Jews to bury immediately and ordered that the dead be mourned for three days. Mendelssohn wrote a letter to the Duke (at the request of the Schwerin community and Rabbi Ya'avetz) in which he stated that the authority of the Sages binds the Jews according to the words of the Bible. There is no point in mourning for three days, since in most cases death is immediately clear, and for the small minority who are afraid of making a mistake - after all, it can happen even after three days. To prevent a mistake, Mendelssohn suggested to the Duke that a government doctor examine the dead before burial and approve. Mendelssohn's proposal was accepted by the Duke and the decree on the burial of the dead was revoked.
On the other hand, Mendelssohn wrote to the rabbi of the Schwerin community and to Rabbi Ya'evetz, before the Duke's reply to his letter requesting the revocation of the decree was known. Although he hoped that the Duke would grant his request, even if the Duke refused to permit burial on that day he did not see it as a disaster, for if the deceased was permitted to be buried in his honor, then there is reason to permit his burial in order to ascertain beyond all doubt his death. He cited sources from the Sages who also feared this fear. From the baraita in Mas' Simchat, "Joys are visited on the dead for three days," and from the Mishnah in Banda, a person is considered impure even after death until his flesh is purified. The rabbis rejected his words, and in the end, as I mentioned, the Duke granted Mendelssohn's request and revoked the decree.
In short: Mendelssohn defended the accepted custom towards the government. But in internal discussions with the rabbis, Mendelssohn sided with a ’first-order jurisprudence’ that claimed that there was logic in the government's demand.
My words are based on Dr. Moshe Samet's article, ‘Burial of the Dead – For the history of the polemic on determining the time of death, Collections 3 (1989, pp. 137-138).
With greetings, Yaron Fishel Ordner
A public debate was sparked by Mendelssohn's students after his death. Yitzhak Eichel published in the Masaf (1987) the correspondence between Mendelssohn and the rabbis, and said that Mendelssohn had given it to him for publication. On the other hand, a year earlier, a Jewish doctor named Marx wrote an article in a German newspaper, in which he praised the custom of immediate burial for reasons of hygiene, and received a letter of encouragement from Mendelssohn for this (Smet, pp. 138). These things also indicate the complex position. Defense of the custom towards the Gentiles, and criticism of it in discussions within the camp.
In the 12th of Tevet
Come hear the truth!! Let's start by saying what is known that the rabbi is an exceptional Jew with distinct talents, despite this many years ago I already told the rabbi that this was a copy and paste of Leibowitz,
The rabbi at the time was really offended.
The rabbi's views in terms of religious tradition have changed and are changing over the years,
Zechariah, there is really no one Torah that is not replaced except as a collection of occasional belches or occasional diets of fat or thin tyrology as the rabbi likes to dwarf his changes.
The rabbi himself is today a Reform Jew in his views, partly in his behavior.
All that keeps him relevant in the Iphka seems to be the conservative part of him = the old kippah with the tzitzit and the observance of partial commandments but they are still forbidden.
He does not have the luxury of becoming a secular – Reform in practice because where will he get his livelihood and respect?
To serve Him with all your heart and soul, and the soul of every living being, all the bones of the Rabbi will say every Sabbath, do not indicate the observance of the laws of the red and green traffic lights, which are dry, and a one-hour delay, first of all, the Rabbi's prayers, are also not hours of thought about cinema and theater, or else the Rabbi will pass by, God forbid, on you, and you will not turn to all that is implied by this,
And your joy before the Lord your God and under whom you did not serve ..in joy and adherence to Him, praise and acknowledgment that the Rabbi fulfills the commandments, certainly also fulfills them. It is not easy to separate them from spiritual feelings, Hawaii, religious experiences.
And to you, the honorable Rabbi, I say, you are a completely relaxed Rabbi, I have learned in all your ways that you are difficult and prefer to have fun in the culture of cinema and theater = films with proper forms and leisure and wear and tear that will benefit you, but do not lie to the public that there are precedents for this in Orthodox Judaism, namely Chazal, according to which you still claim some kind of affiliation. And if you do not claim this but are completely individual, then let's say whoever your name is, it is simply ridiculous.
After all, in your eyes, no one has ever been right, everyone was mostly wrong and only you are usually right,
The thought of a conversation between you and God is funny, I am sure that even then you would tell him how wrong he is and philosophize with him if he exists and tell him that he does not watch over you even if he gently asks you “Michelle” Did the cup of coffee I made you this morning taste better than my mother?!
Hello,
I am trying to understand the dichotomy between halacha and a worldview that I have apparently understood from your words.
After all, most halacha are not halacha from Moses of Sinai, but rather in the sage's interpretation or in the verse commentary. And certainly the second type is not free from a worldview either. And as for example with Rashbi, whose worldview's influence on his halakhic views is very prominent.
I may not have understood what you mean by ’halacha’, but apparently there seems to be a fundamental connection as I mentioned between worldview and halacha, as root and branches. And the opposite is also true, it is impossible to accept the branch, and ignore the tree and the root from which it came (one can disagree with the understanding of the root, but certainly accept the assumption that there is a certain worldview [broad or thin] and it is part of our obligation to accept it, but one only needs to examine what it is)
I would appreciate it if you could clarify.
There is no connection between the halakha and its conceptual roots. Even if there is a halakha that is based on some perception, I can uphold the halakha because of the obligation without identifying with its correctness. This is the whole difference between a norm and a fact, and between formal and substantive authority. Perceptions are not binding, but the halakha are. And even in halakha there are situations in which I rule like a certain person and not for their reasons. So it is possible to rule like him without agreeing with any reason.
Rabbi, I want to half ask and half disagree.
I understand everything that is said here, but I ask: Is it true? Does Judaism really have no content other than Halacha?
I did not come here to preach about the principle of “the descent of generations”, which I am not one of those who add as the 14th principle in the series of principles of faith.
But Judaism – to the end ” is based on the prophetic, super-intellectual truth. In a certain sense, it is certainly universal because for both a Jew, a Swede, and a Belgian it is true that there are laws that bind only the Jew. The Jew is supposed to recognize this and therefore observe Halacha, and the Swede and the Belgian are supposed to recognize this and therefore *not* observe it. But prophecy has also given us many, many values! Thinking! Principles!
I am definitely not encouraging irrational thinking. I do want to encourage meta-rational thinking, based on the fact that there is a God at work in the world.
Z”A, I will agree that if you keep Shabbat and see in it an expression of either communism or capitalism, whether chauvinism or feminism, or anti-deconstructivism – you have fulfilled your obligation to keep Shabbat. But is this what ”G’ your God demands of you”?
I do not agree, and I cannot agree. But if the rabbi has an answer, I would be happy to accept it.
(By the way, all of the above is not intended to force thinking. I certainly believe that one must think freely in order to believe correctly. But as long as you do not recognize the truth of the prophecies and they do not guide you, you may not be evil, but you are also not a “Jew” beyond the biological meaning of the word)
I didn't understand the answer to what you want. I didn't see a question here. I saw that you're not willing to accept all sorts of things. That's fine, if you're not willing, don't accept.