Should a fast be commemorated in Halacha in memory of the Holocaust? (Column 4)


Every year the question arises as to why sages do not set a day of fasting or a day of remembrance in memory of the Holocaust. If they fasted in memory of the murder of Gedaliah Ben Ahikam or the breach of the walls in the siege of Jerusalem, it is likely that such a day should be set in memory of the Holocaust, which was at least as unusual and catastrophic, and for us much more topical and touching. The answers usually revolve around the question of halakhic authority and power. Some hang on to the fact that we do not have a qualified institution (Sanhedrin) that can set a binding day for Klal Israel. Others attribute this to our smallness (the decline of the well-remembered generations). These excuses sound faint at best. If Purim Frankfurt or Casablanca can be set, and if legumes or smartphones or televisions can be banned, then there is probably authority and there is enough halakhic power to produce new laws when needed.

Many see it as a halachic Yvonne, and I think there is a fair amount of justice in it. There is indeed a reluctance here from the new, lest definitions be breached. Fear of reform or Zionism (in the next stage they will start celebrating Independence Day in Israel). But I want to offer a broad and different view here, on this question.

I went for imperialism

An essential element in the religious education of us all is the totality of halakhah. It is supposed to encompass everything, the whole land is honored and there is a vacant site. Everything, and in particular valuable things, are supposed to pass through the halachic test reactor and also belong to it. The other side of the coin is that there can be no valuable values ​​or deeds that do not enter into halakhah and form part of it.

For example, many are looking for the socio-economic statement of halakhah. Is halakhah social democratic, capitalist (hint: this is the closest answer) or communist? Morning News publishes an article that passionately claims how socialist halakhah is, advocating distributive justice, capitalist, communist and the like.

The common assumption for all of these positions is that halakhah is surely something of all of these. I would like to deny here this common assumption, and do so on two levels: a. I do not think it is possible to extract from the halakhah an unequivocal statement on these and similar issues. B. There is also no need to do this. There is no reason for Halacha to have such a statement. I will now try to elaborate a little more.

A. Does halakhah have a clear ideological statement?

Halacha is a collection of lots of sayings that have evolved over the generations, in many places and under different circumstances and by different people. It does not always have coherence in the meta-halachic plane. As a borrowed example, we will take Maimonides' rulings on the subject of the sermons. Even assuming they have halakhic consistency, they probably do not maintain meta-halakhic consistency. As is well known, there is a disagreement between the Beit Midrash of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Ishmael regarding the manner in which the Torah should be demanded (for Rish - general and private, and for RA - plural and minority. See Shavuot XNUMXa and parallels). There are several issues that bring different halakhic implications to this meta-halakhic controversy. Maimonides rules on halakhah on some of these issues, and as I have already shown elsewhere it turns out that sometimes he rules as a halakhic opinion that relies on a general and private sermon and sometimes he rules as an opinion that relies on plurality and minorities. It does not maintain meta-halakhic consistency.

I think that halakhah in general may have halakhic consistency (and this too is a slightly exaggerated statement in my opinion), but it does not seem to have meta-halakhic or ideological consistency, i.e. that it expresses an orderly, communist, capitalist or other socio-economic sub-theme. Different sources take us to different conclusions, not all of them are binding, not all of them apply in every situation, there are different interpretations for many of them, so it is impossible to deduce from them an orderly mishnah. Sometimes it is not even possible to issue a clear halakhic ruling, but it certainly does not matter an orderly halakhic meta.

It is important to understand that the problem is not the complexity, multiplicity of sources, or any other difficulty in doing so. I argue that there is probably no such thing as a sub. Anyone who extracts such a mishnah from halakhah in my opinion is delusional about it, or at least engages in controversial interpretive creativity. As an indication, I do not think I know of any of those who deal with these issues who have fundamentally changed their ideological positions following a study of halakhah (except perhaps for a specific situation about which they find a clear halakhic statement). Such a discussion never goes as a goal setting after the arrow shot. Whoever is a socialist will find his socialism in the Torah, and the same is true of a capitalist or any other socio-economic subordinate. This raises a strong suspicion of intellectual dishonesty. People assume that there must be a socio-economic position in theory, they find such a position within themselves, and then begin to exercise unconvincing interpretive creativity, selective quotes from selective sources and the like, to get something solid out of this anarchic confusion.

I will add another question at the margins of my words: Suppose I had indeed succeeded in removing from the halakhah an orderly ideological-socio-economic subdivision, should that obligate me? The fact that some laws underlie a certain socio-economic conception does not necessarily oblige me to adopt it. I can be committed and apply these laws (if indeed they are binding) without adopting the underlying concept. The implication is that if this conception has additional conclusions that were not set forth in halakhah as binding - I do not feel obligated to them. At most I can say that I too have a meta-halachic inconsistency. I've already shown that I'm in good company in this matter, no?

It seems to me that even if halakhah has a will in these areas, the most honest statement I can say about it is that halakhah requires us to exercise common sense and act in a decent and logical manner. From now on, everyone will decide for themselves what makes sense and what makes sense and formulate their own socio-economic perception. This perception is the will of the Torah and Halacha from it. But this is of course only on the first level, as long as we assume that the theory does indeed have a desire of ours in such areas. We will now move on to the second level.

B. Should there be a clear ideological position in theory?

Now we have to ask ourselves why at all assume that there should be an ideological position in theory on these questions? I do not understand this halakhic imperialism, and to the best of my judgment it does not hold water. There is no such position nor should there be. Not only because the halakhah happens to not deal with these questions, or because it is difficult to extract a position from it because of various difficulties (ibid.), But perhaps because it (= the halakhic collective ?!) also chose (perhaps unconsciously) not to engage in them and not decide on them. She does not see them as his personalities and therefore leaves them out of her realm.

I would like to offer here an alternative thesis to the accepted one. We are all human beings, and part of the human group are Jews. The Jew is first and foremost a person and then a Jew, as the Moharram Tzitzaro Zatzokal said: "Nothing human is foreign to me" (ibid., Ibid.). Simultaneously with this division between the two floors, it is also possible to divide the value world (Jewish !?) into two floors: 1. The universal floor, which contains universal values ​​on the one hand and individual values ​​on the other. 2. The particular halakhic floor for Jews.

The first floor contains values ​​that do not need to be included in Halacha. Some because they bind everything in the world and not just the (universal) Jews, and some because their existence must be done voluntarily and individually and not in the same binding way for all of us as required in the halakhic realm.

The joke is known by the name of the rabbi from Ponivez who hung a flag on the roof of the Ponivez yeshiva in Bnei Brak every Independence Day and also did not say a plea, but did not say praise. When God said about it that he was a Zionist like Ben-Gurion, Ben-Gurion did not say praise or plead. Many ultra-Orthodox I have heard are very amused by this joke at the expense of stupid and wicked Zionists, but I do not think they have gone into the depths of its meaning. The rabbi's intention was to say that he was a secular Zionist, just like Ben-Gurion. His Zionism is not religious, but a national value, and as such he is committed to it even without entering into halakhah. Independence Day is a secular national holiday celebrated by the rabbi of Ponivez, and he had no interest in giving it a religious character and anchoring it in halakhic regulations.

Back to Holocaust Remembrance Day

Today, the people of Israel remember the Holocaust in various ways, some of which are enshrined in law and general social practice and some of which are individual. These ways like these seem to me completely satisfactory, and I find no need or reason to anchor them in halakhic regulations, even if today there was a competent body that could do so. They belong to the first floor of the two described above, and there is no reason to move them to the second. Holocaust Remembrance Day is a national day that has no religious character, and there is nothing wrong with that. It does not lose its value, and it is not true that everything of value must be included in the halakhic or even religious framework.

In the same way, on Independence Day, I certainly say praise to God and praise God, but I do not see it as a day of religious significance and certainly not halakhic. Its meaning is national, and I as a secular Zionist (like Rabbi of Ponivez and Ben-Gurion) join it on this basis alone. I do not say Hillel because the Chief Rabbinate has ruled that Hillel should be said, and this is not just because of my well-known relationship with this institution. I say praise because I think it is right and good to do so. This is my way as a religious person to express my national position.

So what was in the past?

In the past, they did indeed anchor every value and every value obligation in halakhah. Sages and a court are the ones who set the days of fasting and rejoicing and our times. But I think it is the result of an artificial situation in which there is no king in Israel. The author of the sermons of the rabbi speaks of two parallel systems of government, the king and a court. For some reason in the sources of Sages almost no hint of the king's system is seen. A tribunal is repairing the roads on time (sub-MOC), meaning they were the Ministry of Transport. They amend regulations and establish procedures, the rules of voting in the community are determined by halakhah and appear in the Shulchan Aruch. Of course, they also need the consent of an important person (= arbitrator). But I think it is a result of the fact that Toshba'ap was formed at a time when there was no king in Israel, and the authority of the secular-national government passed from the king to the great BID. Therefore the presidents of the Sanhedrin were of the seed of the house of David, since they served de facto as kings. From then until today we have become accustomed to the fact that there is no secular national dimension and everything belongs to the arbitrators and the court and to our religious and halakhic dimension. Instead of the king determining our conduct beyond halakhah, BD beats and punishes unjustly. This authority of BID is a reflection of the king's authority in the original government.

As part of the same thing we got used to the fact that everything was Torah and everything went. That there is no ordinary human life, and certainly no values, outside of halakhah. That everything should be conducted and determined by arbitrators and rabbis. But today there is an opportunity to return to routine. The people of Israel have a secular national dimension in BH (BH not on secularism but on the return of the secular dimension of the lives of all of us. Some have referred to it as our return to the stage of history). There is no reason to continue to stick to the format we have become accustomed to due to various historical pathologies.

In conclusion, contrary to prevailing intuitions, the exile not only narrowed the field of halakhah (although this also happened in some respects) but also extended them beyond the proper learning in other fields. One should return to routine and not hysterically worry about the status of halakhah by imperialist reference to it and its spheres and let it possess under its wings all the spaces of our lives. To paraphrase our Christian cousins, let us not go to hell: give the law what it has, and the king (or man) what he has.

18 Thoughts on “Should there be a fast in Halacha in memory of the Holocaust? (Column 4) ”

  1. Joseph L.:
    Do you not think that although an orderly mishnah can not be found in Halacha as it has been shaped over the generations, one can find one at least in the layer of the written Torah? I saw in your book God playing dice that you say the Bible is not about moral values ​​but about religious values. That is, according to your words (to the best of my understanding) all Judaism, written Torah and oral Torah belong to a layer that emerges from the normative life of man and falls into the category of "religion". And I ask what is that category of "religion", what does it mean? Just something arbitrary without any logic for the person who maintains it? And that anyone who thinks that there is a point in mitzvos does not mean that they should be placed on a level that is normative and relevant to man / society / humanity? And that, for example, it is impossible to deduce from the mitzvah of the shemita economic principles as Jabotinsky did?

    It seems that the move presented here should be continued one step further. To me, exile not only created imperialism of religion but it generally created the category of religion, a layer that is absent from the Bible. The commandments were given for the national benefit first and foremost "to do so among the land." I think that the fasts we are holding now must also be treated exactly as you are saying to treat Holocaust Day today, on a national level.

    I would love for your reference.
    Yosef Shalom.
    I think first of all factual do not find. The attempts made are really unconvincing. It is important not to ignore reality and subordinate it to our desires (even if worthy and good). I think even in the written Torah it is quite amorphous. Of course universal values ​​that everyone agrees on you will find everywhere. But a study of Torah or Halacha does not, in my opinion, change anything in the perceptions you have formulated yourself (and this is also a fact in my opinion, that people find what they want).
    I agree that in Sages there was no distinction between morality and religion and perhaps also in the Rishonim. In a sense the exile created this distinction (and in general, the history of halakhah is the creation of distinctions that were not before. The final makes notions that are not in the mishnah and so on). But in my opinion it is an expression that the world is advancing (and not retreating). We now understand that there are two types of values, which many of our masters have identified between them. The indication of this (which helps us to discern what they did not notice) is that we see today that it is possible to be moral even without religious commitment. So why think that religious commitment is meant for religious purposes? By this view it is superfluous today.
    As for the interpretation of religious purposes, you assume that there are no values ​​beyond the values ​​of morality. This is an assumption on which I do not see a basis, and certainly not when looking at the Torah and Halacha. For a very considerable part of things there seems to me that moral rationalization cannot be found. So why assume that everyone is meant for morality? In my opinion there is again a clinging to the desires of the heart and a disregard for facts.
    Joseph L.:
    1. It is clear that alibi de biblical research, if the Bible is but different strata representing different schools and worldviews, there is nothing to talk about. But if we do accept the revelatory dimension of the Bible, indeed in my opinion a certain position can be formulated or refined in the light of a study of the verses. For example the relation of the Bible to royalty is an issue that I think can certainly be discussed by a tough interpretive analysis. For example, I think Maimonides, who saw in the king's trial a letter of appointment of the king in Israel, ignored the simple meaning of the whole chapter there. We may not be able to convince the other who is sure of his position (as we probably will not convince Dawkins) but certainly, I think biblical study can lead to new insights on many issues. In general my perception is that there should be no contradiction between human morality and what is written in the Torah as Abraham cried out in the face of the destruction of Sodom. Therefore I think that indeed the Bible alone is not enough to create a moral conception from scratch but it helps.

    2. I do not understand how the fact that it is possible to be moral without a religious commitment indicates that there are two categories. I am not claiming that only the religious is moral but certainly that the purpose of the mitzvos belongs to the same category. The fact that one is not always able to understand the taste of the mitzvos does not require the adoption of a "religious" category. Sometimes we lack the historical context to understand against what the imperative has appeared but this does not mean that the moral reason does not exist. Especially since you have not yet given me a positive definition of "religious value." At this point, I can not assume that there is a "religious" category that I do not know what is to "complete holes".
    1. There should be no contradiction, but the question is whether there is a possibility of renewal. Can a person discover a study of the Bible that is not acceptable to him and change the perception following his study. I do not think that happens. Abarbanel who denied the kingship found his conception in the Bible, and Maimonides who did not deny found his conception. The same is true today.
    It is clear that any study in any field and in any book or film opens up questions and can change perceptions. But the change will be made in an internal process and not by virtue of the authority of the Bible (that since I have found a different conclusion there I force myself to change my position on some issue).
    2. I have no definition of religious value. But as an example I say that the charge for Cohen's wife who was tried to separate from her husband does not seem to me to be a charge for a moral purpose. Its purpose is to preserve the sanctity of the priesthood. This is a religious and immoral goal. Even a ban on eating pork does not seem to me a ban whose purpose is moral. It can always be said that there is a moral purpose that we all do not understand. This is an empty statement, and I see no reason to think so.
    My argument was that if the purpose of the mitzvos is moral, then the mitzvos are superfluous (at least today). After all, a moral goal can be achieved even without them (and to this I have brought evidence from moral people who are not bound by halakhah). So what is the point of keeping the law? Be moral and sufficient.
    Joseph L.:
    1. But today I can come and decide between the dispute between Maimonides and Abarbanel and determine that Maimonides' opinion seems far removed from the simplicity of the verses according to interpretive tools of biblical study. This of course does not mean that I automatically force myself but as you have taught us (as I understand it) according to the synthetic approach there is no such thing as a change of position directly from arguments but only from a process of rhetoric. I therefore think that perusing the verses with the belief that this is an authoritative text can at the end of the process decide in favor of a change of perception.

    2. Again I do not understand why creating a category that has no definition is less empty than my argument that we have not achieved all the benefit of the commandments. "Religious value" so far does not mean anything to me, it really seems to fill holes. Regarding the question of why to keep mitzvos if it is possible to be moral without the mitzvos. I think it is possible to answer either that by the mitzvos it is possible to be more moral, or that this is what the sages meant when the sages said "the mitzvos are void for the future to come". I personally think that really some of the mitzvos have exhausted their historical role such as slavery and some are still waiting for their realization.
    1. Then decide. The question is why does it not convince those who think differently from you? I am therefore skeptical about the ability to formulate perceptions and values ​​from the Bible and Halacha. To you it seems like Abarbanel but it is clear to me that it is because you are not royal. Talk to royalty and you will see that they issue signals and exemplify an opposite perception (which contrary to what you write in my opinion has a place). But the king's question is a bad example, for the Torah refers to it explicitly. I am talking about non-explicit halakhic and ideological questions. To the same extent you could also bring me that the Torah advocates faith in Gd.
    Take it easy, the fact is that it does not lead to changes in perception.

    2. The fact that something has no definition does not mean that there is no point in talking about it (and not as positivists). The words of Muharram R. Piersig are known in his book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance on the definition of the concept of quality, and on the fact that the (wicked) Greeks knocked our brains out with the fact that everything must be defined. If you think I think you will come to the conclusion that you do not know how to define the concept of moral value as well. No basic concept can be defined. I have brought you an example of a religious value: the sanctity of the priesthood, the sanctity of the temple and the like.
    You brought the example of slavery, but you made an easy life for yourself. I am talking about most of the Torah and Halacha. They did not fulfill their role, but were never of moral value. So what are they for? You are saying a theoretical statement that by the mitzvos one can be more moral. I see no indication of that. Not in the examination of the mitzvos and planned (most have nothing to do with morality), nor in the observation of reality itself. Therefore in my opinion these are at most heartbreaking and not a sober view of reality.

  2. Pine:
    To the best of my knowledge, you see the establishment of the state as a natural event (without the intervention of God). If so, what is the praise to God to be said in this context?
    Indeed, I understand that today there is no involvement of God in history, not only in the establishment of the state (and even if there is I have no way of knowing where and when it happens). Therefore, when something happy happens (= "miracle"?) It is only an opportunity to say praise as a confession of the creation of the world and my creation.

  3. Simon:
    I could not understand in your opinion, what exactly is the difference between the commitment to "Dina Damlakhuta Dina" which was anchored and valid in halakhah even under the rule of the Gentiles in exile, and the situation today, perhaps you mean that the above rule was valid only for superior laws For additional areas and universal values ​​and the like?
    I did not understand the question
    Shimon Yerushalmi:
    I will quote an excerpt from your remarks: “As part of the same matter, we became accustomed to the fact that everything was Torah and everything went. That there is no ordinary human life, and certainly no values, outside of halakhah. That everything should be conducted and determined by arbitrators and rabbis. But today there is an opportunity to return to routine. The people of Israel have a secular national dimension in BH (BH not on secularism but on the return of the secular dimension of the lives of all of us. Some have referred to it as our return to the stage of history). There is no reason to continue to stick to the format we have become accustomed to due to various historical pathologies. ” And for that I ask: after all, halakhah even at a time when "because of our sins we were exiled from our land," even then we were under some rule whose decisions (which also stem from arrays outside halakhah) I had halakhic validity, as far as it was included in the category "Dina Damlakhuta Dina", so what is the dimension Significant added to the idea?
    Hopefully I have now clarified myself more.
    I understood. But rule under another people is bothersome and undesirable to us. It's true that Dina Damlakhuta has halakhic validity, so what? Did that mean it's good to live under the wall Franz Josef? The joy is that we have returned to managing our lives ourselves and not that it has halakhic validity.
    Shimon Yerushalmi:
    Thank you so much for clarifying things! You will gain the commandments and direct power.

  4. Oral:
    If the fasts were just a national event do you think they would have survived? Can a ceremony held in a state area really replace a prayer said in every synagogue?
    The Holocaust is an event of a much more powerful magnitude on the tenth of Tevet or the Gedaliah fast. In my opinion there is no doubt that the best way to pass it on to future generations is on a religious day of mourning, which is as usual a day of fasting. How many of your (religious) acquaintances know King Jehu? And how many know Gedalia Ben Ahikam?
    What to do? Jews remember well things related to food, whether it is a holiday or a fast. History has shown that it works much better. And the evidence that none of the Jewish national holidays survived (Megilat Ta'anit) other than the dates accepted in Halacha.
    This is an instrumental claim. I deal with the question of whether halakhah requires or expects to set such a day of remembrance. The question of what is more effective is different and should be discussed separately.
    Regarding the second question, my opinion is that if they forget - they will forget. At some point the events become distant and less relevant (it does not seem to me really important today to remember Gedaliah nor Jehu). Your remarks are based on a widespread perception that religion and halakhah are supposed to provide services to national and universal human values. I do not agree with that.

  5. Adiel:
    I have heard many things about you since the days of your teaching in Yeruham from the friends of Rabbi Uriel Eitam.
    I eagerly read your article on setting a fast for Holocaust Day, I agree with the vast majority of things.
    I have heard many times from the late Rabbi Amital: "Not everything is a Torah opinion." "Not everything needs to be said about Da'at Torah" and more
    Rejoice in your words regarding the praise on Independence Day.
    How is it possible to say praise for a miracle that happened and say that it has no religious significance? Or I did not understand what you were saying.
    I would be happy to explain.
    Think about the statement which created (to differentiate) after going to the bathroom. Does the confession to God that he has opened my holes have a religious dimension to it? Does the breakfast I greet before and after it have a religious dimension? To me the country is like toilets or breakfast.
    As for praise for a miracle, that's another question. My perception is that there are no miracles today (or at least there is no indication that there are), and there is no involvement of God in the world at all. When happy events happen to us, such as the establishment of the state, it is a trigger to thank God for the creation of the world and our own creation. But I will expand on that in Gaza (?) In a book I am currently writing about current theology.
    But do we have the authority to correct blessings on our own for the sake of Independence Day?
    This must be discussed. At least for certain methods (the Meiri) it is lawful to say praise in every miracle of salvation and confession, and then it seems that one should bless even without special regulation. Like blessing on eating an apple every time we eat and not having to fix a blessing on every apple.
    In any case, there is certainly no limit to praise without blessing.
    And there is a great place for Sabra that even with a blessing there is no limit. If Israel after the miracle of Chanukah were to say Hallel in blessing from themselves without the regulation of sages, and that there was a problem with that? Some of the former are also blessed with a custom, and in this matter there is a discussion of the blessing of praise itself. But in that I hesitate, and so on.
    It is difficult for me to see the State of Israel as a "service."
    The people of Israel returned to Israel after 2000 years. Too bad the state was not established 20 years earlier….
    Thanks to the state there is a grouping of postcards. The independent government returned to the people of Israel. Expressions in the Sages are called "the days of the Messiah."
    Praise is not just for a miracle but for salvation
    In the matter of miracles.
    A miracle is not just breaking the laws of nature but breaking the laws of history or logic.
    Where else did we point out a case in which the people scattered at the ends of the earth return to their land after 2000 years?
    Settles her. Developer. A group of postcards was made in it. What other example is there?
    Would not the prophets wish for this in their vision?
    After all, if 80 years ago they would have told Mordechai from Morocco and Libish from Poland that they are. Their sons and grandsons will be together in the Land of Israel under the rule of the people of Israel and will establish families together. Would they say that it's like a toilet?
    I'm amazed.
    When I compared the State of Israel to services, I did not mean to say that the state is as worthless or disgusting as services. I meant to say that the state is a (important) means for us, and nothing more. I am very glad that this means is at our disposal, and indeed many years have not been, and yet I do not see it as a religious value. It is at most a national value. Indeed the coming of the Messiah is also a promise like the giving of the rain. The days of Messiah also have no religious value since there is no observance of mitzvos, but at most a means that will allow us to observe more mitzvos (the Temple, etc.). Being rich is also a means of keeping the commandments, and it does not make wealth of religious value. A state is essentially a means, and the fact that it has been lacking to us for a long time and we wanted it and suffered without it is very confusing to us (like a poor man who sees money as a value because of his distress).

    As for miracles there is a very lucrative confusion. Every intervention of God in the world is a miracle. Intervention means that something was supposed to happen without intervention (according to the laws of nature) and God intervened and something else happened. This means a violation of the laws of nature. That is, a miracle. There is no divine intervention in nature that is not a miracle.
    The uniqueness of our return to Israel is well known to me and I agree with it. Does that mean there was a miracle here? Great doubt in my eyes. This is an unusual historical event.

    I did not understand the difference. God said he would send a prophet or it would rain. We did mitzvot, when will you decide not to rain? After a week? a month? generation? How will you decide whether to do mitzvot or not? How many commandments should be done? Some people? Everything here is not really refutable. It is more a question of general impression and not of refutation. As I have written, my conclusion that God does not intervene is not the result of an unequivocal refutation but of an impression.
    I now understand what you mean by "religious" and hence I understand the wording for the State of Israel and its establishment has no religious meaning, I see the word "religious" a broader meaning and therefore in the eyes of Kibbutz Galuyot etc. it has great religious meaning.
    The same goes for the days of the Messiah, and I do not enter here into the issue of whether it is clear that there will be a temple for the coming of the Messiah, it is not at all simple.
    As for the miracles, I share the opinion that "tomorrow the sun will rise" - this is not a miracle. The realization of the laws of nature is not a miracle.
    I completely share the position that everything is not a miracle, as some people like to say.
    But grouping exiles and returning to Israel after two thousand years, a phenomenon that has no equal among other peoples, is not a natural phenomenon.
    It is true that there is no crossing of the sea or "sun in Givon Dom" here, but there is a phenomenon here that is not natural, unique in its kind and genre. Apparently even on this point we do not agree.
    Two arguments need to be divided: 1. The establishment of the state and the grouping of the exiles were a miracle. 2. These two have religious significance. There is no dependence on both directions. There can be a miracle that has no religious significance (like opening the holes for those who think it is a miracle), and of course there can be a religious meaning and it is not a miracle. I argue that there is no indication that this is a miracle (anomalies are not a miracle), nor that there is any religious significance (I am a secular Zionist). As stated, it is possible to disagree on either of these two claims separately or on both together.
    Moreover, it is quite possible that this country will become the growth of our redemption (inshallah), and a temple will be built in it and redemption will come through it. And yet it has no religious significance in my eyes. It is a secular platform made for secular purposes and secular motivations. Such acts have no religious significance.
    That is, a religious meaning, in your opinion, requires religious intention?
    The act of human beings has religious significance only if it is done with religious intent (A.A. Leibowitz). Although mitzvos do not need intention but it is only in mitzvos (because of the sabra of context as a random name). And in particular that I proved in the article (at noon, secular failure in transgression) that all opinions of the commandments need faith. Drying swamps that is not done for heaven's sake and for the sake of mitzvah (settlement of Israel) is of no religious value. It has national value.
    This is of course only a necessary condition but not enough. The act itself must have a religious value, and only the Torah defines it. A person who stands on one foot for a religious reason that is heartbroken has no religious value to it.
    Maimonides in the Mo'an in the Pentateuch distinguishes between a person who does "in his limbs" and a person who does with intention and purpose.
    It is clear what the high level is.
    The question is will we define as non-religious any act that a person does without intent? I agree as a principle but this is a compulsory study for many many from Israel, there is still some that facilitates and values ​​for work "not for the sake of it"…
    In my article on Oakham's razor I explained that doing not out of faith is not doing not for its own sake. It is not a religious practice at all. See Rambam Sufach from the Kings. He who believes and does not intentionally, here one must divide between mitzvos and what is not defined as a mitzvah. Learning right is a beautiful thing, but it is not a tool for clarifying the truth. And he saw in the commentators (Rambam and Rabbeinu Yonah and others) about the Mishnah in the patriarchs, And I wrote about it in my BDD articles on Oakham's razor.
    Hello Reverend,
    If the rabbi can specify what he means by saying "religious value." That is, is a religious value solely the observance of the mitzvah itself (a definition that is forgiven by the rabbi because I understand that he does not like it, Leibowitzian), is it anything that helps the observance of the mitzvah done out of religious awareness, and beyond that: Is a religious value if not.
    Thank you, and sorry if I bring the rabbi back to old and forgotten discussions from the heart.
    Great peace. Religious value means value in the work of God. Religious value is not just a commandment since the worship of God is broader than the law. Even before the Shulchan Aruch, it has a religious value. Indeed, the condition is also required that it be done for the sake of the work of God.
    To the best of my judgment the state has no religious value in any sense. The state is my / our need and not a value. I want to live among my people and in the Land of Israel which is our historical addiction. that's it.
    As for a state governed by halakhah one has to discuss what value it has (since a state is never just an instrument for the citizens), but a state like ours has no religious value.
    As for the NFM, I do not know which NFM you are looking for (except for the sanctification of a woman). These are two completely different things: it is a need and it is a value. What if something is beautiful or good? These are just two different things.
    I meant to say, what is the meaning of religious value beyond the definition you have placed? What is supposed to be the difference between a mitzvah, or a religious value, and what helps me in its existence? Or did I not understand the words of the rabbi and this too is a barren question, since this concept has no meaning beyond its definition? I think it is possible to explain the difference between good and beautiful, even if not in words, and the NPM between them. (E.g .: I do not think I will find someone who will give his life for beauty, while for good yes, due to the fact that beauty does not have a sufficiently important meaning, at least in my opinion).
    post Scriptum. You perceive the state (as I understand it) as something of national value only, and not as helping even to keep mitzvos. (Although you say that what helps to keep the commandments is not necessarily considered a religious value.) According to your method why really say praise? A trigger for a confession about the creation of the world could be even if I got a pay raise or another Harry Potter book came out, but no normal person would say praise for it. If the state really has only national value, and has no launch into a system of worship of God, then I in your place would not consider it a good trigger to praise. The rabbi will be able to explain what he thinks and where does the border cross?
    Thank you, sorry and happy new year.
    It is difficult for me to have a discussion at such intervals.
    Nothing of religious value comes to the epoch of mitzvah. On the contrary, a mitzvah is an example of something of religious value. But even in moral practice there is value and religious significance (ostrich because it is the fulfillment of God's will). In contrast, fulfilling a need for ignorance has no moral or religious value. A person wants a country the way he wants breakfast or a house. It is a fulfillment of a need and not a value. When a significant need in your life is fulfilled (like saving your life) this is a great reason to say praise. I do not see what is not understood here and what needs to be explained.
    Does the state allow religious values ​​to be observed? maybe yes. But breakfast and a salary also allow it.

  6. Moshe:
    Following on from the above discussions I would like to ask a number of questions that I am asked in my opinion both from the article and from discussions that have revolved around this.

    A. As far as I understand, His Majesty does not believe in providence in the sense of the Creator's intervention and the creation of "miracles" such as the State of Israel, grouping exiles, etc., especially since small "miracles" that "happen" to an individual like "money" fell from an unexpected place.
    I asked, [according to a topic you tend to present a lot], regarding evolution you wrote that atheists look at evolution within laws while you stand aside and look outside laws and ask 'who created these laws', and when you see that law is constructed in this way it leads to creation, you conclude That God created the law in this way, that is, that God created the 'law of evolution'. If so, even with regard to miracles, it is true that in a 'superficial' and simple view it seems to us that everything is natural, and the course of the people of Israel for generations has natural explanations, such as the establishment of the State of Israel, but if we look outside and ask Similar to what the prophets and the Torah prophesied, perhaps we can say that the Creator planned and directed this whole ‘natural’ process with purpose, and looking outside the process and the natural laws within it, can give a picture of providence? [Even with regard to smaller miracles this angle of view can be adopted].

    B. Another question, does this mean that you do not believe in miracles written in the Torah and the Prophet, and they are seen on a superficial glance as denying the laws of physics such as: a staff that becomes a snake, bread that descends from heaven, water that turns to blood, a chariot with horses rising in the heavenly storm, As a collection of legends?

    third. In addition, what does this say about your belief in knowing God about human actions, superficially it seems that lack of supervision does not negate knowing God, but it seems that in depth there are implications of these beliefs on each other, etc. The whole concept Of 'reward and punishment' for your method does not exist, and so your words mean that 'the next world' is a sage belief that has no support in the Torah [I certainly agree, but the prophets and scriptures have a lot of clear support], disbelief in this principle, is to repeat Leibowitz's words, That all the 'charge' to the mitzvah is that just because I undertook to do so, does that mean you? If so I hope it is clear to you that not many will hesitate to join this religion, why put myself in an outdated and outdated system of laws [you also admit that many decrees and mitzvos nullify their taste for ages and ages] why not 'accept' only part of that system of laws, only you Relevant, what is wrong with the laws of the State of Israel? Why burden the existing one too much?

    D. It sounds from what you said that you believe in the concept of 'Torah from heaven' [within a certain limit since I understood that you accept some of the claims of the critics of the Bible], and otherwise you must believe in the concept of 'prophecy'. And I asked, why here too you will not use the same logic [it also makes sense in my opinion to say], that everything I do not see I have no reason to assume it exists, i.e. for nearly 2500 years no one has seen a prophecy what it is and how it should show, and you believe Based on non-serious prophecies that once existed [prophecy in the past amounted to this course: do good be good, do bad be bad, all the processes that came later do not deviate from the way of nature], so why not simply assume that there is no such thing as prophecy and it is imagination Of people in the ancient world and as it does not exist today it did not exist in the past, and as we once imagined there are spirits and demons and spells and zodiac signs and other beautiful legends, imagine there is a prophecy, basically I claim your claims on your words, I have no reason to believe in prophecy if a. I do not see it existing today. B. I can explain all the prophecies by nature. third. I have a reasonable basis to believe that once upon a time people did not have good distinctions and they invented that they prophesied or imagined it.
    A. First, I do not know what my honor believes or does not believe, I am closer to what I believe (or do not). As for what I believe, indeed I have no indication that any miracles are taking place in our world. Maybe there are some but I can not see them. This is not similar to my arguments about evolution since there is an argument that forces the existence of a directed hand (creator), whereas here it is only a possibility.
    Beyond that, a miracle is defined as God's intervention in the world, that is, a change from its normal course. Hoy says that the move according to the laws was supposed to be X and God changed it to Y. As long as I have a natural explanation for what is happening, I do not see why to assume that there is intervention. And if it's someone who generates the natural conduct, then I'm talking about that. This is the creation of the laws.
    B. In my books I will detail my reference to supernatural descriptions in the various sources. In general, it is quite possible that in the past God intervened more (then there were miracles and there was prophecy). Today I do not see any indications of such involvement of God.
    third. I did not understand here. What about a lack of involvement in a lack of supervision? There is passive oversight of human actions but no intervention (at least not frequently).
    The commitment to Torah and mitzvah does not lie in reward and punishment but in the duty to do what Gd commands. Maimonides has already written in his commentary on the workers' hopes for reward and fear of punishment. Perhaps this is why these beliefs about the UAV were created. And maybe they're real, but I do not know.
    The question of ratings, who will join and who will not, is irrelevant to the issue of truth. The question is whether I am right and not whether I will be popular. I oppose holy lies (telling a lie to attach more people to the work of God). If only because of the parable of Maimonides' elephant. Those who join the work do so on the basis of a mistake, so they work for the wrong God, and their joining has little value.
    What is the connection to the laws of the State of Israel? And that he who observes them goes out of his religious duty? Why did you not talk about the rules of FIFA (Football Association)?
    D. This too will be explained in my book. Some of this is also discussed in truthful and unstable books (on the witness argument of a day). Here I will explain briefly. Although the laws of nature are conducted in the same way all the time, but humans change. And that what they once thought think today? And what did they once do today? What did they once wear today? So why do you assume that God's conduct does not change? If I had to decide I would rather compare it to humans and not to inanimate nature. There is no reason to assume that he will behave the same all the time. So if he has decided to slowly leave the world, I do not see it as anything strange or incomprehensible. On the contrary, I even have a hypothesis as to why this is happening. Like a child who when he grows up his father leaves him more and more alone and run independently. So is God's attitude toward us. His departure is not the decline of the generations as we are familiar with, but the rise (maturation) of the generations. Today we can already understand that there is a leader for the capital even without miracles. We are philosophically skilled enough to understand that a world governed by fixed laws testifies far more to a Creator than a capricious world. So now you no longer need miracles. At least if we were behaving and thinking like adults, as expected of us. There are indeed others with childish thinking, but from them probably expected to grow up.
    Following this response, you said that "it is certainly possible that in the past God intervened more." But there are verses in the Torah that speak of intervening for generations (and I gave the rain to your land in due season, and I gave your rains in due time, etc.). How can it be said that God (who apparently knew he was going to cut off contact at some point) wrote promises to "rewards" that at some point he intended to stop fulfilling? After all, if a parent promises his child candy in exchange for good behavior, even if the child grows up, the parent is expected to keep his promise, right? And if he wants to stop having sex, at least he should explain why (we grew up, etc.).
    In the Torah it is also about prophets, prophecies and miracles, and they too have disappeared. The temple and the sacrifices also disappeared. So is slavery and more and more. We have found that sometimes the Torah speaks to the people of the time of giving the Torah, and there are changes that the Torah does not address. One can speculate as to why, but these are the facts.
    As for prophets, prophecies, miracles, the temple, sacrifices, slavery, etc., these are things that there is no promise that will stand for generations. There are only examples that they happened at some point, but why would we expect them to be in the future as well? But regarding reward and punishment, Gd explicitly wrote in the Torah that there is a connection for generations between observance of mitzvos and some reward, so I have a good reason to expect this connection to exist in the future, and if we conclude that it does not exist it is a strong question of Torah truths, not so ? The only explanation I can think of for this question is statements like: "Reward of a mitzvah on the island of Alma Likha" and then we will have to uproot the simple from verses like "And I gave your rains in due season" and set them as a parable for wages in the next world. But it is still difficult, because no Bible is too simple.
    I did not understand. The matter of prophecy involves several commandments. Should not mitzvos be for generations? Part of God's work is listening to the Prophet and His spiritual leadership for us. This is not some case in which we had a prophet. This is what Torah promised and even ordered him to try and hear his voice. The prophet is also part of the mechanism of going to war.
    The promises that if we keep the commandments we will be given rain, are interpreted by as promises that deal with the period when the rain depends on Gd. When it depends on him then it will be given following observance. Now he has decided to give it to us because we have grown up, and it is clear that from now on it is irrelevant. He simply explains to us his policy: when I give something it is for the observance of the commandments.
    As for the prophet, it is written in the book of Deuteronomy: "For a prophet shall arise among you", there is no promise of restoration here. That is, all the commandments that are related to the examination of a prophet are existential commandments - if a prophet is to be established, so be it. Like if you wear a garment with four wings, you have to put a tassel on it. The mitzvah never stands, but will not always be viable. But what is unique about the verses that speak of reward and punishment is that they have a connection of if we do A. - then God will do B. The relationship itself is not conditional on any circumstances. Seemingly the connection always exists. Once we come to the conclusion that this connection does not exist, there seems to be a contradiction to the Torah here. You could argue that not every claim that exists in the Torah is necessarily true for generations. But then he was forced to say that the commandments themselves may also change.

    Why not just say that while this connection can not be seen in reality, but it exists in a hidden way (hide face)?
    You have brought the verses that deal with a false prophet. After all, the verses that deal with the prophet (Deuteronomy):
    Spokesman Mkrbc Mahic Cmni Ikim to you Ikok your God goddess Tsmaon: Ccl Asr Salt Mam Ikok your God Bhrb leaving on Hkhl, saying not Asf Lsma At Cole Ikok Alhi and At brigade Hgdlh Hzat not Arah One more, and La Amot: and said Ikok goddess Hitibo Asr Dbro: spokesman Akim Lhm Mkrb Ahihm And Maybe Neuvena: And the General Islander, God will not mind wheragram: " The Shavua Jacka Island
    By the way, the exact definition is not an existential mitzvah but a conditional positive mitzvah (like a tassel). Almost every positive mitzvah is conditional. An existential mitzvah is a mitzvah that cannot be abolished but only kept. These mitzvot can be revoked (if the circumstances exist - wear a garment and wings, and do not do the mitzvah).

    As for the last question, it can of course be said that God constantly intervenes but when we examine he rushes into the hole to confuse us. That sounds unlikely to me. Every time I look at what is happening in the world things have a natural and ordinary explanation. The laws of nature work, and when you test them in the lab, what happens is expected to happen. There is no reason to assume that there is such a strange hide-and-seek game here. This is not a proof but a common sense consideration. When I see a moving body, my assumption is that force acted on it and not that God decided to move it without force. Moreover, I also assume that there are bodies that move without power. This is the accepted scientific concept and it sounds completely reasonable and working to me.
    Nor do these verses indicate when the prophet will be established, or how often. In general, claims of the type: God will make X are not refutable claims (because no time frame for the claim was specified). But claims of the type: If X happens then God will make Y both are refutable given that X happens and Y is measurable. So there are three options to address the second argument. Or to say that X did not really happen. Or say that Y is not measurable. Or to say that the claim has been refuted. But if it is refuted, it is not a simple question about the correctness of the claims in the Torah in general.
    Nothing here is refutable in the scientific sense. How many commandments must be done for it to rain? How many people should do these commandments? How much rain will fall, and how long is it supposed to fall? This is about as refutable as the matter of the Prophet.
    As I have written, my impression that God is not intervening is not the result of a scientific refutation, but of a general impression (does not seem to be interfering). The fact is that in the situation we are in, I claim that God does not intervene and many believers think so. They think that when doing mitzvos it rains and I think there is no connection. Your eyes see that the factual situation does not really constitute confirmation or refutation of anything here.
    I understand that it is not scientifically rebuttable, but even a general impression is enough for me to be rebuttable (not in the logical-mathematical sense of the word).
    The difference between the matter of the Prophet and the matter of the rains is that the connection between the commandments and the reward should (in common sense) be relatively immediate. That is, if the people of Israel act in accordance with the commandments, the response from God makes sense that they will arrive within a reasonable period of time (say within a few months and not after 700 years). But in the matter of the Prophet, there is no prohibition against God sending one Prophet once in 3000 years. There is no "reasonable period of time" here that is conceivable.
    What I am trying to understand is how you bridge the contradiction between your perception and the clear message that emerges from the verses. You wrote earlier an answer like this: "He simply explains to us his policy: when I give something it is for the observance of the mitzvos." I can accept that explanation. But even in your opinion it is difficult to state this policy if he does not implement it?
    He executes it. To the world when he gives something it is following a commandment. Nowadays he does not give, in the past he did. Nowadays he does not send prophets in the past he sent. This is a policy that has changed (not the connection between giving and prayers but giving itself).
    And beyond that, as I wrote to you, Fook Hezi that in the current situation an argument has erupted over whether he intervenes or not. So no one can claim that reality itself shows intervention, not even for reasons of impression and common sense. So regardless of me you can ask what the purpose of this statement is. Probably a general statement that should not be empirically examined, and it shows the importance of the mitzvos. The importance of the mitzvos still exists today. The facts change but the lesson is eternal.

  7. kid:
    Shalom VeYesha Rabbi Rabbi Michael,
    Let's start with Mister Tsitsro, then the meaning of Derech Eretz Kedma to the Torah is not new and if it is not the meaning there is just a kind of rebellion here [I have a personality besides being a slave to Gd]
    Because what does it really matter if regulations are halakhic or political apart from the feeling that political laws are from the [human] enlightened and halakhic laws are just annoying and a pity,
    As for the rabbi of Ponivez, this petition is halakhic, so is his non-utterance, it is clear that he did not say praise because of the halakhah and also beggar did not say for the same reason in his opinion,
    It is also clear that you are saying Hillel because this is how the halakhah was determined, as you would not say if it were not,
    Regarding the publication of the lack of supervision in Israel, again why it helps and to whom,
    "An unanswered prayer," it must be very close to bringing the people of Israel closer to God and connecting him to his Creator.
    And that, too, where do you come from?
    I cry for such provocations, you are a wise man, tell me about your opposite experience,
    I do not argue with feelings. Everyone and their feelings.
    Even if as you say everything went (and this is not true), the question is still what this rule reflects. These assumptions are embedded in it.
    The publication of unattended helps greatly to those who feel that they are being worked on and therefore abandon the whole tradition. I meet dozens of them. Those who receive the accepted content will continue to underestimate themselves in the usual messages. My feeling is that someone needs to address even those who think straight. It is also a sector worth referring to. The very claim that truth is not important but only concern for the village fools, and the policy of holy lies not to publish the truth, is what causes us to lose our best sons and stay with those who eat these lukes. This is my opposite experience. You asked, so I told.
    As for clinging to ancient sources against the truth from fears like yours, I have nothing but to bring the Gemara on Yoma Set AB:
    Damar Rabbi Yehoshua Ben-Levi: Why is it called the members of the Knesset - who restored the crown to its former glory. Ata Moshe said to the great man the great and terrible, Ata Jeremiah and said: Foreigners from Karkrin in his temple, Aya his horrors? Did not say terrible. Ata Daniel, said: Foreigners are enslaved in his sons, Aya his heroes? Did not say hero. With him he is not and they said: Rather, it is the heroism of his heroism that conquers his instinct, which gives length to the wicked. And these are his horrors - that without the fear of the Blessed One how can one nation exist among the nations? And Rabbanan Hichi is my slave and the most important of Teknat Datkin Moshe! Rabbi Elazar said: Since he knows in the Blessed One that he is true, therefore they did not lie to him.

    I tend to substantiate my claims and not draw them from various sources, Leibowitz (with whom I disagree with almost nothing) or anyone else. If you find a resemblance between them and Leibowitz it's your decision, but it has nothing to do with the discussion itself. It is a pity that anyone who preaches to formulate worldviews according to the slogans of others blames others for such an attitude. The disqualifier in Momo.
    Rabbi Michael Shavuot Tov
    That is, that I do not think that providence and prayer are in the category of sacred lies,
    So I asked you where you came from,
    Totally agree that people ask or hesitate about telling the truth [and dozens of such do not justify publicity at all and regarding private supervision and prayer in particular while the vast majority of believers feel the eye watching and private supervision under everyone]
    I do not at all think that private supervision and prayer are part of the questions about telling the truth or its absence nor of the things that require revelation,
    A] because there is no need to say that it is so,
    B] does not contribute in any way,
    C] If God can help an innocent person and does not do it, you are actually blaming him for not standing on the blood of a neighbor [it is true that he is not a neighbor,] ideologically
    Capricorn peace.
    You have to decide whether your claim is to the substance of the matter, that what I am saying is untrue, or whether you are claiming that I should lie a "holy lie" in order not to offend the innocent faith of people.
    I did not blame God for anything. He could have created the world that would not be governed by laws but he decided (and probably tasted with him) to do it according to the laws. Anyway, do you think he could not have helped in the Holocaust or in any other disaster? So why is he not helping? Why do you think I blame him more than you? And that I renewed that people suffer in the world?
    But all of these things will be well explained in my book.
    I was pretty clear,
    First, I have not seen claims like yours that there is no supervision at all,
    Nor do I think it is a sacred lie, if it is indeed so then why not leave it as such,
    As for laws, the preparation of creation laws that have not changed i.e. there has never been supervision, or laws with dates?
    As for the Holocaust, etc., if everything is according to the account then I do not know an account but it will not contradict my easy faith and no burden,
    If there is no account [supervision] back Kushia to Dukhta,
    Haftarah probably has a taste, okay ,,,
    1. Therefore?
    2. I explained why not leave it.
    3. The laws of nature, which when unknown were Gd allowed himself to deviate from them more, and nowadays they are more familiar he probably does not do so.
    4. There was no question and she did not drag anywhere. If you think everything that happens is justified (except you do not understand), then what are you making it difficult for me? After all, even if, in my opinion, everything is unattended, yet what is happening is exactly what should happen, so what is the problem with God, in my opinion? After all, no one suffers beyond what he deserves.

  8. kid:
    Hello Rabbi Michael
    Therefore, perhaps it is good that this is the case, the problem is from the Torah from the prophets and from the Scriptures, and the excuse that there were only long issues in the Talmud contradicts the matter, the problem of training in Chazal
    I explained very well why yes leave it,
    The question is, what does it mean, "does it have any other meaning?"
    The first is absurd, the second, if it is not related to reward and punishment in any way [is there a reward and punishment?] If there is no account [supervision] then probably not, then what is actually left ..I try to imagine a hypothesis without success,
    Capricorn peace. I think we've exhausted.

  9. kid:
    It's precisely here I did not feel exhausted,
    And on the XNUMXth I would be happy for some answer to this passage I wrote

    The question is, what does it mean, "does it have any other meaning?"
    The first is absurd, the second, if it is not related to reward and punishment in any way [is there a reward and punishment?] If there is no account [supervision] then probably not, then what is actually left ..I try to imagine a hypothesis without success,
    I'm not sure I understood why things here are referring. I guess it speaks to the reason why God created the world to be governed by law. I can suggest one taste, for example that he wants us to be able to orient ourselves in the world. If it is not conducted legally you will not be able to predict what will happen in any situation and you will not be able to live.
    Everything else you wrote I really do not understand. But please if there are no really new things, we'll end here. It was my custom to always answer every email, but this site requires a lot of time from me, and a lot of it is a repetition of things that have been written and said.

  10. kid:
    Rabbi Michael
    Apparently there's really a confusion between the emails here because I really did not understand why the haftarah we exhausted when I did not repeat myself even once,
    I'll upload what you wrote again and answer, here,
    Rabbi Makal wrote ,,,
    1. Therefore? [It was in relation to individual knowledge]
    2. I explained why not leave him. [In relation to supervision]
    3. The laws of nature, which when unknown were Gd allowed himself to deviate from them more, and nowadays they are more familiar he probably does not do it. [A sentence I did not understand]
    4. There was no question and she did not drag anywhere. If you think everything that happens is justified (except you do not understand), then what are you making it difficult for me? After all, even if, in my opinion, everything is unattended, yet what is happening is exactly what should happen, so what is the problem with God, in my opinion? After all, no one suffers beyond what he deserves.

    I answered,
    1] Therefore perhaps it is good that this is the case, the problem is from the Bible which is written to the contrary and to say that there were only for an hour and for conflicting periods long issues in the Talmud, the problem of training in the Sages will not stand in question,

    2] I have explained and will summarize, I do not think that private supervision and prayer are part of the questions and solutions about telling the truth or its absence towards those dozens you said you feel are being worked on especially when there is no need to say it is indeed so,

    3… .

    4] You wrote that maybe Gd has a point in his decision not to watch and it will not contradict the question of responsibility that applies to him,
    I asked, if its taste is something we do not know, logic else, it sounds absurd,
    If the taste is something unfamiliar but plausible but unrelated to reward and punishment [and if there is no reckoning and supervision then probably not] I do not see a side here,
    You do repeat yourself.
    1. I said it does not matter to me that no one says like me. Why should I give explanations?
    2. And I explained why yes leave it. I said I met a lot of people whose prayer and supervision were exactly the issues. What has been renewed here?
    3. In the past science was not known and people did not know the laws of nature. Therefore more likely and natural to deviate from them. Today we know them. For example, they used to think that it was raining because of the commandments. Today we know in advance how much rain has fallen and when, and that it depends on the laws of meteorology and not the mitzvos.
    4. I did not understand where I wrote that God has a reason not to watch. I wrote that he was not watching. The taste? Probably the fact that we are already big kids and should not be given a hand. But regardless of the theories, the factual question is is he likely to actually oversee? In my opinion - no.

    And again I write that we have exhausted.
    Rabbi Makal wrote
    But he decided (and probably tasted with him) to do it according to the rules.
    Probably the fact that we are already big kids and should not be given a hand.

    So that's the answer without standing up for fellow blood ?? big kids ????
    If this is the trend then we have indeed exhausted but you are not suspicious in my eyes of baseless legal emissions as I am often accused here,
    Capricorn peace. You repeat again things that have already been discussed to the core.
    I have already explained to you the lack of dawn in the claim "you will not stand" which is equally directed towards you.
    I really do not like it, but for me we are done.
    Hello Rabbi Michael,
    His Majesty knows how to read between the lines
    I replied, I have a salary and a penalty, how the account is run I am not proficient,
    But do not intervene when you are bleeding because you are dying, ??. ??
    If you did end ,,,, then for life ,,

  11. jubilee:
    Does the rabbi not see the return of the people of Israel to his land after two thousand years of exile and immediately after three years after the end of the Holocaust as an exception to nature? Shouldn't this be attributed to God's providence?
    The return of the people of Israel to their land is indeed an unusual event on the historical levels, but history is a complex thing and there is no way to know if there was divine intervention here. Overall I think this process can be well understood even without the need for its involvement. Secular people see this process and do not break their atheistic-scientific beliefs.
    Therefore, drawing conclusions from a "historical miracle" is a very dangerous and unconvincing thing. This is perhaps different from a physical miracle.
    While there may be weight to the fact that the prophets foretold the return of the people to their land in advance, and in this sense there may be room to see this process as an indication of divine involvement. I do not know. I only know that even if this did not happen almost no one would have memorized his Bible (at most they would have demanded the relevant verses and taken them out of their simplicity), so it is difficult for me to attribute a very high statistical weight to these prophecies. A thesis that does not stand the test of rebuttal is also not very impressive when it comes true (after all, there were prophecies that did not really come true and no one was scared of it). What's more, these prophecies themselves took part in the process itself (thanks to which we returned here). It is a self-fulfilling prophecy, literally.

  12. Carrot:
    It seems to me that Kikro should be said / written in Hebrew. Also, the quotation from his name is associated with Publius Trentius Ash.
    Oh, I did not think it would be published immediately but would be sent to the site editor. You can delete this comment and the one before it.
    Peace carrots.
    Indeed it comes to me, but my computer hardly responds. So I approved the publication and only now was I able to send my own response. She is:

    Why delete? Two comments that all our readers should learn from. As for the first I'm not sure. The name in Latin is Cicero, and I do not see why a pronunciation of a name should be changed. If someone in the United States is called David, should I call him in Hebrew David. I do not think so.
    And I did not understand at all why to translate Latin C into a Hebrew monkey (like Caesar instead of Caesar in the original).
    Regarding the second, thank you very much. For years I thought it was crooked. You are now a champion and knowledgeable rabbi.

    I also sent your second response, but it's just to have a logical time. If you saw that the first one came straight to the site (so you thought), then you should have understood that the second one is the same. As mentioned, I approved both of them for uploading (this is how the software is built that everything comes to me). I approve of everything, except for unworthy things (which in the meantime BH did not exist).


    Both of us in the patriarchs (P. Property Torah, c):
    The one who learns from his chapter one chapter or one halakhah or one verse or one bee even one letter should treat him with respect because we commanded David the king of Israel who did not learn from Ahithophel but only two things and read his rabbi and knew that it was said And knowledgeable and not things easy and material and what David Melech Yisrael who did not learn from Ahithophel but only two things read Rabbi Alufu and his acquaintance who learns from his author one chapter or one halakhah or one verse or one bee even one letter on one how much and how much respect should be treated and no honor but Torah said + Proverbs XNUMX: XNUMX + Honor sages will inherit + Shem / Proverbs / XNUMX Y + and innocent people will inherit good and there is no good but Torah that is said + Shem / Proverbs / XNUMXb

    And also in BM Lag AA:
    Let Rabbanan: Rabbi who said - Rabbi who learned wisdom, and not Rabbi who learned Bible and Mishnah, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: All that most of his wisdom is right. Rabbi Yossi says: He did not even enlighten his eyes except in one mishnah - this is his rabbi. Raba said: Such as a commodity rabbi, Dasburn Zohma Listron.

    And that it is proper for a student to erase the words of his master, his champion and his acquaintance?
    : )
    Thanks so much for the exaggerated compliments somewhat :). Perhaps I will take from here a lesson for me to thank the rabbi dozens of counters. Thank you very much for your lectures and publications that opened the door for me to many areas, and enriched my knowledge in many other areas. I will call it “the proof from the chocolate.” 🙂), broadened my point of view, and sometimes invented a vacation for my soul.

    And precisely because of this, I did not want to "instruct Halacha" to a rabbi. And I suggested deleting, since I thought it would be enough to correct the body of the article if the rabbi finds it appropriate, and it does not matter the appearance of the reaction itself. Also, as mentioned, I felt uncomfortable pointing with a wavy brush for an error, if indeed it is an error.

    As a matter of fact, to the best of my knowledge, the Latin pronunciation is actually cicero (in contemporary English, perhaps thinkers have distorted it). The question from David does present a problem when it comes to a name that is known to originate but has been used differently by different cultures, and also raises a problem towards the use of the name as a syllable sequence or as a term that uses an object also in its meaning. But it seems to me that the nickname Chitsro, if indeed it is recognized in Israel, is not dominant, and does not carry such a cultural charge that the use of cicero will be incomprehensible to people or will deprive them of the meaning of the name. It also seems to me that in light of the accepted transliteration rules today the use of the Tsizro form is reduced.

    As for the logical amusement, as one who as aforesaid must also be grateful for a considerable part of my knowledge in the field of logic, I hope I have learned enough so that I will not fail in such a trifle. I did assume that my second response would be published automatically, but I did not know of any other way to express my desire for the first to be deleted, except for her response, in which I stated that I did not believe the mechanism was for immediate publication. I assumed that eventually someone who trusted this would see them, and the recently mentioned deletion request.

    And thank you again.
    It is customary from my late father (who studied Latin) that the pronunciation was originally Tszero (and Caesar). Here, too, is a champion and knowledgeable rabbi. 🙂

  13. Mickey
    You claim that even if you can deduce a broader value statement from a set of laws, you are not bound by it.
    I, too, have (to some extent still hold) this view, and thus do not feel obligated to echoes of ethnocentrism or chauvinism arising from Judaism (moreover, I was - and to some extent still am) practicing interpretive minimalism and claiming that there is no "value statement" in halakhah. No statements arise at all - neither problematic nor positive; a somewhat analytical position).
    But lately I have softened and I tend to recognize certain value statements that may exist in theory (denial of interest loans, aspiration to monarchy, establishment of the Temple, desire for all subordination to Judaism in the world), hence my acquaintance drew my attention to the fact that Think God wants you to do something, even though He has not explicitly commanded it, why you do not do it (i.e. two things have changed - 1. I recognized that an outrageous value statement came up 2. I was convinced that statements from the Shittin are binding).
    If the question was about me, I only deafened, but our rabbis have already established that the will of God is binding in itself also separately from the Torah - the obligation to listen to the words of the sages as known He ”(when in the end Hasbra is an estimate for clarifying the will of God).

    That is, after I admitted that God's will is a binding thing, I was argued that the mind of sages - at least in the discipline of 'morality' (not in the sense of ethics of course, but like morality meetings) - is a binding thing because just as they are experts in understanding Halacha and standing God's will. At its core, they are probably experts at understanding what the will of God is (this belongs more in the literature of the tastes of the mitzvos to the Rishonim than the Tannaim and Amoraim, who apparently did not try to infer a doctrine but also find such and such value statements).

    And now my soul in my question - do you have an excuse to refrain from fulfilling the will of God as it is revealed to your eyes from observing the Torah?
    4 months ago

    If I can deduce a value statement from the Torah it is surely expected of me. This is the will of God even if it is not really Halacha.
    But a value statement from a sage is not binding. In my opinion, sages are not experts (not as you wrote). The authority of the sages does not derive from the fact that they are right, but from the fact that we have received their authority (see Ks. R.P.B. There are very good reasons for this, but it's not because they're experts. And now you will understand that we have received their authority on halakhic issues but not on meta-halakhic or value issues. Only if they have decided to include it in halakhah (such as coercion on the degree of sodomy and the like) does it obligate us. Of course, if we agree with them, we will do so, but if not, it is not necessary to do so. On the contrary, it is necessary to do the opposite precisely because Hasbra has a binding status.
    And what the will of God requires is not from the heads of the yeshivot who founded something but from the Gemara and all the first ones, and the things are ancient. Although there are various mistakes in this as well, and see articles here on the site for explanations:
    4 months ago

  14. BSD XNUMX in Sivan A.T.

    On the discussions between the rabbis on the subject of setting a day for Holocaust remembrance - see Rabbi Shmuel Katz's articles, 'Destruction and Remembrance' and 'First Holocaust Day', and Rabbi Yeshayahu Steinberger's article, The Wound Before Healing. All three on the website 'Shabbat Supplement - Makor Rishon', and in my responses to the above articles.

    Sincerely, Shatz

  15. Peace
    I will apologize in advance I am reading the content on this site for the first time and I do not know if my questions or the answers to them have appeared in the articles or in the questions of the respondents here.
    1. If you think God has stopped interfering in what is happening in our world, you can explain in the nutshell basic concepts in Judaism such as
    A. supervision.
    B. Reward and Punishment - It seems to me that Maimonides (I write from memory and not from a review in the book) claims that the natural course of the world is conducted as a result of the private behavior of the Jews such as and I gave your rain in time, etc.
    2. Do you think praying 3 times a day has become unnecessary because there is no one to talk to? Is all that is left a halakhic charge that has been emptied of perhaps the main reason for asking your needs from someone who can give them?
    Is it possible to give up Rosh Hashanah where everyone in the world passes before him as sons of Meron?
    4. Does his honor think and I do not intend to compare Khu as claiming those who thought Shiva went to sleep? Or left his world?

    If things have already been discussed over the site I would be happy to settle for a reference to the relevant places if your time does not allow you to comment.

    1. Greetings.
      You ask many broad questions and it is difficult to address here. You can find all of my teachings on these and other topics in the new trilogy, and on these topics in the second book (no man is a ruler in the spirit). Beyond that you can also search the site here and find very many references to each of these questions.

  16. 1) Regarding the non-uniformity in the ruling of Maimonides and the like, it has nothing to do with meta-halakhah, but the definition of halakhah is done with a certain method but its ruling is not necessarily related (perhaps it can even be said that it is not necessarily related).
    For example: "AR Acha Bar Hanina is visible and known before the one who said and was the world that there is no one in Rabbi Meir's generation like him and why did not establish a halakhah like him that his friends could not stand on the end of his opinion that he says about pure unclean and shows him face on pure We see that even though the sages knew that a wise rabbi (and probably right of them) did not rule on a halakhah like his.
    Also on the same page (Eruvin XNUMX :) the reason is that Halacha Kavah is given even though Shabash is sharpened by Tapi and it is because of their humility and it does not seem to me that someone thinks that humility necessarily always leads to the true truth (although many times Things become sharper and clearer).
    In my opinion, it is very clear that thinkers (unlike the arbitrators…) of halakhah went in a clear and consistent way, after all, we found several of them who usually did not rule like them and only in a few cases did they rule like them. In other words, there is no meaning to the statement that Maimonides has no meta-halakhic consistency because there is meaning in the ruling to meta-halakhic.

    2) The rabbi decided for some reason that a miracle is that he has no possibility of being without intervention. Where do you get this definition from?
    The strangeness of such an opinion is that for anyone who has ever held a Bible in his hand it is clear that despite all the miracles there they sinned atonement and rebellion (according to the rabbi at the time miracles did happen) and if we say miracles are something that can not happen then we said all those generations were a bunch of idiots (Don Ku and what today tens of thousands repent due to the "miracles" of Baba and charlatans and even more than those there are religious who do not sin for fear of punishments who did not see from them Ku son of Ku son who at the time were not sinners)
    I think a miracle is a low statistical probability that happens and therefore there is an opening for deniers (even in the time of the prophets) to claim that this is natural and not miraculous. According to this also in our generation we have miracles. (I am aware of the problem with this claim, because it turns out that with the advancement of science, things that were once considered a conference due to being considered weak today we will know were committed. But there are still many things - when the people return to their homeland

    3) The rabbi wrote “But I do not think they have gone into the depths of its meaning. The rabbi's intention was to say that he was a secular Zionist, just like Ben-Gurion. "
    Our thanks to the rabbi for putting humor and stand-up comedy into his words. It softens the reading….
    (I do not believe you believe in this).

    1. I have extended on everything you have written here in different places.
      1. I no longer remember what he was talking about (what a non-uniformity). But regarding the ruling of the Knesset, I once cited as evidence that halakhah is not always the truth but has the value of autonomy (to rule as I understand even if in my opinion this is not the truth). With regard to BS and BH, the commentators were divided on this. R.I. Karo in the rules of the Gemara explains that their humility leads them to the truth (because they first considered the words of B'Sh before formulating their own position)
      2. In this I extended Tuba in the second book in the trilogy (and also here on the site in several places). There is no such animal as a miracle within nature. Anyone who says that is just confused.
      3. I not only believe but am completely convinced. The rabbi from Ponivez was a strictly secular Zionist.

Leave a comment