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