Hiding halachic information
In the lesson leading up to Purim, you mentioned the issue of the relativity of every rule and the importance of remembering that despite all the laws, the truth often lies beyond the rules and men, etc.
I asked you then about the halacha in the Shulchan Arba that if someone who is not a Tahsildar thinks that something is forbidden even though it is permitted, there is a matter of not violating his faith. The thinking behind this seems to be that these prohibitions create some kind of protection.
You completely violated the rule and said that you do not agree with this idea at all (you cited a gemara about it that I do not remember at the moment and that I would be happy if you would remind me of). You said that in your opinion, if there is something that the masses tend to aggravate, it is simply the duty of the TAH to publish it. Then my question is, do you have a statement or interesting things related to the issue of laws-prohibitions that preserve humanity in general or man in particular from the feeling of chaos?
In which everything is possible. I ask myself whether the matter could be related to a meta-halakhic issue that would be related to the area of "kill and do not cross." That is, if we translate "kill and do not cross" into red lines of a system, society, or even a person with himself, is there a Gothic intellectual statement on the subject. The rules in these laws are numerous and mixed, as I think, with considerations such as publicity and desecration of God. I am curious to understand what are the decrees of the giza that can be drawn regarding the boundaries that we will not cross even in the case of pikuach nefesh. In essence, the issue of the conflict between the rule "and live within them and do not die within them" and the rule "he shall kill and do not cross, when he falls." There are two concepts in the world of psychology, one called the life drive and the other the survival drive. The life drive is related to the senses and their eruption, while the survival drive is related to boundaries and avoidance. For some reason, it seemed to me that these two concepts could be related to "he will be killed and not pass over" and the whole issue of laws and the need for them, and "he will wear black and do what his heart desires," which is the issue of my group. What do you think?
I don't remember the discussion, but perhaps I brought up the Gemara in Menachot, which states the halacha that one should go out to study Torah in the morning and evening, and the sages divided on whether this is forbidden to be said before the people of the land or a mitzvah to be said before them. In general, nowadays (unlike the time of the Sages) it is not right to act esoterically (to hide halakhic information), in any direction. Neither literally nor figuratively. In the end, everything is revealed, and then faith in halakhic rulings is undermined. Today, care must be taken to present a correct and credible picture to everyone, and if they are wrong, they must be made to admit their mistake. I think that guarding against the feeling of chaos should not be done by hiding information, but by directly confronting and explaining how complex information and disputes should be handled. It should be explained that the fact that there are disputes and that the world is not black and white should not create a feeling of chaos. This is the situation and must be dealt with. Personally, I would be much more troubled by a world of black and white where there are no degrees of individual freedom. But that is of course my personal taste.
The question of whether to kill or not to pass seems unrelated to me. Clearly, there are red lines and these laws describe them. I am also willing to accept that it changes between generations. But what about this and the feeling of chaos?
Rabbi Elai's instruction, "Let him go to a distant place, wear black, and do whatever his heart desires," is indeed a good example of how to deal with a complex issue. Indeed, here too, most poskim and commentators obscure the situation. They explain it as if it were a regular halachic rejection rule (such as "doing something that is forbidden" and "doing nothing that is forbidden," etc.), which is of course incorrect and does not come close to interpreting the Gemara. Although, according to the halachah, it seems to me that there is no halachah like Rabbi Elai (Rai Rosh and Rif Mok. 16). Here too, I prefer to stick to the true and straightforward interpretation of the issue, and discuss it in its entirety.
You wrote above, "That the Jews go out to study Torah in the morning and evening, and the sages disagreed on whether this is forbidden to be said before the people of the land or is a mitzvah to be said before them. As a rule, in our day (unlike the time of the Sages) it is not right to act esoterically (to hide halakhic information)."
Why is it forbidden to say it before Amaretz?
Why was it permissible to hide halachic information during the time of the Sages? Is there another example?
I think that it is simply forbidden to say this in front of the AH because he would allow himself to be complacent and not learn.
During the time of the Sages, information was hidden so as not to expose the public to confusing things (example: they wanted to shelve the Book of Ecclesiastes). Today, it is not possible to hide because all information is open and exposed to all eyes.
And why only on the Sabbath do we go out to study because it is from the Torah? And what about the Song of the Sea in the morning?
And what about 2 laws? To change every day? You need something different every day, don't you?
I thought that the Shas, okay, they could have removed it from the canon – it would have been considered external, but why hide it?
This is not exactly a halachic. It refers to the morning and evening chapters, but the Rashbi came to the relief and said that even in the halachic, which between these two states, they say that they are leaving Yedach. Two halachos every day is not a halachic, but rather it is only written that the one who is different is assured that he is a son of Avva. And I don't know where you got the idea that there should be different halachos every day.
Because it's confusing because it seems like a purely love song.
Everything I wrote here is explicit finality.
Different laws - from logic, as I always say, learning is not worth it without action. Action is the main thing.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer