Condition is

שו”ת › Category: Meta Halacha › Condition is

asked 6 months ago

Is the dispute between Rabbi Michi and Shalom Tzadik actually the dispute between Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda?
I am, of course, talking about the controversy over whether the main thing is the religious act even when there is no intention or commitment, or whether the main thing is the intention and commitment, and without this there is no value to the religious act.
There is the meta-halachic dispute between Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda in several places about whether to follow the intention or the actual action (Sabbath, services that Gentiles do for themselves and there is enjoyment for Jews, etc.).
On the surface, this is similar. But perhaps the rabbi could claim that his method is even that of Rabbi Yehuda, since Rabbi Yehuda spoke about something that has a practical benefit , only that it is not certain that the person intended it, but regarding an act that has no practical value but only a religious benefit, he would thank Rabbi Shimon. (For example, lulav, tefillin, etc.)
I would love to hear what the Rabbi thinks.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

0 Answers

0 Vote Up Vote Down

מיכי Staff answered 6 months ago

Such a connection is made with regard to the disputes between R.S. and R.I. in the law that he does not intend and that the Lazarus does not intend. We see that R.S. follows the intentions and R.I. does not, and the same is true for Tema D’Kra. But these are not explanations but associations. The same is true here. The formulation is too general and cannot be applied in a blanket manner everywhere. With regard to the observance of commandments, faith and commitment are a condition for existence with religious value. There is no question here of what is essential and what is not. Both are required, and one has no value without the other. It is true that I also believe the same regarding morality, which in fact has no moral value if it is not done out of a commitment to morality (Kant). The connection to the Tan’aim dispute is at your own risk. If you intend to claim that according to Rabbi Yehuda (who followed his halakhic tradition) I am wrong, that is of course a slur on Purim.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

ינון replied 6 months ago

I agree with the Rabbi Apriori. Halachically, perhaps it is possible to reconcile the differences and even then it will not necessarily be difficult for the Rabbi because it is possible that Rabbi Yehuda will confess regarding a purely religious act.
Incidentally, I am also not sure that Shalom Tzadik also means purely religious acts. He claims that the Torah gives us the right way to act and whoever arrived at it even without the Torah, then kudos to him, his behavior has value. This still does not mean that some Indian who takes 4 vegetables on Sukkot by chance and is moved by boredom has value in his action. (These are ritualistic commandments that have value only if you are Jewish and observant, other peoples may have their own ”way” to perform ritualistic commandments)
But apparently one should carefully consider everyone's words before making statements.

מיכי Staff replied 6 months ago

I am not arguing with Shalom Tzadik here, if only because I do not know his position. You presented his position and I am talking about it. If he claims that this has a value that is not a mitzvah here and not a religious value, then I can agree, regarding moral acts. Regarding ritual mitzvahs, not. Like the Rambam's division in the sixth of eight chapters.