Continued question about the Naham prayer

Because the prayer ostensibly speaks of the entire city of Jerusalem and not just the site of the Temple. But if, as you write, you perceive the phrase "city" in the Nacham prayer as a literary expression for the Temple Mount only, then it does make sense for you to say the usual version.

I did not claim that they primarily meant the Temple Mount. But today, when this is the situation on the Temple Mount, it is still possible to say so. No one here will lie and will not be corrected. Beyond that, I do not see anything special in the Old City. Or the Temple Mount or all of Jerusalem.

In the year 13, Av, 9th

To the Amir – Hello,

In addition to what Ramda replied that the essence of Jerusalem is the site of the Temple, which is still in ruins and foxes walk in it, it should be noted that a significant part of the sacred area of Jerusalem is still not inhabited by Jews (for example, the City of David, most of which is inhabited by Arabs from the village of Silwan.

A comprehensive compilation of opinions here and there in Dr. Yael Levin's article in Tecumin 21 (5761) on the "Prayer of Reconciliation in Our Times", where the opinions of the sages who updated the text of the blessing in various ways were presented, and the opinions of the sages who believed that the text should not be changed.

An intermediate method presented there is the method of the Israeli rabbi, who states that the text should not be changed in public The custom, but the individual is allowed to update the wording of his prayer. In the year the article was published in ’Techumin’, Rabbi Yonatan Elran (Rabbi of Kochav-HaShachar) was asked about ‘Necham’, and he noted the method of Rabbi Yisraeli that was cited in the article.

With best wishes, Sh”tz Levinger

As far as I understand, “holiness” in Judaism can only stem from a divine source and through the mediation of the Torah.

In light of this, my question is:

What are the reasons of those elements in Judaism who think that Jerusalem and/or the Temple Mount and/or the Temple are truly holy?

What is the question? Their holiness stems from a divine source through the mediation of the Torah.

I don't disagree with that, I just asked for reasons/references.
In the Torah, Jerusalem does not appear.
Is it because the Ark of the Covenant containing the tablets traveled to the Temple and thus “brought” holiness there?

There is a Mishnah and Tosefta in Tractate Kelim that deals with the levels of holiness according to the place. Not necessarily related to the Tablets of the Covenant, which were not in the Temple at all in the Second Temple.

Okay, but what are the reasons for the conditions for this?
Not asking for a scholarly lecture, just general direction.

The sages learned this from various verses and laws that apply to these places. See a summary in relatively clear language here:
https://www.yeshiva.org.il/wiki/index.php?title=%D7%A2%D7%A9%D7%A8_%D7%A7%D7%93%D7%95%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA

Thanks for the reference.

I'm not sure this answers my question.

Ultimately, the Sages' Archimedean point for holiness, that is, what projects holiness upon the Temple and the entire city, is the Holy of Holies.

But what? When I try to understand why this is so, these guys say, "Because it is forbidden to enter it except for the High Priest on Yom Kippur during the service."

We have already agreed that holiness in Judaism derives from God through the mediation of the Torah, and I fail to see this reference as either the same or the same.

(I assume that the Sages' intention is not to claim that the holiness of a place depends on the High Priest's act of entering it on Yom Kippur, and that if he did not enter there at that moment, the holiness would disappear or something like that.)

That is why I assumed that the existence of the tablets (= the Torah) in the Temple in an early historical period "brought" holiness to the place.

It is said about the second tithe: For if you eat it before the Lord your God in the place that the Lord your God chooses (Deuteronomy 12:18). And it is explained in the Midrash of the Book of Revelation: You shall eat it in the place that the Lord chooses - this is Jerusalem. You shall bring it and set it on the mountain of your portion (Exodus 15:17), as our Sefer explains: on the Temple Mount, of which it is said, on the mountain of the Lord, you shall see (Genesis 24:14).

Correction: Genesis 22:14.

Correction: You will smell and taste the mountain of your portion. And further on the verse: The place of your rest is the work of the Lord, the temple of the Lord that your hands have prepared.

Correction: In your own land. Sorry for the mistakes. It's not for nothing that Maimonides wrote that one should always do a lot of proofreading.

From 80, thanks for joining in but I didn't understand a word.
Can you explain to a secular mob like me in less slang?

In any case, I still don't see the connection to God and the Torah

In Tractate Kelim, the phrase “where the High Priest enters only once a year” does not attempt to prove the sanctity of the place by observing the customs of entering it, but is precisely the definition of the sanctity (= distinction, excellence) of the place: it is forbidden (and not just customary not to) enter it! Ask what the connection is with God? The law that prohibits entering there comes from God.

Doron,

There are mitzvot that depend on the land that are practiced only in Israel. There is a mitzvah to set aside a second tithe of the grain and the farmers must eat it in a place that God, the Almighty, chooses (Deuteronomy 12:17-18). The sages interpreted that the reference was to Jerusalem, meaning that Jerusalem is the place that God, the Almighty, chose as holy for eating the second tithe (and is holy for several other things).

The Temple Mount is Mount Moriah, about which it is said in the Book of Genesis (22:14): On the mountain of the Lord, it will appear, meaning that a time will come when God, the Almighty, will reveal this place as a place to infuse His Shekhinah, and this was in the days of David. The Maimonides wrote: The holiness of Jerusalem and the Temple was holy for its time and holy for the future to come, and it was not nullified by the destruction of the Temple. According to the holiness of the Temple and Jerusalem from the Shekhinah, and the Shekhinah is not nullified.

Citizen, word in stone.
The prohibitions on entry are an indication of the sanctity of these places. Through these laws, the Torah teaches us the sanctity of each place.

That only the High Priest enters there on Yom Kippur during the service. The word there indicates distance, and from it the word heaven is also derived. There is a connection between holiness and distance. To the extent that a place is holy, it is spiritually distant, and accordingly it is forbidden to enter it.

Doron,
There are two main schools of thought on what holiness is:
Realistic: Holiness is a quality that exists in reality that people of a certain spiritual level can identify.
Nominalistic: There is no holiness in reality. The concept of holiness only serves to indicate to us a certain manner of behavior in relation to certain sites.
Ri’el in the book HaKuzari presents the first approach. In the comments here, Azerach presents the nominalist approach. Rabbi Michi Avraham here supports Azerach’s approach, but in other places he reveals himself to be quite a realist.

I personally think that holiness is not a quality that exists in reality and does not stem solely from a demand for our way of relating, but rather describes an object that God is marked by within reality. God is not part of reality and does not appear within reality, but there are objects in reality to which his name applies and therefore they become holy. Although Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Torah, the reference to the Temple in the Book of Proverbs is as the place that God will choose to put His name there. Mentioning God's name on the place gives it the status of a holy place. In my opinion, this is also true of other manifestations of God in reality, such as the Torah and Israel, but that is a matter for further discussion.

14, pay close attention to my words. A citizen claimed that the laws are the holiness, which is implied as nominalism (Leibovitz: And what is its holiness that brings from it firstfruits and two loaves of bread). And I clarified that the laws are an indication of holiness (and not itself). Is this realism or not? See my column on Haftza and Gebra.

Citizen + Mikhi,

I see here the beginning of a response regarding holiness in general and the holiness of Jerusalem and the Temple specifically.

In this case, something still seems a bit forced to me.

It is true that it is possible to link the Torah to Jerusalem and the Temple based on the idea, as it appears in the Torah, that God would choose a certain place for Himself. Then, at later historical stages, those with religious authority knew how to identify what this place was. This is probably how it works in many other things in Judaism, when whenever the need arises, the accepted authority makes the necessary identification and connection.

Despite this, my impression is that in Judaism Jerusalem (and the Temple) suffers from an excess of “holiness” compared to other objects that are offered to us. In other words: my impression is that the identification and connection between it and the Torah is relatively weak.

(Of course, my impression could stem from a historical anachronism that I myself suffer from. For example, the overly successful Zionist education I received.)

Regarding the overall philosophical-theological question that stands in the background (the concept of holiness in general): Here I can only repeat my old position that in Judaism the concept of God (the source of all holiness, so to speak) derives from the Torah. Exactly the opposite of what common sense requires.
But that's an old argument…

Doron,
The Torah indicates the Lord of the world in the world and therefore this is not so surprising. The Lord of the world is not part of the existing world. Rabbi Michi can do all sorts of philosophical calculations from which it appears that there is someone who created the world but he cannot tell us much beyond that. The Torah is the only way to know the Lord of the world from within the world (and the people of Israel) and therefore the Zohar requires the word ankhi – anna nafi kevitat yahabit (I am my soul, I have written, I have given). If the Torah did not portray for us a personal personality that commands and forbids, we would have no hold on God in the world.

Regarding Jerusalem, in fact, the Book of Genesis clearly states that the House of God was chosen to be in Beit El (which Luz was originally named). However, in the Book of Deuteronomy, Moses suddenly dismisses Beit El and announces that the House of God has not yet been chosen and must be chosen. The choice of the House of God It is linked to the arrival of rest and the inheritance, which is interpreted as the arrival of the correct political order that was realized in the kingdom of the House of David. Only from the correct political order can the revelation of the Shekhinah appear in the world in its complete form in one place on the globe. Perhaps that is why we are waiting for the Messiah, the son of David, who will restore the correct political order to reality, from which perhaps the Temple will return.

And then the question of how Moses decided to disagree with our forefather Jacob and depose Beth El is a difficult question to which I do not have a clear answer.

On the 15th of Av, 9th

To you, ”D – Greetings,

To your question ‘What has changed since the days of the fathers’ Moses answers in his Torah ‘Because you have not yet come to the rest and to the inheritance that the Lord your God gave you’ (Deuteronomy 12:9). But when it is fulfilled &#8216and you dwell in the land that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance and has given you rest from all your enemies around you and you dwell in safety’ – then the &#8216place that the Lord your God chooses to place His name there’

The patriarchs wandered from one nation to another, from one kingdom to another, and in the places where they went they called on the name of the Lord and built altars to the Lord. Abraham builds an altar in Shechem, between Bethel and Ai, and according to the Lord's command, on Mount Moriah. Isaac sacrifices to the Lord in Beersheba. Jacob returns to the places where his patriarchs chose the Lord, and he builds an altar to the Lord in Shechem, Bethel, and Beersheba.

However, Mount Moriah is not one of the places where the patriarchs chose to worship the Lord, but a place to which Abraham and Isaac went without knowing in advance where they were going. Just as Abraham was commanded, "Go from your country to the land that I will show you." Thus Abraham was instructed in the Aqada: “Go to the land of Mary, on one of the mountains of which he said to you.” And this place does not come from human initiative but from divine guidance, “God will see.”

This is the difference between the work of the individual and the work of the community. The work of the individual reflects his choice and initiative. The work of the community is beyond that. After all, the righteous are not only the “righteous” who have achieved good through their choice and understanding. The work of the community needs divine guidance that shows the way to everyone, even the average and the far-flung, who are the ones who need the most of all a beacon to chart their path.

Jacob summed up the choices of his righteous ancestors, and David, the founder of the kingdom, reveals the “place that the Lord will choose to place his name there,” the place to which the tribes will ascend to call on the name of the Lord, and to which all the nations will flow in the future so that there the Lord may exalt his ways.

The place chosen to be the sanctuary of the whole is not a place that has already been set apart for one of the tribes, but a place that was in the hands of the Jebusites and was conquered and purchased by King B on behalf of all Israel, a place where no one can boast and say, “It is mine,” but where all Israel join together as equals, a place where the inheritances of the sons of Leah and the sons of Rachel meet, and where “and they shall be one in your hand” is fulfilled.

Best regards, Sh”t

Paragraph 2, line 4
… in which his fathers chose to worship the ’, …

Paragraph 3, line 4
… and this place does not come from human initiative…

Y.D.

Regarding the holiness of Jerusalem and the court, it seems that you more or less agree with me that there is something arbitrary about this holiness.

I didn't really understand Shtzel's response that came to save the situation. But I got the impression that it was more of a rant than a substantive comment (forgiveness and forgiveness from Shtzel)

Regarding holiness in Judaism:

For the sake of the discussion, I don't at all disagree with your statement that ”the Torah signifies the Lord of the world in the world”.

There is also no philosophical or theological problem with this.

The problem with the Torah (and of course with Judaism in general) is different and that it confuses the creators: the Pentateuch “signifies” first of all itself (instead of God).

In my opinion, a rational philosophical position must first be “synthetic” and in any case, the guiding norm of all synthetic positions must precede human intuition (as the main source of knowledge for man) to any other source of knowledge. That is, to create a norm that will subordinate the text to a higher channel of reference located within the human soul.

Therefore, it would be desirable that it at least instruct its believers to “search their hearts” (=activate their intuitions) first of all, and only then “search for it”.
If it did so, it could save itself.

To the best of my knowledge, there has yet to be one in authentic (Orthodox) Judaism - not the fake one that secularists like me have adopted for themselves - who would dare to say this and still be considered faithful to its principled and historical path.

It is arbitrary in the same sense that the choice of the people of Israel is arbitrary (Mahar”l) or that the creation of the world is arbitrary (Rambam”m). By the way, I think that the emphasis on arbitrariness (or picking) is not limited to Judaism. It appears in Christianity in the idea of predestination and in Muslim fatalism (everything is from Allah). Even here on the site there is a sermon explaining to us that the Lord of the world chose one day a year to meet with us (9th of Av) and that this meeting is so important that even distracting from it by studying Torah is forbidden. In any case, the language of the verse explicitly says that there will be a renewed choice here.

I think that the emphasis on choice and the arbitrary aspect included in it point to the freedom of God. God is not a mechanical entity that gives predetermined answers, but a free (and therefore moral) being.

The Torah does not come to convince, but to present (to reveal).
: This is what is, take it or leave it. Your attitude - convince me first… is presented by the Gemara as a treacherous attitude of people who are incapable of truly free moral choice (Shabbat Fah and maybe it's time for the Rabbi to publish a post about this Gemara).

Y.D.,

Regarding the sanctity of Jerusalem/Yahmac:

I assume that you also agree that not all truths of Judaism are equally “arbitrary”. Some are more acceptable to you and some are less so.
My argument was that the issue of the sanctity of Jerusalem seems to me to be a little more arbitrary because it is more difficult to connect it to the Torah.
I thought you agreed with me at least on this point, but I guess I was wrong.

Regarding the sanctity of the Torah:

You write that ”the Torah does not come to convince”

Well, that is already really news to me. In fact, it is news to most Orthodox Jews in the world and I suspect that it is even news to you.

The Torah itself (= the Pentateuch) tries to convince us of many truths and does so with considerable success regarding a number of matters: that there is a God, that He was revealed at Sinai, that He gave us the Torah, that He created the world, etc.

Take it easy: Even a person with treacherous attitudes like mine (as you say the sages of the saints argued towards people like me) was convinced that there is a certain logic in the truth of the Torah. And even less so with regard to the well-being of the faithful Israelites, as pure and innocent as you are.

Doron
Here is the story from Tractate Shabbat, page 5, page 1 in the Aramaic original:
That Sadducee, a man of great learning, said to Rava, "He is a springer in the hearing of the word, and he put his finger on it, and he put it on his finger Go to the sound of the fire, and accept it We who are perfect (Rashi: We have walked with Him in sincerity, as the way of those who do things out of love, and have trusted in Him that He will not accuse us of anything we cannot stand: ) It is said of us, “The innocent and the upright will be comforted.” It is said of you who have come in the story, “And the perverse and the treacherous will be put to death” (Proverbs 11:3).

When I read your claim that the Jewish approach is counter-intuitive, I was reminded of this Gemara, which I believe answers the Jewish answer to your approach. There is also a link here to an article by Jonathan Hirschfeld that also presents a similar claim regarding Christians (albeit in a somewhat confused way) and I think this story also answers it:
https://alaxon.co.il/article/%d7%90%d7%94%d7%91%d7%94-%d7%96%d7%94-%d7%9c%d7%90-%d7%9e%d7%a1%d7%a4%d7%99%d7%a7/

24:9; Av 9:9

The place that the Lord will choose is not only the place where the Israelites will gather three times a year and only there will they offer sacrifices to the Lord (as explained in Parashat Ra'eh), but also the place to which all nations will gather to worship the Lord, as explained in Moses' blessing to the tribe of Zebulun: "Peoples will call upon the mountain and there they will sacrifice sacrifices of righteousness" (Deuteronomy 33:18).

Thus, Solomon also says in his prayer at the dedication of the Temple that the Temple will be the place to which everyone will turn in prayer, not only the Israelites, but also the nations of the world, "and also the foreigner who is not of your people Israel, who comes and prays toward this house." You, heaven, the place of your dwelling, will hear and do whatever the foreigner calls to you for, so that all the peoples of the earth may know your name (1 Kings 8:13-33), as the prophet promises: “For my house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations” (Isaiah ).

However, the Temple will not only be a “house of prayer for all nations,” but also a place from which Torah and guidance for all humanity will come forth, as prophesied by Isaiah and Micah: “And it shall come to pass in the last days that the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow to it; and many peoples shall go and say, ‘Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and let us learn of his ways, and let us walk in his paths; for out of Zion shall go forth the Torah, and the word of the Lord.’” From Jerusalem… Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more’ (Isaiah 2:1-4; Micah 4:1-4).

Just as the people of Israel were destined to be a ‘kingdom of priests’ that would bring the word of the Lord to all mankind– so Jerusalem was destined to be the center around which all mankind would unite, and the Torah that would come from it would bring peace and unity.

With blessings, Sh”t

At the end of paragraph 2
… (Isaiah 50:7).

What the sages offer us here is roughly the same product that Hirschfeld criticizes in his beautiful (and, in my opinion, flawed) article:

Abandoning belief in a transcendent God - who alone can be the source of truth and law - and substituting for him the law itself and the text. A law without a legislator, a law that is a "cause of itself".

In the sages' version, this is called "innocence", that is, a kind of "leap of faith" that requires us to believe in the primacy of the law over the legislator. In my words: placing the Torah in the place of the God who created it.

In contrast, the Pauline message that speaks of "love" presupposes that there is a primary source for law and truth (the legislator himself). Although Paul also preaches a “leap of faith,” unlike Judaism (and of course, unlike the position shared by postmodernism and Hirschfeld, who attacks it), this “leap” is directed toward what is behind the law (God). What makes that “leap” possible is ultimately the intuitive power within man, that is, something that goes beyond the word and the logic that the Torah so greatly exalts.

As I noted earlier, the Pauline view is ultimately more rational and in this respect less pagan (just as the “synthetic” view is less pagan than the “analytic” view).

Indeed, Paul's Christianity is very rational, the three who are one and the one who is three and the God who dresses in flesh, etc., etc. 🙂

This is the inevitable result of the abolition of the obligation to the laws that God has established in His law. When man appropriates for himself the authority to determine the will of God, the way is opened to the most delusional madness, and the pogroms and the centers of the "auto de pa" become the highest expression of the "religion of love and grace".

This is what happens when the divine law becomes "Plastalina" 🙂

With greetings, Satius Livingros

Saint Lovengross

Christianity is entitled to a “thin” theology just like Judaism (or any other religion or belief).
Anyway, my concern in the discussion here (and usually) is not with the official and institutionalized versions of the various religions - usually versions that are excessively thick - but with the conceptual reconstruction (pardon the pun) of the fundamental concepts of those religions.

On its face, the belief in the Trinity is indeed an irrational excess that an effective philosophical reconstruction would succeed in reducing or perhaps eliminating altogether.

What philosophy will ultimately allow us to say is roughly this: The heart of the Christian view is first in the idea that the Son of God was sent to earth in the form of a man to mediate between us and his “father”, and second in the example that this “Son” served as a sacrifice and died for man/the world.
Perhaps there are other such “philosophical”principles (say, the sweeping universalism of Christianity). But the Trinity is not one of them (although it is clear to me that most Christian theologians and, with them, graduate students of Christianity, will try to say that it is).

You did not address the heart of my argument (the Torah prefers the law over the legislator) nor its implications for the question that has preoccupied us since the beginning of the discussion (what is holiness?).

There is no basis for your claim that supposedly ‘the Torah prefers the law to the legislator’. The law of the Torah is the will of the legislator, and it is stable, and does not change according to the whims of men. Balaam already imagined that he could ‘reshape’ the will of God and bring it to the abomination of His chosen people, and he received the clear answer: ‘There is no man, God, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should comfort Himself’.

Like Balaam, Christianity also tried to show that God had left His people, and chosen for them a ‘new Torah’ and a &#8217new people’, and tried through persecutions, perils, and temptations to bring about the destruction of Judaism. And it did not work for them either. The people of Israel not only did not perish, but they awakened to a new flowering in their ancient homeland.

The points of holiness in the world – the holy people, the holy land, the holy times and the holy Torah – express the eternal connection of the world with its Creator. He made us and He set for us our destiny, to bring the world to its rightful place, and He guides us in His Torah how to fulfill this destiny.

With blessings, Sh”t

Sh”l

I really don't understand what you want from my miserable life.

What do I care about Balaam, what do I care about the hardships of Judaism, and what do I care about the revival of the Jewish people in their land?

The discussion is first and foremost a philosophical one. See 15.

I explained the problem of the Torah - in fact, it is a fundamental problem of any text of this type - and you have to deal with it.

If you have any relevant arguments against my view, you are welcome to present them.

With greetings from Papi”t (less pathos, more t’kals).

In short:
The Torah given by the Almighty expresses the steadfast will of its Giver. It is eternal and not subject to ’conversion treatments’ according to the desires of men. The law expresses the will of the legislator, .

With the blessing of ‘La Tnu”f’ [= Pseudo-philosophical Christian propaganda], Sh”z Levinger

A philosophical and factual answer of the highest order.

If this is my reward, I must have really done something wrong to someone.

In the 21st of Av, 5779

As I mentioned above, the points of holiness are the points of connection between the world and its Creator.

The point of holiness in man – the people of Israel ‘ a holy nation’, whose function is to connect humanity to the Almighty;

The point of holiness in place – the Land of Israel and its center ‘ the place that God will choose, to which humanity will raise its eyes to the Creator in prayer, and from which the Torah of peace and unity will emerge for all of humanity.

The point of holiness in time – the times of ‘ holy reading’, the Sabbaths and the feasts in which man emerges from the flood of mundane life and reconnects with his Creator.

The point of holiness in thought – the Torah, where the human mind encounters the wisdom and divine will embodied in the Torah, in all its breadth and depth, and from this encounter the personality of the person is built.

It seems that the basic meaning of the root ‘kadesh’ is ‘to call’ ‘to invite’, as ‘the Kaddish called him as a bridegroom’ (Zephaniah 1:7).

Through the points of holiness – in man, in place, in time and in thought – God calls and invites His creatures to connect with Him.

With blessings, Sh”z Levinger

Holiness means separation and separation. God has made your way holy (Psalms 14:14). The Malbim interpreted: Your way, from your own perspective, is in holiness (since holiness teaches that it is separate from everything, and that it follows the established universal laws). This is the meaning of the expression Holy One, blessed be He, that it is separated and separated above all attainment. What can be attained, through action and study, is the will of the Creator from His creatures, and this is the Torah that Moses received from Sinai.

On the 21st of Av 5779 (100th anniversary of the passing of Rabbi Chaim of Brisk)

To M80 – Greetings,

The root ‘Kedesh’ has a double meaning – ‘Kedush’ – spread out and distinct and ’Kedish’ – inviting.

The ‘Archimedes point’ that pulls the world upward must be outside the world in order to pull it upward, and on the other hand it must have a point of connection to the world, and they are the four levels of connection that I mentioned – holiness in place, time, person, and thought.

And so says the ’ For his people, “You shall be holy, for I am holy,” the complete separation of the Creator from His creatures, is the reason that calls upon them to strive to draw closer and connect with Him as much as possible. As a man says to his wife: “You are holy to Me,” separated from all the world and special to Me.

With blessings, Sh”t

On
… (101st anniversary of the passing of Rabbi Chaim of Brisk)

M80

Holiness is indeed separation and separation.

In more philosophical language, it means that the sacred factor is transcendent to man and the world.

In order to reach that transcendental plane, man needed unique epistemic equipment - the intuitive faculty. Of course, those who believe that their God is made of cardboard or wood can be satisfied with the ”natural” epistemic equipment - the senses, the analytical mind, i.e. language, emotions and imagination.

When a text is revealed to us - especially one that claims to come from a divine source - we must put it to the test: we must examine whether that text has assigned a central place to our intuitive faculty or not. Without that faculty, we cannot truly know that transcendent factor (even if it is only a partial acquaintance).

The problem is especially exacerbated when that text not only did not allocate space for this capacity, but also committed another and perhaps more serious sin: it set itself up to serve as the supreme epistemic and moral source of authority. A text that appointed itself the main intermediary between heaven and earth while by its very definition, at least in my opinion, no text can do this (by definition, a text is contingent on its creator).

In any case, you will understand that my criticism applies equally to strictly “secular” texts. Only there the problem is less serious because their alienation from the transcendent source is not done in the name of that source.

And the text, contingent on its transcendent creator, should not subject itself to human knowledge, and certainly not to the delusional pagan concepts of the "Son of God taking human form, whose death atones for humanity", blah blah blah blah

While Christianity assumes that man cannot break through the limitation of "original sin", and has no remedy except by sacrificing a human being, the Torah gave man righteous laws and judgments, and commanded him not only to apply them in action, but also to contemplate them in his mind, and to be wise and understand one thing from another, and thus to cling to his God also on the intellectual plane.

With blessings, Sh”z

Sh”l

First of all, I'm glad you decided to return to a somewhat more substantive discussion.

I allow myself to give you points because I really think that most of your responses - and not just to me - are unrelated to the topic (sorry and pardon for being honest).

In the model that I extract from Christianity (as I said, I'm not sure that there is any “official” Christian who would trust my interpretation, but that doesn't interest me because I think it is a philosophically correct interpretation) the main thing is not the text. In any case, your complaint about Christianity's tendency to arbitrarily burden the text with biases aimed at a straw man.
The core of Christianity is not found in the text. Very simple.

Regarding original sin: Behind this idea (which is correct in terms of its tendency) stands a sharp dualistic position that distinguishes between the earthly plane and the metaphysical-transcendent plane.
In my opinion, only Platonic-Christian-Unique dualism can serve as the basis for an authentic rational position (what I call synthetic).

In fact, this dualistic position is forced upon us all.
All of us, even the avowed monists among us, are dualists in practice.
If you like, we are all “hidden believers (=dualists)”.
Even the Jews among us.

What I have repeatedly claimed (and have yet to receive a response to this specific point) is that in general the Torah is hostile to the dualistic position.
I have explained why.

And the Morality of Reason

When I said and repeated in Hebrew that ’the law expresses the stable will of the legislator’ it was ‘irrelevant’. When I said the same things in Latin: ’the text is contingent on its transcendent creator’ – I was praised for my ‘substantial response’ 🙂

With the blessing of ‘Atam Piritush Kneirt, Itam Oten Yo Frish Hideg Wizt, Yoi De Yo Volt’, Lavinger Samson

Doron,

The foundations of the belief that the Torah is from heaven. It transcends human reason, but does not contradict common sense. If a person does not believe that the Torah is from heaven, and examines it according to his understanding as a mere text, it means that he lacks the ability to recognize its holy source, a capacity called faith.

Sh”l

You still don't have a substantive response to the problem I raised:

The Torah positions itself (i.e. the text) as the main epistemic channel and expects us to produce from it a god (and another one who created it).

This is the heart of the difficulty and you must deal with it.

M80

First of all, I also tend to believe that the Torah is from heaven. So what? It doesn't conflict with my view. I've explained it before and I could do it again, but that's not the point.

Secondly, the relevant point for the discussion here is your basic premise (“the foundations of the belief that the Torah is from heaven”). I disagree with the rationality of this premise itself.

I've already explained why several times. If I wasn't understood, I'll explain again.

Doron,

Faith is where the intellect falls short of achieving.

Moses received Torah from Sinai. Rabbi Yaakov Moshe Charlap wrote: “The ways of the Holy Torah given to us from Sinai, whose entire foundation is on acceptance and whose entire purpose is that we come to accept it, and the expansion of our talents and the development of our wisdom in it, all so that we may become capable instruments for receiving. – In the way that in all wisdom, acceptance is a means to becoming wise, and in Torah, wisdom is a means to receiving.”

M80

I didn't really understand your response and what Rabbi Harlap wrote.

Since I felt that I had not yet received a relevant answer to my question, I had no choice but to do the unthinkable and quote myself from an earlier response. In that response, I describe the root of the problem:

“When a text is revealed to us - especially one that claims to come from a divine source - we must put it to the test: we must examine whether that text has assigned a central place to our intuitive faculty or not. Without that faculty, we cannot truly know that transcendent factor (even if it is only a partial acquaintance).

The problem is especially aggravated when that text not only has not assigned a place to this faculty, but also has committed another and perhaps more serious sin: it has set itself up to serve as the supreme epistemic and moral source of authority. A text that appointed itself the primary mediator between heaven and earth while by its very definition, at least in my opinion, no text can do so (by definition a text is contingent on its creator).

Elsewhere I described the problematic nature of the Torah roughly like this:

According to the Torah's theory, its status is necessary in all possible worlds, meaning that God was (and is) logically incapable of creating another Torah.
If this formulation is correct (and this is what I think), it follows that God depends on the Torah and that it actually created him. Quite literally.

And according to you, God is hanging on a cross with nails cutting into his flesh. Isn't it more pleasant to be hanging on the sweet Torah than to wander and enjoy the scenery? 🙂

And for the fifth time:
God is not a ‘follower of the Torah’, God is not dependent on whims and His will is stable and does not change like socks. He revealed His will to us in His Torah, in its simplicity and in its depths, thereby allowing us to deepen our understanding and elevate our will, and thus draw closer to the Divine will.

With the blessing ‘Open your hand and satisfy the desire of every living thing’, Sh”Tsun

In paragraph 1, line 2
… Sweeter than honey and a view of the sky? 🙂

Levinger, only health and longevity to you.