Formal authority in matters of faith

Reminds me that there was once a dispute in Halacha about whether the scholars of Halacha determine reality in their rulings or not, meaning whether when they rule, for example, that there are demons, then there are demons, and if they rule that there are none, then the demons will cease to exist. And there was a dispute about this, and it was decided that the rulings of the scholars do not have the power to change reality, and since then the rulings of the scholars have not changed reality.

The problem is that it can be tested empirically. Let's say that sages determine that a certain law of nature will not exist or will change and that it is obligatory to believe in it and see if it will change.
For example, they can determine that the acceleration of gravity on Earth is only 5 meters per second² and test it empirically.
Or they can determine that the theory of relativity is incorrect and that it is heresy to believe in it and see if it still exists.

They can also thwart the enemy's attacks in this way by changing the laws of nature on which their weapons are based. Or they can determine that anyone whose name is Ali, Muhammad or Hussein will die immediately and that it is obligatory to believe in it. Immediately, God Almighty will kill at least half of the Iranians.

Beautiful!!! 🙂
The words of the sheikh in the name of the Jerusalemite about a three-year-old virgin returning, that when the virgins pass the month, they return. It's crazy. It's pretty clear to me that the original intention is that this is how it is done in the Bible because the line is formal. But even if not, it turns out that nothing in nature changes.

You know very well that the reference to Jerusalem in the poskim is not quite like that, see for example in Shachai Yod (I don't remember where, I'm sure His Honor knows) who explained that the poskim's words about menstruation for a month have no meaning other than that the month is always sanctified, so in your opinion all menstruation matters are a mistake, okay, you can also maintain that it is delusional, I don't object, and what is quite clear to you, excuse me, why would they rely on the verse "Let it be easy for me to finish"? Really tight. (And also, according to Maharani Mintz regarding a 13-year-old in a leap year) and of course the question raised here is difficult, even to define as stupid, it is simply disconnected from reality. (Even a dark fanatic like me has limits. Incidentally, it is said by the Rebbe of Kotzk that when the Rambam said that there were no demons, they were abolished. In a study I wrote about the Rambam's position on demons, I commented on this: "Perhaps for the seventh time, when the Rambam said that the size of the sun, even though it is not correct (and I extended it in the text), it stopped being the same and the sun decreased, (but when did it return and increase?) Seriously, I am not kidding about the Kotzk, I am kidding about those who take things literally. This is reminiscent of the well-known saying from the Maggid of Koznitz. When the Rambam ruled that anyone who believes that the Creator has a body, etc., and the Rabbis, etc., as is known, then when the Rambam's words threw all the great ones straight into Hell, and when the Rabbis reached it, they brought them out! And the things are hidden from the Rambam himself, who ruled to rule on these matters with his mouth, chapter by chapter! Again, the things are not directed at the Maggid, but at those who interpret it literally and repeat these nonsense from time to time.)

I didn't say that menstruation is a mistake. You should improve your reading comprehension. You bring up the issue in a post after I brought it up myself. Do you even bother to read?

Okay, I get it. (After I wrote, I realized that you brought up the words of the sheikh yourself and with your forgiveness, I really was in a hurry) Now a new question, what is the point really of Bustot? After all, the sheikh explains according to the words of the Yerushalmi, according to you, that the commentary in the Yerushalmi is nothing but a kind of formality that does not belong in Bustot, what is the point? Therefore, in my weak understanding of what is called (I am a baby horse that was captured and do not know how to think correctly) I understood that it follows from your words that this method of counting Bustot from day to month and not from the birth is a mistake, if this is not correct, please enlighten me on this. Happy Holidays.

There is a concern that the woman will see at these times. What does this have to do with the question we are dealing with here? The formalism I proposed in Yerushalmi is not in relation to menstruation, but in relation to the age of the girl whose periods return. You understand that it does not really start at age 3 today. For each one it is at a different time, and on average it is around age 3. Therefore, if they have passed the year, they still pass the formal line at age 3. What is the problem? Simply as a matter of fact.

By the way, a baby who was captured usually does not have a thinking problem. He has a problem with bias and hence also with reading comprehension. He was captured among the Gentiles and therefore his mind is washed and does not allow him to think logically about the issues. He does not bother to consider things in their entirety and rushes to visit. It seems to me that your comment here shows this again and again. The haste and bias and the lack of readiness to read and consider what I am writing to you are very evident. I am not writing this sarcastically or to put you down, but in all seriousness.

Hello! (I delayed my response so as not to be accused of rashness, but mainly because of the holiday and we also had a second week of galiot)
I really don't like to confront someone like you over trifles. And I don't have to stay with the last word, I'm flattering you, and I don't have a chance at all! (And also, to be honest - I have to give in and admit - your description of me is incredibly accurate! I'm puzzled and stand there. There are people I've been hanging around with for many years who don't even begin to get to know me and my bias, and you, from 10 responses, have a completely clear picture.) And in any case, it seems to me that there was an evasion on your part and you diverted (with great success) the discussion to an ad hominem direction by delegitimizing my words, and therefore I am attaching a detailed response here in which I detailed - from my perspective - the entire thread. And with that I will end. There is no point in remaining right here, just showing that I have carefully examined all your words.
And in any case, I have great respect for you, don't you think I just write rashly and without bothering to read, and yet you always answer. (And another tiny personal question: Why do you really do that? When I meet people like that, I usually don't get into arguments with them, people who are in a hurry and don't want to hear my side, why is it even worth bothering to explain to them?)
Happy Holidays.

On the 18th of Tishrei, Tesfa, P.K.
The Nik ‘Meshumai Rabbi’ raised an argument that perhaps there is formal authority in matters of faith because when we rule this way and that, we are actually dictating to G‑d what to do (“A righteous man decrees and G‑d fulfills”?). Of course, the question is very stupid and disconnected from honest thinking (forgive that Nick), so Michai Shalit”a exists in great elegance, ‘answered like a fool’ in his cynical answer1.
Nick ‘a” did well to point out the absurdity of this matter (by the way, what he brings about demons is known from the late Kotzker) and again, ’another comment that I didn't quite understand the depth of and Michai responded with ”beautiful!!!” and Emogi, my friend2. He again brought up the words of the sheikh in the name of the Jerusalemite, when he passed through the month of virginity and said: delusional. And he qualified: It is quite clear to me that the original intention is that this is how it is done in the Beit HaD because the line is formal. But even if not (= the Jerusalem neighborhood is true that the ruling in the court dictates the physical change) it turns out that nothing in nature changes. (= I do not accept the Jerusalem words)
This is the Jerusalem language (Ketubot, Chapter 1, End of Halacha 2) 3 “Rabbi Avin said [Tehillim 57:3] I will call upon God Most High, God Who will end me, a woman of three years and one day, and we will be kings in the court for her passing. The virgins return, and if not, the virgins do not return”
Regarding menstruation (= Chazal determined that a woman who has regular menstruation and sees blood on a certain day of the month fears that day and is forbidden to have sexual intercourse4 and other various laws) the first to disagree on what counts as the day of the month, the opinion of the Rabbi (in his book Bedek HaHayt, verse 7, chapter 3): It makes no sense to menstruate on that day, since there is a phenomenon that repeats itself over and over again, there is a certain quality on this day that causes her to see blood, and since the month is determined by sanctification on the 3rd and it is not consistent that sometimes sanctification is done on the 3rd and sometimes on the 31st, and it depends on whether witnesses came or not, if so, how can it be said that this day is a cause? Therefore, his opinion is that it is counted from the day of the Nativity (= for example, we assume that the 13th day of the Nativity is the cause of her menstruation). However, the opinion of Rashba (Mishmar HaBait al-Bedek HaBait, there) is that they are counted from the day of the holy month, and this is his language: The writer said: Honorable Sages, they will be counted, but their questions are not a question, it is certain that the believers agree with them that it is written that you will call them, that you will call them on their due date, and they rely on the fixed months and years instead of the cuttings like leaven on Passover and the slaughter of Passover and the punishment of Yom Kippur, even in the case of minors, who said that a minor who is three years old and one day old has one of the sexual sins, she is exempt and no one is expected of her less than this, both of them are exempt, and likewise in the case of a minor who is nine years old and one day after that or less than this, we do not count for them days except for the years that are counted for full and incomplete months and for months and for leap and simple years according to the rules of B. And even in the case of the new bodies, as the Zel Bilal Gomer Ali demanded, a girl of three years and one day who had no virginity, and who returned to her virginity, the court ruled that she had passed the year of her virginity, and she returned to God Gomer Ali. And so the Shaikh ruled (Yod Kapt 3) and brought more sources on this matter.
And in the Gem Nadda (the Shaikh brought it there) 30:1; Shippura Gerim; and the Shofar is set up to be blown in the Beit Din and Ai Tos.
And the poskim often used this rule to explain various matters in halakha 5.
The simple understanding is that supposedly God takes into account the ruling of the court and determines the affairs of nature according to His rulings (therefore, although in Yerushalmi it is written that in repeated verses, that a reality that has already been determined changes, this only indicates the magnitude of the innovation, but even without this, it is written here something terrible that the ruling of the court determines the affairs of nature6). If so, there is certainly a certain similarity between this Yerushalmi and the discussion here, and this was Micah's intention, and it is a wonderful similarity.
Now Micah wrote that it is clear to him that he intended that the line was formal. I understood his intention because they determined a time of 10 years and not necessarily in the year of the leap year. Again, he further explained his words that there is no fixed limit of three years, but rather an average limit, and therefore it is not difficult at all with the year of conception (and as we have noted, “all the wise men’s standards are the same in forty years, etc.”), so that Yerushalmi’s question is not at all understandable.
I will emphasize: His question is excellent and I do not have an answer for it.
However, it is clear that Yerushalmi’s intention was this, and as I wrote in my response, if Michi’s words are correct, what exactly does R. Avin find in the verse “Let it be easy for me to end with you”? So it is definitely necessary to make it difficult for Yerushalmi, why was it necessary to do so, but it is clear that Yerushalmi’s words should not be diverted to his words. And overwhelming evidence that the statement “Let it be easy for me to end with you” is It is mentioned once again in the words of the Yerushalmi7 and there it is clearly stated that the Holy One, the Blessed One, agreed with David (=David proposed that they pass it before the altar and whoever was caught by the Ark - miraculously - would be killed) and also in various midrashim it is mentioned in many places and each time in such a context8
B. It is clear from all the statements of the poskim who brought the words of the Yerushalmi in various contexts that they did not understand them as the words of the Lord Micah, since there it is not appropriate to say as his words. For example, the words of Rashba, according to Micah, there is no reason to fear a certain day of the month, since there is no logic that that day of the month will cause blood to come as claimed by Rahab, and since Rashba's claim is invalid (= that the idea that the court's decision will have an effect is delusional in his opinion), then there is no reason to fear a day of menstruation as is ruled and accepted that it is a day of the month.
Now I had a sin, because when I saw Micah's words, I did not grasp and did not take to heart that he brought it in the name of the sheikh, and I believed that he brought the words of Yerushalmi from their source (and also that I brought from Meher Mintz, who was brought in the sheikh there and I mentioned Si'y instead of Si'y t), and I have already acknowledged it and I acknowledge and leave Yeruham.
And after you read my words and follow the entire thread, go out and check for yourself who misunderstood what was read? And who answered with things that are not relevant.
Happy Holidays.
PS Of course, in the main argument I definitely believe that the question is illusory and I attached in my first response a passage I wrote on this matter about the words of the Kotzker and more from the Maggid from Kuznitz, Isaiah 9.

1 At the same time, I will settle the known contradiction: It is written in the Bible that says, "Do not answer a fool like his fool" and it is written in the Bible that says, "Answer a fool like his fool" (Hebrews 11:2). Indeed, it seems that it is possible to answer him with an answer that does not address the substance of the matter and at all costs refute his words.
2 (I don't know if it's about the first or the second response, maybe this also belongs to the verse and if this argument also belongs to the past)
3 And in two more places: Nedarim 6:8; Sanhedrin 1:2.
4 In the Gamma they disagreed whether it's about the Methuselah or the Rabbis, but it doesn't matter to our case
5 More by Mintz 9 (in Bishk there) regarding the matter of Ben 13 becoming Ben Daat and what about the month of Ivor?; and many other matters that it's clear to me that Micah doesn't care because that's what they wrote, so I won't bother looking for it.
6 See, for example, the glosses of Mordechai (Yevamot, chapter 1, al-Hulatz, reference 16) “Pi’ The end and the agreement of the law of the table in their transgression, and if they have passed this year, they return to their virginity, and the signs from behind them to the next, if they have passed this year.
7 Kiddushin 4 A; Sanhedrin 6 7.
8 Ai’ The name of Parashat Ba (15:20) “Whatever they cut off, the Holy One, blessed be He, agrees with them, as it is said, I will call upon the Most High God, the God who ends with me, may the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, who cuts off the children and He agrees” and there are many more, by searching the Shulchat project (to God who ends with me. And not to include in the search of the Bible and its commentaries) you will be able to find them and all the poskim who discussed this. (I am not a rabbi at all and my main occupation is not in Torah, so my knowledge is limited. Yes, there are Haredim who do not suck the blood of the public, and make a living on their own, and they are even -sometimes- wealthy people.)
9 And by the way, there is a relatively small Hasidic community called Squira (concentrated mainly in New Square in New York, but also scattered throughout the Diaspora throughout New York and a little in Israel.) And there they practice three equal hours of Kirsch time, that is, three equal hours before midnight. But not according to daily midnight but according to the average midnight, that is, 12:00. This is so difficult to accept. Why should we think according to the average? But there is another problem that the average midnight according to local time in New York (UTC-5) is 12:56 and not 1:00, and there is no way that we should think according to regional time, and that because they decided to arrange the clock that way, the times change? So there is one rabbi who wrote an article in a Torah journal where he excuses their custom, saying that since the regional clock is set, we calculate according to this time... and it seems to explain, according to the words of the Jerusalemite, that since the State Senate or someone else determines that the regional clock changes, the matter of the three hours and the time of the kings' presence also changes...