Is the Meiri’s opinion about Gentiles false?
What does the rabbi say about Rabbi Zini’s new book that proves that the Meiri’s opinion on the Gentiles was expressed under pressure from the Gentiles? Here is the relevant paragraph from the article:
Regarding the words of the ‘Meiri’ according to which Christianity is not idolatry, Rabbi Zini says that “the Meiri wrote things that ostensibly sterilize all the content written in the Talmud regarding Gentiles, by stating that everything written in the Talmud regarding Gentiles concerns Gentiles who worship idols, lack morality and lack justice, etc.” “This thing has fallen into the trap of the greats of Israel. With great awe I must say that even Maran Rabbi Kook fell victim to this when he thought that the Meiri’s words were well-founded and expressed his position. In the book I prove that this is a mistake and that the ‘Meiri’ was forced to write it because of the reality in France at that time as a result of the Talmudic trial. He did not believe a single word that was written there.” “How did the greats of Israel fall into the trap? It is important to know that many in our generation rely on the ‘Meiri’ to draw conclusions regarding the relations between Israel and the nations. But I do not understand them. Even if we assume that the Meiri believes what is written there, he is the only one who says this in front of hundreds and thousands of “Rulers who say the opposite. ”Since when do we rely on one ruler against many others throughout the generations who contradict him? But the current modern reality creates a reality in which people are so influenced by foreign cultures and things that are not related to the Torah that they jump like prey on any position that blurs the difference between Israel and the nations.”
I’ve already explained that the discussion about the Meiri is unnecessary. Even without the Meiri, I would have said the same thing.
But you use Mayeri as an example of why such significant changes occur in halakhic law. This is an unfair example because it is incorrect. This example is intended to show that substantial conservatism exists in halakhic history on such fundamental issues.
The issue is not what you think about the matter but whether substantial conservatism exists in halakhic law. Why use this example if it is incorrect? It is manipulation.
I am referring to your enlightening lecture from a few years ago that I saw on YouTube. The part that is evidence-based is that the poskim throughout the generations have used this methodology of substantive, rather than formal, conservatism in cases that are truly Torah.
You decided that it is incorrect. To your health. You also use terms that are not mine. Please do not troll. There are of course many more examples, but I will not give them here for fear of feeding trolls. I am strict on the matter, although I do not have a clear halachic source (except for the שלשת במעשים רושע and the Jerusalemite on Kadshim).
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer