What did the conditions learn without Shas?
Hail to the knight of faith or the hero of heresy!
What do you think the Tannaim learned? Did they have enough textual/oral body to delve into and study it for an entire day, as the sages of Israel did after the writing of the Babylonian Talmud? After all, the entire ethos of Torah study and study stems from the indescribable scope and difficulty of the Babylonian Talmud (and think how difficult it was before Rashi’s commentary, as Maimonides testified on a similar matter) – indeed, to encompass all this material, a lifetime is required. But what did Hillel learn? What did Rabbi Akiva learn? Is it possible to assume that they engaged in leisurely study in their free time when the scope of their knowledge was quite negligible and contained at most oral traditions in the scope of the Mishnayot, which they could learn by heart along with the Bible even in Haidar? According to this, the superiority of some of them over the others was mainly due to their wit and not their knowledge. Or do you think that there is something that they could have engaged in in a linear, progressive way, in a study that was built tile upon tile, a study that if you had not invested all your time in it, you would not have been able to make up for here in the Beit Midrash? If so – what is that unknown body of knowledge? And did such a body of knowledge also exist in the ancient times of the couples, Yossi ben Yoezer, etc.? How much did they already need to know? And was their study at all in any philosophical style – similar to Plato and Aristotle – and as such there was something in it, some kind of intuition acquired through the labor of scholasticism and the use of sages, which was not based on a body of textual knowledge but rather on Virtual intellectual chatter (the kind prevalent among Eastern wisdom, Zen Buddhism, Taoism, etc.). Can your study of the three virtues of the sermon provide you with some unconventional answer (not along the lines of “They knew the entire Babylonian Shas by heart”), etc.
Thanks, from your table, below your bed, and prays in the Spanish style, like you.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I didn't understand why the Rabbi said they could and did tinker with what we do even today, I always thought they received everything on a white platter. Really, what was new at that time that they had to tinker with? How do you know that they tinkered? They had a kind of prophetic "inspiration" like the Holy Spirit, and as such, why do they need to tinker? And as such, why do they need to be divided? Their Holy Spirit should have been the same and not different - where did the disagreements come from? This is also a problem that will only be resolved when there is a Sanhedrin!!
I didn't understand why they demanded the Torah in the 13 Proverbs, after all, the Torah in Sheva was already transmitted and was certainly required. How did you conclude that they demanded the Torah anew?
I also didn't understand what the Rabbi claims that one should study today if not the Torah? And is there, in the Rabbi's opinion, no point in reading 2 Chron. 17 and 18? Because this is a type of Torah study.
Moshe, where did you decide that the Tannaim had the “Holy Spirit” with the answers to everything? On the contrary, when it happened, for example, in the case of R’ Eliezer in Akhnai’s oven, they did not listen to the voice that came out.
The Torah, in my opinion, was not transmitted as a requirement and it can be proven.
2 Mikra and A’ Targum is halakha (although the rabbi wrote a few days ago that it might not be). Even if the reason (what is it anyway?) is null, it is not so easy to stop immediately.
Abraham - There is a difference, brother, between the Holy Spirit and answers to everything. Oh oh oh, you are mixing concepts in a bad way, but don't worry. We will get along with you. Easy, easy, I will start by saying that even after the signing of the Torah, prophecy was used as a ruling on laws, and it can be proven. Daughters of Zelophehad,
The fact that Bat Kol came out is one thing, and the fact that they did not listen to her is another.
You must explain why Bat Kol came out? Why did they not listen to her? And why in the first place did they not rule on the law according to the law that the majority establishes? They will simply answer that Bat Kol came out?! Does that make sense to you? Does it make sense to you that one sage is right all the time (as Bat Kol testified to him) and a thousand sages are wrong, yes, they are wrong because Bat Kol did not say that these and those are the words of the living God. And why did Bat Kol hesitate, after all, the walls of the house were clean and so on and so forth, and so on and so forth, are you claiming that this is not a type of Holy Spirit? Don't you notice how confident the Rabbi is? How did they change the law that was just because the majority rules? And even though they knew that the Bat Kol was as trustworthy as a thousand witnesses? Have we forgotten how the Tosh was sworn in? If not by the Bat Kol, then how?
What are you actually trying to say that they didn't listen to the Bat Kol? What? And why did you say that?
I've never seen anyone of my caliber express their opinion and then say that it's provable. Delete the word "in my opinion" From the sentence you wrote: “The oral Torah, in my opinion, was not transmitted, and it can be proven.” And when you decide, present the evidence..
Regarding 2 Mak’ 13:13, we are talking about studying Torah. The answer is if the rabbi thinks that there is no need in our day to study Torah, then he should convince the great men of the generation to abolish this halacha…
Oh oh oh you're mixing up concepts.. But don't worry, we'll get along with you, Easy Easy.
1. The daughters of Tzelofachad are part of the Torah. Do you think Moses wrote this before the incident?! *After* receiving the Torah, they no longer use it.
2. A Bat Kol came out to honor Rabbi Eliezer, apparently. They didn't listen to her because they weren't supposed to listen to her. First, they didn't rule on the Halacha because they were still in the middle of the debate. The Bat Kol hesitated because they hadn't yet asked her to come. Rabbi is indeed confident in himself. So what?.. I agree that it's a type of Holy Spirit. And I prove from this that they don't listen to her. (The Torah dictated that the majority would decide)
3. I wrote that it's demonstrable because I don't have the time and/or strength to prove it. The Rabbi also agrees with me and surely he can refer to what he already wrote about it.
4. The "great men of the generation" cannot overturn any Halacha. The rabbi thinks that there is not much value in studying the Bible. What does this have to do with the cessation of the halacha (if it is indeed a halacha as is commonly thought) of the name?
I suggest that you answer directly and to the point and not with hints, rhetorical questions, and slander.
Thank you for the offer - I did not force you to participate in the discussion that is taking place here for a good reason. And if I slandered - it is for the honor of the Torah and its zeal and you have nothing to worry about. And I apologize if you were offended by anything.
1. The Torah was given at Mount Sinai, and therefore it does not matter at all when the things were written because everything was transmitted orally. There is a difference between the Torah being received and the writing of the Torah.
2. Who said that Rabbi Eliezer pursued honor? And how did you conclude this if we have never found a Shabbat Kol coming out to honor someone? You are currently slandering yourself!
The daughter of Kol despised all the sages. Look and check and you will discover that I was right and she came out to prove them, brother, and the proof is that later it is written that the one who said, "My sons will defeat me" will answer the daughter of Kol. Answer: Look, what are you trying to say that Bat Kol came to honor the Rabbi and on the other hand she did not honor the Rabbi? Because she caused him to “lose.” Does what you said make sense to you?
If the halakha was always following the majority to deviate. So why does the Rabbi even need to argue with a multitude of sages? And Bat Kol admitted that the halakha is the same everywhere and yet suddenly from this same incident, the halakha is following the majority to deviate as if it had not been done in the past. Does that make sense to you?
I am glad that you openly admitted that there is a kind of Holy Spirit here. You know it is funny what you wrote that even though there is the Holy Spirit, they do not listen to it when the majority believes otherwise, because Moses was one and Korah and his congregation were many, but who was the halakha like them or like him? What happened to those who rebelled against the halakha? The earth opened its mouth and you ate it, how do you understand from this that the halakha depends on following the majority to deviate? And let's leave aside for now the Holy Spirit, who, as is well known, truly spoke to Moses and instructed him on whom to choose as high priest and as ministers in the sanctuary for all the Levitical duties…
What is important for me to understand from you personally is, do you think that the law of many to deviate has always been there or only after the writing of the Torah?
3. No problem, I would be happy to receive proof that the Toshva did not give a sermon. In the meantime, I will present a verse that will prove that she did give a sermon: “Since Moses explained this Torah” and if she did not give a sermon, then the Sages can demand it however they please, and this can disrupt and change Moses' explanation as he himself demanded it. And this will cause a huge change in the laws, because no one demands something like someone else, and this can change a lot in the Toshva, especially if it was transmitted orally.
Answer: Think about the fact that everything is transmitted orally and suddenly they demand something different from what was demanded in the past and they need to change the version of the Toshveh that was originally transmitted orally. Does that seem logical to you?
4. You asked a good question, listen - if you see a person grinding water because someone told him to do so (because there was something suspicious in the water), and so he does, now you know that there are teachers of Halacha who see that there is no point in studying Torah, wouldn't they determine that they should stop studying Torah? Wouldn't you stop the man who grinds water after the suspicion has passed?
Nice demands Nice fulfills
Our aspiration is to be wise and move forward with our heads. Answer: What is in Halacha is no longer relevant and unnecessary; we must ensure that it is changed; that is why Halacha is called Halacha so that it is always appropriate for the present time.
Moshe, you write with great enthusiasm, at great length, and with a lot of unfounded assumptions, but with a resolute confidence. You can't really discuss that.
Moses,
1. Not all of the Torah was received at Mount Sinai. Do you think Moses knew that the sin of the calf would happen? The Torah was written when the events happened. After the “signing” of the Torah, after many times, and no prophet is allowed to innovate anything from now on.
2. R’ Eliezer did not pursue honor. The Bat Kol came out to honor him even though she “knew” that she probably would not be accepted. R’ Eliezer did not give up immediately because he tried to convince them. (He may have thought that she was following Bat Kol, and he did)
Korah and his party are not related. After many times, it was said about a majority in the Sanhedrin. This does not mean that every time a majority of the people of Israel decides something, it happens.
3. The Torah did not give a sermon – at least not in detail – “The Torah did not give a cut” (Yerushalmi somewhere) and see the introduction to the Fahmash by the Rambam
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
