Q&A: Several Questions
Originally published:
This is an English translation (via GPT-5.4). Read the original Hebrew version.
Several Questions
Question
- In the midrash: “Pitiful is the person who has to learn from the ant.” But that is difficult, since it is written: “From all my teachers I have gained wisdom”?
- If someone has in mind the first verse of the Shema in its plain, literal sense—namely, Hear, O Israel, you Jew, internalize that the Lord, who is our God, is the Lord, the One—does he thereby fulfill his obligation? Or must he have in mind all the intentions that appear in section 5 of the Shulchan Arukh?
- I understood from the Rabbi that one can say the Zohar is a kind of ancient tradition of spiritual intuitions. According to that, I don’t understand how the Shulchan Arukh rules in accordance with the Zohar in about 150 sections (brought in the book Ma’aneh Rashbi, section 132)?
- What is the authority of the words of the Talmud? After all, there was no Sanhedrin that accepted it upon themselves?
- It is forbidden to look at an unmarried woman by rabbinic enactment, as is said in Job: “I made a covenant with my eyes; how then could I gaze at a virgin” (Shulchan Arukh). This is difficult: seemingly this was just some covenant that Job made, so why should it obligate us?
- Is it permitted to use LED lights on the Sabbath (turning them on and off)?
- Why did the Torah command things that reason itself already obligates (such as “Do not murder,” for example)?
Answer
- I didn’t understand the difficulty. He is pitiful because he has to learn from all his teachers. But what can you do—that’s what he is.
- No, he has not fulfilled it. The intention of the words alone is not enough. This is not Torah study but a Torah-level commandment that requires the intention to fulfill one’s obligation and acceptance of the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven.
- Why not? Is it impossible to rule in accordance with someone who offers intuitions? In addition, I do not know whether the author of the Shulchan Arukh thought as I do regarding the Zohar.
- The acceptance of the nation. See Beit Yishai, Derashot, sec. 15.
- This is either a clarification of an existing matter or a scriptural support. Similarly, in the responsa Chaim Sha’al, Rabbi Chaim Palachi explained all the enactments of Rabbeinu Gershom’s ban on the basis of Torah prohibitions.
- In my opinion, absolutely not. But there are halakhic decisors who hold that this is only a weekday-type activity.
- So that it would be a halakhic prohibition and not merely a moral one.
Discussion on Answer
Not exactly. You can interpret those words in various ways. If the meaning of the words includes acceptance of the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven, then of course that problem does not exist.
Regarding 2: I didn’t understand. Doesn’t acceptance of the yoke of Heaven come through having the right intention in the words of the Shema?