Q&A: Various Topics
Various Topics
Question
Good evening, Rabbi Michi.
Did your Sabbath go well? Did you enjoy it? How’s life?
- I’ve discussed the issue of having children with people in the past, and no argument has convinced me enough—not the religious argument (that it’s a commandment, which I’m not obligated in at all), not the demographic-nationalist argument (that the Arabs will become the majority and take over the country if there aren’t enough Jewish children), not things about leaving a mark for future generations, giving grandchildren to parents, or having someone to take care of me when I’m old (what if I’m not sure I’ll live that long?), and not that children are joy and every child that comes is a gift to the world (I doubt people really believe what comes out of their mouths)—that I really need to have children. Does this have halakhic implications / is it accepted in religious society to be a married couple without children or a single woman without children?
- In the framework of your classes on dogmatics, you argued that unlike the Bible, in the Talmud there is really broad interpretive freedom, such that one can actually learn something from it. But there too the commentators do so many mental gymnastics (for example, the Ben Ish Hai and Pnei Yehoshua). So what did you mean there?
- Which editions of the Talmud would you recommend for beginners? Metivta? Steinsaltz? What do you think is better at a level from which one could relatively easily move on to something more advanced?
Answer
Excellent, thanks.
1. I didn’t understand the question. There is a halakhic obligation on men, and rabbinically also on women. What kind of rationale are you looking for?
2. It is explained at length in the second book of the trilogy. I also mentioned in the class the interpretive freedom in the Talmud and explained the difference. I don’t know who the Ben Ish Hai is, and I don’t know what you want from Pnei Yehoshua.
3. I’m not familiar.
Discussion on Answer
1. I’m not the address for sociological questions.
2. It seems strange to me that you’re interested in Steinsaltz or Schottenstein for beginners, but you already have a broad and deep overview of all the later authorities, including the Ben Ish Hai and Pnei Yehoshua.
3. I have no idea, but I’m skeptical regarding such descriptions.
Regarding 1, Jordan Peterson says that for millions of years people everywhere in the world at all times had children. So you want to tell me they were all wrong and you’re right?
Apparently yes. What’s the problem? All the people in the world also think that time flows at the same rate in all frames of reference, and that there are no random events in the world (relativity and quantum mechanics). You want to say they’re wrong?!
A blatant ad populum.
2. Schottenstein from ArtScroll is without doubt the most successful and accurate commentary, but also the most expensive. If not Schottenstein, I’d recommend Metivta.
Steinsaltz is difficult. And don’t go anywhere near Chavruta and nonsense of that type; Rashi is already preferable.
1. I’m not looking for a rationale, I was just asking whether it’s accepted or unusual in religious society to be single / just without children
2. I only brought the Ben Ish Hai and Pnei Yehoshua as examples of commentators I’ve seen who actually do engage in mental gymnastics
3. I forgot to ask a question, but I’ll ask it here
This will sound unserious, but it really is serious
There are Kabbalists who claim / are claimed about them (for example Rabbi Yehuda Fetaya in his book Spirits Speak, where it is said that he repaired the soul of Shabbetai Tzvi) that they saw souls and spirits and performed miracles and dybbuks and things like that.
Are these really levels of holiness that a human being can reach, or is it various altered states of consciousness, or just hallucinations and visions? I understand the existence of worlds beyond the world of action, but actual configurations and Arikh Anpin and things of that sort—it doesn’t sound like hallucinogenic drugs or something of that kind are involved? I’m really asking, not trying to provoke.