Q&A: A Question for the Rabbi, and a Request for Forgiveness
A Question for the Rabbi, and a Request for Forgiveness.
Question
Honorable Rabbi, hello. First of all, I would like to ask the Rabbi’s forgiveness for the fact that before I became sufficiently familiar with the Rabbi’s teachings, I spoke harshly against the Rabbi, and in my opinion I thereby violated several interpersonal prohibitions. For that, I apologize, and I ask whether the Rabbi can forgive me.
And my question is: nowadays, with the tools we have, is it possible to calculate and determine what the correct pronunciation of the holy tongue is, and would research on the subject have halakhic implications? Thank you, and have a kosher and happy Passover.
Answer
Forgiven, forgiven. 🙂 In my understanding, there is nothing to ask forgiveness for if you acted as you thought was right.
I don’t know of a way to examine this, though it would be worth asking those who have dealt with it (such as Rabbi Mazuz). There are arguments there that can be examined.
So as not to leave the page blank, in the past I brought here my wife’s proof, may she live and be well, against the Ashkenazi pronunciation: “Do not read your sons, but your builders,” and according to the Ashkenazim the way they pronounce them comes out the same. But the proof was rejected, because with a holam they add a yod: “your builders.”
Discussion on Answer
What does it mean, “you acted as you thought was right”?
If I talk about someone and say harsh things about him—for example the well-known line used by people who don’t listen to what you say and only pull out headlines, that you’re a heretic—doesn’t that count as a transgression? (I know you don’t give a parsley about it.)
Literally that. If in his opinion I’m a heretic, and in his opinion one should come out strongly against heretics, then if that’s what he did, what exactly should he regret or ask forgiveness for? He acted according to the best of his understanding. If he hadn’t acted that way, then he would have needed to ask forgiveness (maybe not from me).
By the way, for me it connects more to haroset.
Isn’t that the meaning of malicious speech?
I got a mistaken impression of someone—of you, in the above example.
I didn’t check deeply enough, because otherwise I would have discovered that you don’t fit the definition I know of a heretic, like for example the questioner above.
And then I uttered insults against you and name-calling and slander.
The very fact that in the end he came to the opinion that you are not a heretic implies that had he investigated from the outset, he would have reached that conclusion (probably).
(And sorry to Yehuda, since it comes out that I’m speaking against him, but it’s for the sake of understanding.)
You’re just being stubborn. If I’m a heretic, there is no prohibition against speaking maliciously about me. If there is no permission to speak malicious speech, then he didn’t act according to his assumptions, and indeed he needs to repent. Your assumption that if he now thinks I’m not a heretic, that’s what he would also have concluded then, is a very strange assumption—according to it, a person never changes his worldview.
It’s all very nice that someone thinks you’re a heretic, but on what basis does he think that?
The insistence isn’t for nothing; it’s a principle of not accepting malicious speech and checking the details.
If some writer writes an article about someone saying he’s a heretic, am I allowed to accept his words without checking the matter?
The question is deeper: how much am I obligated to check what is said about someone before I form an opinion about him? And if you say that obviously one can’t verify each and every piece of information, because there’s no end to it, then why do you allow yourself to form an opinion without checking? Especially when it comes to something that might be malicious speech? On the contrary, you should look at every piece of information with an asterisk and not come out with certainty.
Maybe it’s hard, but hard is not something that should keep us from proper behavior.
So do you wrap them together like Hillel in the Temple?
We’re repeating ourselves. None of this is relevant. If he checked and reached conclusions and acted accordingly, then everything is fine. If he didn’t check properly, then of course it’s problematic. That’s all.
Rabbi Mazuz does indeed bring several interesting proofs. Among other things, from the meter and rhyme of ancient liturgical poems, which cannot work well with Ashkenazi pronunciation.