Mashiach and Eliyahu Hanavi

↑ fromthedepths ↓

Mon, Jun 24 2013, 2:41 pm

All right, let's do this point by point.

freidasima wrote:

From the Depths, I don't think you can even begin to fathom my religious world and that of many people like me.

Really? I know quite a number of people who identify as Dati Leumi.

Quote:

To us, you are looking for a "broader context", as you call it, solely within what your rabbis from your group, whatever it is, are about to teach you.

I never knew that the Ramchal or the Maharal were from my group. Live and learn.

Quote:

Our broader context includes the historical, cultural etc. background of the period in which something was discussed, but as what we are looking for is bottom line halocho, it is a nice thing to know but has no bearing on the halocho we keep "halocho lima'aseh". I see that you are really into what you consider "hashkofo" which is, of course, what your groups' rabbis are telling you it's ok to learn.

Funny, my Rav never told me what was OK for me to learn. Maybe I should go ask him.

Quote:

Well in my world we don't ask "our rabbis" if something is "ok to learn", and we also kind of keep to the letter of what was said, unlike what you did to my post.

FTR, I kept exactly to the letter of your post. Minus the sarcasm. A stylistic addition Wink

Quote:

Your addition of "loving someone as yourself"? What in the world does that have to do with anything.

Why don't you reread my posts above and see if you can figure it out.

OK, fine, I'll tell you. You mentioned that the concept of mashiach is purely hashkafic, and irrelevant to halacha. To which I responded that it is not true and it actually does come up in halacha. Where does it come up in halacha? In the context of the mitzvah of loving your fellow Jew, rebuking a sinner, and so on. For the purposes of these halachos, it is important to define who is included in these categories. That's where the Rambam brings the thirteen principles of faith to define who is included as a "kosher" Jew. Others argue with him. See above. My point in bringing this example, again, is to show that the concept of mashiach does come up in halacha.

Quote:

Again, your interpretation from only G-d knows where. Keep to the letter of what was written, seems you have trouble maintaining that string of thought. I stated "aveiro" versus "mitzvo" and nothing else. It is not a mitzvo to believe in moshiach, it is not an aveiro not to believe in moshiach. Period.

Again, this is not true. See all the sources mentioned above. This is an issue of halacha, not only hashkafa.

Quote:

Keep your additions to your own issues and don't rewrite other people's posts. Nowhere did I speak of milechaschila and bedieved, again, your addition.

Of course, it's my addition. When did I ever claim that you spoke of them? When did I ever rewrite your posts? What's wrong with me bringing up an additional dimension of the issue?

Quote:

And you can't seem to wrap your head around what I am saying about it being difficult enough to keep the actual LAW correctly. You seem to be some kind of tzadekes who has no trouble with that ever so you can spend lots of time learning Ramchal and other meforshim that float your boat.

Hmm... I think I'll take that as a compliment Wink

. Just kidding.

Quote:

That's great. But you know? For the rest of us plebs, we kind of have to spend a lot of time learning the actual LAW, the letter of the LAW, how one is halochically supposed to keep the LAW correctly...because you know what? That's what Judaism is all about.
First and foremost, keeping Jewish LAW correctly. That is Mitzvos. And how correctly not to committ aveiros.
That can take a lifetime to learn correctly. Again if hashkofo floats your boat then float it. But it doesn't float everyone's boat so don't knock them.

When did I ever knock anyone? I was trying to answer the OP's question about mashiach. You were the one who "knocked" her for asking the question in the first place!

Quote:

Let's see you keep the LAW correctly first and foremost. ALL the laws. And then we can talk further about hashkofo this or hashkofo that.

My sneaking suspicion is that you may belong to a group where....a lot of emphasis is put on hashkofo and not a lot on halocho and keeping the law correctly. Otherwise you would chap what I am talking about immediately.

Can you conceive of an emphasis on both? Or is that not what your religious world is like?

↑ fromthedepths ↓

Mon, Jun 24 2013, 2:52 pm

So for those who are genuinely interested in learning a bit about my world, here's the beginning of Bilvavi Mishkan Evne, AKA Building a Sanctuary in the Heart.

Quote:

The primary task of a person's service of Hashem is to clearly identify the purpose of his life.

Let us begin with a brief introduction.

Every Jew knows as a matter of course that there is a Creator Who created the world, including oneself. He also sustains the entire world, including oneself.

The Creator of the world tells each person what He expects of him. The root of the problem, however, lies in the fact that the person does not have a clear idea of what Hashem wants from him. What exactly does Hashem ask and expect him to do in his life?

One might ask, "Are we dealing with someone who does not know that we have a Torah given to us from Heaven? We have already received the Torah, which explains that man's purpose throughout his life is to fulfill the 613 mitzvos!"

However, the truth is that the world is called olam, which relates to the word he'elem, concealment, because here, in this world, there is tremendous confusion. It is Hashem's will that as long as one does not yearn and work very hard to ascertain precisely, "What does Hashem, your G-d, seek from you" (Devarim 10:12), he will not know it. His life will progress with confusion and obscurity, and he will not have a method of how to serve the Creator.

The point is that although undoubtedly, a person knows that he must keep the 613 mitzvos, service of Hashem is not merely the fulfillment of unrelated mitzvos whenever they present themselves. Rather, the 613 mitzvos must be fulfilled as if one is building an edifice, so that the mitzvos will build a person properly. Therefore, there needs to be a clearly defined method of fulfilling the mitzvos in an organized, structured form. One must know what is to be the beginning of the structure, its continuation, and what is the goal of fulfilling all the mitzvos. In other words, a person must clarify how fulfilling mitzvos builds his soul, and what process to follow in order to achieve this.

This is on one foot. Now go learn.

↑ chocolate fondue ↓

Mon, Jun 24 2013, 2:56 pm

FS you still haven't answered how you can dismiss all the times when Moshiach is relevant in Halacha as listed by others above.

Or how you can dismiss all the quotes listed above of when Moshiach is refered to in the Torah. And I'm sure I can bring many more. Starting from the second verse of Bereishis that says, “The spirit of G-d hovered above the waters,” on which the Midrash comments, “This is the spirit of Melech HaMoshiach.” (Bereishis Rabba 2, 4)

So you're basically saying you accept whatever the Mishnah and Gemarah say that has relevance to halacha that you keep and anything else is irrelevent because it wasn't mentioned before the Mishna and Gemara. (Of course it wasn't; it was transmitted orally. Only Tanach was written down. And the times Tanach refers to Moshiach doesn't count according to you, because that's only clarified by meforshim and midrash that was written down when they started to write down the Oral Torah.)

Re: Your case that people should keep the halochos properly before having hashkafa: Do you think everyone is a robot? First we do everything perfectly, the whole time before we can have a goal in life? A reason to mtivate us to do things besides perfect kabolas ol? Most folks are trying their best; but they still have a yetzer horah! That's not a reason for them not to have beliefs!

↑ PinkFridge ↓

Mon, Jun 24 2013, 6:49 pm

[quote="freidasima"]

Quote:

Very, very thought provoking points.
You are very right in that we have to learn halacha well, and there are great benefits to learning halacha well. I'm very grateful that my girls have had an excellent practical halacha curriculum. As for me, I didn't and was expected to learn through osmosis, I guess. The goal in my OOT BY back in the 70s (and established before, I guess) was that to keep the kids, broad general knowledge and enthusiasm for Yiddishkeit through lots of hashkafa were the best vehicles. All these years later, I wish I would have had a more rigorous curriculum, in school and at home. I had a very hard time with halacha classes in seminary. But I am also very grateful that I had so much good stuff instilled in me. Niskatnu hadoros maybe, but we all need a lot of that. Not to dumb things down and have kumsitz and cholent Judaism. I mean real content like classical sometimes mind-blowing and -bending hashkafa.

But this is what floats my boat.

↑ yogabird ↓

Mon, Jun 24 2013, 11:06 pm

5*Mom wrote:

yogabird wrote:

Yeah, and there's no such thing even as a pure legal system. Every legal system is created within a broader context, and with the goal to create a certain type of society.

Without any touch feely meforshim or hashkafa, the word mitzvah-command contains a wealth of information regarding their nature.

Starting with the fact that the root of the word mitzvah is related to that of tzavsah-a connection. Because a command connects the commander and the commanded.

This is not touchy-feely. This is dry (or rich) etymology.

Aaaah, now you're talking!

The world was created with words. We learn about the world, the context for our Torah, through the words, the connections and patterns between the words, through what is said, how it is said, what isn't said... Aaaah, words!

5*Mom, PLEASE don't get too excited about etymology because that might take it the realm of the purely factual to the fuzzy realm of touch-feeliness, and then FS won't like it Wink

(FTR, I totally agree with you. Loshon Hakodesh is so rich and nuanced, which is precisely what makes it so difficult to dichotomize between literal and exegetical meanings, and by the same token, what makes it so LOGICAL to find connections between incidents and ideas that at first glance seem totally unrelated)

↑ freidasima ↓

Tue, Jun 25 2013, 12:13 am

Just a few clarifications.
It's Kellner not KALLNER, at least get his name right, that's like writing RIMCHAL and not RAMCHAL and he is first and foremost an Orthodox Rabbi.
David Berger is first and foremost an Orthodox Rabbi. Actually a very well known one internationally in the MO world. A musmach of Rav Soloveichic, just BTW, one of his "talmidim muvhakim". As far as I remember Kellner was as well, a bit younger than Rabbi Prof. Berger.
In the MO world unlike the charedi one Rabbonim can and usually also have additional degrees, often in Jewish studies.
I learned ramchal, maharal, etc, etc. in depth probably long before you were born Potato and Yoga if you are the average age of Imamothers on this site.
Nothing wrong with learning them but they are not halocho, nor is their hashkofo something one must ascribe to in order to be a good Jew. You are misportraying yiddishkeit if you continue to portray it as such.
One may disagree totally with them and continue to be a good Jew.

And all your argumentation still doesn't change the fact that you are too lazy to read Kellner's book and get the answers to your questions. I don't have time to post laundry lists like Potato does.

If you think that "ki katuv" is the loftiest kavvana, I suppose you also know that the most famous person behind that thought as the one and only true rationale for keeping mitzvos was Prof. (also Rabbi, just BTW) Yeshayahu Leibowitz, the scourge of the charedi world.

No where in text does the term "nishma" in naaseh venishma is "learning the reason behind the mitzvot". It means literally to hear. To hear what we are commanded to do. Not to "learn". That is already interpretation.

Chocolate - keeping a mitzva correctly is not being a robot. You keep it because G-d commanded it, period. You keep it because you buy into a system in which G-d is king, you are his servant. You keep a commandment just because it was commanded by your king. That should be enough reason.

From the depths, the "bilvavi" rabbi who refuses to say his name and gets all these haskomos for something like that without giving his credentials...well that's nice if it works for you and makes you happy but in my world that's real koolaid. There is no way that someone coming from that world could even begin to fathom my world, although in my world (psychology, therapy) we do a lot of work with people with the fallout from what appears to be your world.

Finally from the depths, I can concieve very well of the world you describe when you write "can't you conceive both (halocho and hashkofo that guides it). You however obviously can't conceive that a world that lives by halocho without all the hashkofic this and that around it, is an equally good Jewish world to yours. That's been my point all along and you keep sidestepping it.

Last edited by freidasima on Tue, Jun 25 2013, 1:14 am; edited 1 time in total

↑ freidasima ↓

Tue, Jun 25 2013, 12:26 am

Yoga I know Hebrew etymology pretty well but I don't follow your deconstruction of the world mitzva. Maybe because it is in transliteration. What is the word in Ivrit that means connection that is the root of the word mitzva? Tzadik, Vav, hey. Tzaveh. Command. Not connect. Connect is Kuf Shin Resh root. Kesher. Tzaveh is one way. Kesher is two ways. That's the root difference and etymology of the roots.

No one claims that the legal system doesn't have a context. All legal systems do. However the minute you go into context you realize that you are opening yourself up to the bogeyman I keep citing that you fear. Social Construct. Because the minute you say that a legal system is connected to its context it is connected to its social construct. And thus, when a new and contrary social construct to the previous takes over the world in which one lives, that legal system, if it is created to a social construct...well that, that is an opening for the demand to change/alter what is in that legal system. And then how much does one change? and if it no longer has any bearing on the social construct in which one lives because one took the context into account when keeping the legal system...well if one claims that one can't change the fundamentals of that legal system (or any of it, as many charedi groups do...) well that will cause tremendous dichotomy for the people keeping that legal system and ultimately cause many to just chuck up the whole thing.

As many in the charedi world are doing all over the world, just quietly so that the charedim try and ignore it.

That's the difference. A dati leumi or MO who has a problem with the system, picks and chooses and doesnt keep everything (or keep correctly one would say).
A charedi who has a problem with the system? They chuck the whole thing away and usually become nothing because the concept of becoming MO/Dl is anathema to them.
And then they are lost for good.

that's the problem with not viewing Judaism as a legal system but starting to look for the significance of broader context.

etky ↓

Tue, Jun 25 2013, 1:26 am

freidasima wrote:

And in the MO world we also have thinkers like Tamar Ross who, by including social construct as a component in the process of ongoing, cumulative revelation, neutralize the perception that it is inimical to the authoritativeness of the traditional rabbinic halachic process.

↑ chocolate fondue ↓

Tue, Jun 25 2013, 2:13 am

freidasima wrote:

Once again, we don't pasken by the Rambam NOR by R. Yosef Albo. We pasken by the SA and its commentators as interpreted by our rabbis.

Can you send us to a source in the SA which states that it is an aveiro not to believe in the coming of the moshiach in the sense that the rambam speaks?

There have been lots of studies written in the past few decades that collect all the sources which show that it is possible to be a good, practicing and believing Jew without accepting any of the 13 ikkarim of the rambam EXCEPT those having to do with the belief in the singularity, omnipotence and existence of Hashem, the fact that he gave us the one and only torah and that he was and is the creator of heaven and earth (I.e. the universe). I suggest that you look at the SOURCES and RABBONIM cited by Menachem Kellner in "Must a Jew believe anything" (expanded edition 2006).

I can fully sympathize with you that after being taught your whole life that the belief in Moshiach is a fundamental belief of Judaism and that someone who doesn't accept it fully is an apikores, but the fact is that in spite of what you were taught, in practice Orthodox Judaism doesn't work that way. It may be (today) a minority Orthodox approach not to accept that Ikkar of the Rambam, but it exists, and most important, it is TOTALLY halochically acceptable, even if socially and culturally considered unusual by some, particularly the more right wing and charedi factions of orthodoxy.

So everyone is wrong except some guy called Menachem Kellner? Why are we discussing Rambam altogether if we don't follow halacha according to the Rambam. Who cares?

↑ yogabird ↓

Tue, Jun 25 2013, 2:18 am

FS, I can get you more clarity on tzavsah meaning connection.

But you know what? It's really superfluous. Because even if you just want to go with tziva meaning command, this implies a commander, and a commanded, and thus immediately begs the questions, who and why?

About your other responses, I don't follow how you get from broader context to social constructs.

The same chazal that read the lines in the Torah and interpret their meaning, read between the lines and interpret their meaning. Once again, drash, remez and sod as just as integral parts of the Torah as pshat.

And even pshat is an interpretation to some degree.

And then, even if I grant you that when sticking to pshat, there is likely to be more consensus regarding interpretation, and drash, remez and sod opens up a pandora's box of opinions, so they are more prone to distortion and MISinterpretation, is this a reason to negate or ignore and and all attempts at such formulations?