Dinosaurs | Imamother

Log in / Sign Up

List of Forums + New Post Recipe Box Usergroups Following My Posts Bookmarks

Private Messages Rules New User Guide FAQ Advertise Contact Us

Forum -> Interesting Discussions

Dinosaurs

Previous 1 2 3 11 12 13 14 Next

View latest: 24h 48h 72h

↑ amother ↓

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 11:59 am

BlueRose,

Well the Rambam a renowned DR and "research" expert himself, writing centuries after the redacting and completion of the Talmud says the following

a) those who as a result of their "perceived" knowledge of science know more about the word and it's realities are a) fools b) cursed.

Does not sound as if that woud agree with the modern "rationalist judaisim" approach that Chazal only knew the scientific knowledge of thier day.

The Rambam then writes that people who are "smart" so to speak, realize from the few scattered places that the Sages write about it, the "truth was known to them about what prevents thing from happening and what causes things from happening" and that the Sages comprehended everything.

Now please tell me what you think the Rambam means.

↑ amother ↓

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 12:09 pm

BlueRose52 wrote:

This accusation was troubling me, so I looked into it a bit more, and dug up some well argued sources that might explain some of the basis for why people don't accept the Zohar as authoritative.
http://parsha.blogspot.com/201......html
http://www.zootorah.com/contro.....h.pdf (Note: Even though this is hosted on his site, Rabbi Slifkin isn't the author of this essay. He just hosts it so it's easily accessible.) If you don't feel inclined to read a whole long essay on this topic, just jump to the last section of the essay, titled, "Contemporary Gedolim’s Opinions", which is pretty fascinating.

I am sorry but due to filters I can't access that site.

If you can simply provide a list of those who did not learn Zohar it would be appreciated.

Something along the lines of the following

1) Ramban ( Nachmonides)
2) the Rivash
3) the Mahral of Prague
2) The Arizal
3) Rav Moshe Chaim Luzzato (The Ramchal)
4 ) Rav Moshe Cordevero ( Tomer Devorah)
5) The Beis Yosef ( Shulchan Aruch)
6) Rav Yonason Eibushitz
7) The Besht
8) The Tanya
9) The Vilna Gaon
10) Rav Chaiom Volozhiner

I just listed a partial list of those who either wrote extensivley on such matter's, who taught them, or who took famous positions on it.

↑ BlueRose52 ↓

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 12:16 pm

amother wrote:

Again, I think you're misrepresenting the view of the Rambam AND of the rationalist camp, and I don't want to get into a back-and-forth about details of this topic. It has been dissected ad infinitum both online and in print. My point was to show that there is merit to that approach and it's not a casual dismissal, nor is it intellectually dishonest to take that position. I think that point has been made. For anyone that really wants to get into the meat of this topic, I'm sure you can figure out which books to pick up or which sites to peruse.

Also, here's a nice, detailed listing and breakdown of many differing sources in Rabbinic literature that demonstrate that all is not so black-and-white when it comes to the "traditional" view of how to consider the issue of chazal and science:

http://torahandscience.blogspo......html
And a follow-up on that: http://torahandscience.blogspo......html

↑ BlueRose52 ↓

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 12:21 pm

amother wrote:

I am sorry but due to filters I can't access that site.

It's just incredible how it's viewed as totally normal for an internet filter to be blocking out torah discussions as "inappropriate material".

What were we saying about intellectual honesty?

↑ amother ↓

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 12:25 pm

I just wanted to add that I purposley left out Sephardic Jewry since esoteric studies by the Sephardim have become a much more "open" pursuit unlike by the Ashkenazim where it is limited to advanced scholards and even then it is generally hiden.

However a fascinating point from Sephardic Literature on the topic would be from the Chida (Rav Yosef Chaim Azulai) who lived around 250 years ago.

One of the most famous and popular works of the Chida is "Shem HaGedolim", the comprehensive bibliography the Chida wrote about the famous scholars and books in Jewish History. In that book the Chidah displays his incredible memory as well as his incredible an wide ranging knowledge of manuscripts that he had seen and studied throughout his travels (as a"meshulach" for the Holy land he visitied dozens of countires literally)

Now one should know that in his Halachic works the Chida rules almost consistently in accordance with the Ramabam.

Yet in his entry on the Rambam in Shem HaGedolim he cites a tradition amongst certain scholars (he names them) that the Rambam had been exposed to Kabbalistic knowledge and as a result reversed a great many of the positions he had taken in Moreh Nevuchim.

↑ amother ↓

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 12:27 pm

BlueRose52 wrote:

How can I be misrepresenting the view of the Rambam when I'm basically transalating it word for word?

↑ PinkFridge ↓

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 12:30 pm

BlueRose52 wrote:

I don't think you can base anything on that. Nor should you. I just thought it was very interesting. If you're looking to draw some conclusions, you should do that based on the 40 pages of arguments in the essay, not from some anonymous anecdotes.

I definitely appreciate that. And your post directly below. (Haven't got to the rest yet.)
And I have to thank you. I am beginning to feel less condescended to and patronized. (Something I felt I should pursue on the Rational Irrational thread rather than hijack.) But my life's hectic for a few days.

↑ PinkFridge ↓

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 12:35 pm

BlueRose52 wrote:

It's just incredible how it's viewed as totally normal for an internet filter to be blocking out torah discussions as "inappropriate material".

What were we saying about intellectual honesty?

Yeah, these filters are wild, but on the whole I like mine.
And let's say that people reject the Zohar. There is the concept of PaRDeS. I don't get into the other levels too much but I do believe that they can't be discounted.

↑ BlueRose52 ↓

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 12:37 pm

Since you brought up the topic of sefardim, I'll just mention that according to Chacham Ovadia, one who doubts that the Zohar is authentic is not to be considered a kofer. See below (the group being referred to as Darda'im are a Yemenite group which denies the authority of the Zohar):

↑ BlueRose52 ↓

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 12:42 pm

PinkFridge wrote:

Does anyone dispute this? I'm definitely not.

↑ amother ↓

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 12:46 pm

Look if I recall correctly the only "solid" source that they found that sort of backs up their position is an excerpt of HaMaspik L'ovdei Hashem from Rabbi Avrohom ben HaRambam that is qouted somewhere.

However that source is problematic for several reason, they have found the original arabic that it was translated from, which makes clear the translator was not making a literal translation at al, furthermore the original araboc for the section in question is missing and it is qouted in no other place. For a detailed and extensive discussion about this source with extensive footnote see Torah, Chazal, and Science by Rabbi Moshe Meiselmann who by the way is a graduate of Cambridge (summa come laude, I believe) as well as Harvard.

They may have found other sources I have no idea, and if I reme,ber I'll lood at the list you linked to.

But the point is not whether there are isolated opinions that endorse such a view, the point is what the traditional accepted approach is and has been and how the alternitive approach has been viewed.

The traditional approach has never been that of Rational Judaisim, nor has it come even close to being viewed as an acceptable one.

For example's one can view the Ramban's in the begining of Parshas VaYeira, The Ramchal in mamar Ha'Agdos, the Rambam himself that was qouted earlier, Several Responsa in Rivash and Rashba, the intro to Yam Shel Shlomo as well as numerous other works.

In fact that was the typically short ansewer given by Rav Chaim Kanievsky shlita when asked about it once again basically "it was already discussed and decided".
( I think that the actual words of the ansewer were "the Vilna Gaon already said that the Rambam wrote what he did because he did not have Zohar")

In short the approach taken by RJ has always been considered heresy or borderline heresy in Judaisim. To profess shock and question why now the view towards them has not changed is being quite dishonest.

↑ BlueRose52 ↓

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 12:56 pm

amother wrote:

In short the approach taken by RJ has always been considered heresy or borderline heresy in Judaisim. To profess shock and question why now the view towards them has not changed is being quite dishonest.

Unequivocally false. Non-mainstream opinions, sure. But heresy or borderline heresy? Totally not true.

See that listing I referred to above. Many Rishonim, Achronim, and even prior that are openly espousing views that you are labeling heresy.

↑ amother ↓

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 12:58 pm

The question is not whether one who due to tradition disputes the authenticity of the Zohar is a kofer, The question is one who has no such tradition, and quite the opposite belongs to a tradition where the place of the Zohar has long been cemented, yet still disputes the authority of the Zohar and on account of that advocates a completley novel approach to Judaisim is considered a Heretic, I believe numerous contempories of Chacham Ovadia have ruled on that.

(and I say traditionally acceopted the Zohar since the "founders" so to speak of rationalist Judaisim claim themselves as part of the Litvish Chareidi camp, which as you pointed out on a different thread view themselves as spiritual heirs of Volozhin which was started by Rav Chaim Volozhiner a student of the Vilna Gaon. The Vilna Gaon was quote forceful in his commendations of thos who took a rationailistic approach and wrote commentary on Kabbalistic works and Rav Chaim Volozhiners Nefesh haChaim which is one of the primary works of Jewish Thought in theyeshivah world is replete with qoutations of entire sections of Zohar, more recently the Chofetz Chaim was more then well versed in Zohar as any casual perusal of Shemiras HaLoshon and Chofetz Chayim shows, so in essence RJ wishes to reject the foundational outlook of the greats of the camp they claim to be a part of, yet be shocked when they are dismissed from that camp).

↑ amother ↓

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 1:04 pm

BlueRose52 wrote:

Again I gave you a list of sources stating exactly that.

Just to point out words of the Rambam himself ththat we discussed earlier, those who feel they know more the the Sages "fools" and "cursed".

↑ amother ↓

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 1:08 pm

I just wanted to make something clear.

I do not ch"v feel qualified to express my personal opinions on anything held by the Gedolei Yisroel under discussion on this thread. In fact I personally do ne even feel qualified to have an opinion, nor am I fool enough to think I am learned enough in this topics to have an educated opinion.

I am am merely pointing out the opinion that has been "codified" in a way and accepted for centuries by Gedolei Yisroel on these matters,

↑ BlueRose52 ↓

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 1:08 pm

I don't dispute that you have sources to back up your position, but you simply can't claim that, "the approach taken by RJ has always been considered heresy or borderline heresy in Judaism," when there are countless accepted sources that say otherwise.

Is anyone else noticing a pattern here?

↑ BlueRose52 ↓

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 1:29 pm

As I expected was going to happen, this whole discussion seems to be descending into something like a rehashing of the legitimacy of the Rationalist school of thought, and like I said, I don't really want to get into the details of that whole messy topic. It's already been analyzed endlessly. But I really can't stand when people just dismiss things as heresy, end of discussion. So here are two further pieces of documentation from some very respected talmidei chachamim who vouch for his approach. And note, these two rabbonim gave him haskamos for his books too, but these letters are in response to the controversy AFTER all the attacks against his position were brought up.

Rabbi Aryeh Carmell
Rabbi Chaim Malinowitz

Are there other rabbonim who disagree with them? Sure, of course there are. But it just seems totally wrong to me to dismiss his approach as kefira, whether by denying what's in plenty of rabbinic source texts or by denying the contemporary rabbinic support for his position.

ascsam

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 1:49 pm

I would say along the lines of:
There's a midrash that God gave the Torah in the 100th generation.
Moshe Rabbeinu was only generation #26.
There were creations before our creation.
We are the culmination of Creation, just the world that HaShem wanted.
We are here to <insert>
And any day now Moshiach will come!
The other Creations? We don't know much about them, but sometimes scientists find interesting things buried in the ground & we can guess about what the other creations were. Now let's think about all the wonderful things in our world that we can thank HaShem for.

↑ amother ↓

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 2:15 pm

If I would take a poll of many of the top Doctors in the World over certain matters.

Al these Doctors would say the same thing, there would be pretty much a consensus opinion regarding a certain matter.

Thena couple of respected but minor Doctors would state they disagree.

Would you then be suprised that the majority of individuas follow those who have earned the position of being the top in thier field, the fin address so to speak.

It's kind of similar.

The two Rabbis you are qouting are not considered by anyone to be final authorities or even close to that.
Talmidei Chachomim yes, responsible for a great deal of harbotzas torah, yes.
Leaders? Final Authorities?
No even close.

Under discussion is fundemantal approaches to Talmud.

The facts are that the approach under discussion has been called heresy or borderline heresy for wel over a thousand years.
Leaving out a line in translating the Rambam will not change what he actually writes, "cursed" in my book is a pretty strong term.

And when the present day giants are given the approach used, and they respond the way they do, it's pretty hard to understand why people are shocked.

When I qoute Rav Chaim Kanievski shlita one of the Gedolei Yisroel by any yardstick and renowned sage who has written commetnary on every little known topic in the Torah (including a disertion on the anatomy and different species of grasshoppers) and you respond with Rabbi Chaim Malinowitz a little known Rav in Beis Shemesh it's a little disingenous.

Likewise when one is aware that Rabbi Slifkin himself considered Rabbi Moshe Shapiro, who is considered the present day giant of "Machshova" the greatest expert of Jewish Thought, as well as a student of Rav Dessler, his Rebbi. Yet Rabbi Shapiro did not just condemn the approach of RJ, he wrote a detailed letter explaining how similar approach's were taken previously and considered heretical. In addition Rabbi Shapiro also had a seminary terminate the teaching position of Rabbi Slifkin because he fundemtally felt that the RJ approach does not conform with Judaic thought, and you respond with Rabbi Carmell a"h, again it's pretty disingenous.

The question is not whether or not there were islotaed opinions expressing the views of RJ, from my understanding there were those that's expressed one part or another, but never the philosophy as whole.
The real question is what was the response of traditional Judaisim to that approach, was it ever considered alegitamte or accurate approach? Or was it condemned, disproven, and shown to be either misinformed or uninformed of certain parts of Torah.

Any honest historical appraisal of Judaisim historically lends one to the unmistakeable conclusion that not just were similar approaches argued upon, they were forcefully condemned.

( another interesting point,the words of Rabbi Samson R. Hirsh regarding the begining theory of evolution are used by RJ to justify their approach. Yet RSRH wrote a condemnation of the approach of Moreh Nevuchim in his famous Nineteen Letters that was so forceful, (he wrote that MN had done more damage to Klal Yosroel then Moses Mendelsohn) that when the Nineteen Letters was originally transalated into Hebrew the Chazon Ish told them to leave that part out for fear people would misunderstand it.
So similarly to how they have used Rambam himself, RJ seems to have cherry picked one thing from RSRH yet totaly ignored the rest of his writings and then once agin professed "shock" when in line with RSRH their approach is veiwed as illegitamte.)

↑ amother ↓

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 2:21 pm

Bluerose
I do admire the fact that you seem to be taking an honest approach towards all of this stuff and have a genuine curiosity about the source.
It's something we can all learn to do more of.

Page 12 of 14

Previous 1 2 3 11 12 13 14 Next