with the event of sinai we learn that for all gernation the people of Israel do not need to further make such an oath as we will do and we will hear. for it is an oath which was passed by unto us. though thoses who desire to convert are place in a sitiution that they will affirm that they will be apart of the jewish people. however just at Sinai we recieve this oath so has Noach and all his decedents recieve and are under the oath which he made with HaShem. so there is no need for them to reaffirm it.

now perhaps it will make it easier to define who is a Noachide and who is not. however there is no obligation to reaffirm a set convent which they were born into from their forefather Noach. and the RamBam knew this that is why he didn't make mention of it. however if you have a place within the Gemora which such a matter araises or even in the whole Tankh in which awhole people have to reaffirm their birth right in each and every generation i would be more then glad to take a look at that area. otherwise how dare we request of these Bni Noach more then what is require of us and of THEM.

the Mishnah Torah was written for scholars as well for them to review and the fact that Moshe wrote it in a time of the exile therefore he doesn't make mention of it doesn't mean anything for the rambam talking about a jewish king, offerings in the Beit HaMikdash, and many other things which were not practice in his day and in ours. so the mere fact he doesn't make mention of such a thing should make us wonder if they are under such an obligation.

the Rambam doesn't say they can't make an oath to affirm that they will be an observent in their practice of their heritage however that is a personal thing no different then a Baal Tshuva deciding to make this oath of returning to torah. but that is where it begans and ends for them as it is taught the reason for the fall of man from eden is because he could not live by the fence around the Torah he had made for another by his words.

Isn't it so inconvenient that geonim and reshomin did not learn the gemarah like RaMBaM? Simple solution crown RaMBaM king of the reshonim and ignore all lessor mortals. It seems some people in their zeal confuse Torah with the dogmatism of the Catholic church. The B'hag learned that king David instituted the 100 blessings, because one of the 613 commandments constitutes an obligation upon every Torah observant bnei brit through the generations to cut a brit. The B'hog understood the intent of R. Akiva, and both R. Yochannan and Resh Lakish's understanding of the intent of R. Akiva that a blessing qualifies as a form of an oath from the Torah. Havaqok the prophet 3:9 also the reshonim understood that a blessing shares a close relationship with an oath. The halachah follows R. Yochannan that a blessing requires HaShem and Malkut, the standing prayer lacks this qualification but requires kavvanna. A similar precident is found in z'mun it too lacks HaShem and Malkut but one opinion holds, and the halacha according to the Safardim, follows this opinion, that kavvanna raises the z'mun into a proper blessing. The end of the 3rd chapter of Rosh HaShanna: stomm mishneh, R. Meir - reading the Megilla requires kavvanna. According to the Gra, המלך hints unto Elokim. Number 29 of the middot of R. Yossi a "hint" can include a numerical value. Compare the value of המן with המלך. If one requires the kavvanna to wipe out the memory of Amelek the other requires the kavvanna to accept the Torah, b/c that's what happened on Purim. The logical inference being that malkut requires "choice". The standing prayer, to make an oath a person needs to stand before a safer torah. What's in a bet kinnesit? This prayer is adjacent unto the krea shma, each of the Avot cut a unique brit by means of an oath. Whats the word "ONE" come to teach? It seems to me that seeing that a person can sit and make an oath with his tefillen and a person should say krea shma with tefillen that the intent of "ONE" - a person can choose to bind his soul with the responsibility of keeping the oaths cut by the Avot, but this requires kavvanah of learning the oaths that the Avot swore for the purpose of cutting a brit with Elokim. Hence "ONE"!
Placing the One upon HaShem ie its called Monotheism, means placing the burden of the commandment upon אחר, irregardless that a person's lips cry "ONNNNNNNNNEEEEEEE". Fools approach HaShem with their lips while their hearts are empty.

Next this narishkite of bowing down before the superiority of the Reshonim qualifies as the dust of avodah zarah. Its not RaMBaM that was great but rather the Divine Presence revealed through the servant of HaShem. The Elokim does not change. And all generation are equally close to the brit revelation of Sinai for the Elokim transcends time, this is called מעשה בראשית.

with respect,
moshe

quote:

Originally posted by moshe kerr:

Placing the One upon HaShem ie its called Monotheism, means placing the burden of the commandment upon אחר, irregardless that a person's lips cry "ONNNNNNNNNEEEEEEE". Fools approach HaShem with their lips while their hearts are empty.

Did you mean to say "אחד" with a ד and not a ר?

Moshe Kerr you seems to have a serious problem with the RamBam. as well none of the rishonim as far as i know clearly state that a non-jew has to make an oath that they will follow hte practice of the noachide. thus if that is what you saying then please bring the soruce down to us.

quote:

Originally posted by moshe kerr:
Next this narishkite of bowing down before the superiority of the Reshonim qualifies as the dust of avodah zarah. Its not RaMBaM that was great but rather the Divine Presence revealed through the servant of HaShem. The Elokim does not change. And all generation are equally close to the brit revelation of Sinai for the Elokim transcends time, this is called מעשה בראשית.

This I don't think is correct. The Tano'im were considered greater than the Amoro'im, the Amoro'im greater than the Geonim, the Geonim greater than the Rishonim and so on. The further away we get from Matan Torah so do the generations become lower.

And as Mack K has pointed out, you have not given any sources for your thesis.

RaMBaM considered the geonim as "local" authorities. Rashi openly declares a logical argument of Onkeloes as an error. The trouble starts when people try to force a square peg of p'shat into the round hole of drash.

with respect,
moshe

Moshe this is all interesting thoughts however will you point out clearly these events. for like with rashi and onkeloes as well as the Rambam issue.

as well Rashi though a later rabbi then Onkeloes never the less we should give good weight tow hat rashi say simply because there is somthing bothering rashi about the text that doesn't sit right and usully he doesn't just make his own comment but rather refer to an older source. no different then if i disagree with rashi however for my proof I might bring in the RamBan or some R' from an much earlier generation then him. now if your saying that is not the case then please bring us actual cases within text that we may take a look at.

quote:

Originally posted by moshe kerr:
RaMBaM considered the geonim as "local" authorities. Rashi openly declares a logical argument of Onkeloes as an error. The trouble starts when people try to force a square peg of p'shat into the round hole of drash.

Will you stop writing in riddles and bring some "chapter and verse" to back up all you have been saying.

Will you also answer this simple question:

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was greater than the Rambam - true or false? Explain your answer.

RaMBaM in his intro to the Book of the Commandments. Rashi in his commentary to the chumash look it up. Rabbi Yehuda HaNassi is a man and so too RaMBaM they share equality in their common humanity. Rabbi's Mishneh clearly has more authority than does RaMBaM's halachic code. The former teaches Oral Torah logic whereas the latter makes a legal codification of p'sak din. Even a child can distinguish between the sun and the moon. Just because the sun has a more critical funcition in life does not make it superior to the moon. The two are apples and oranges. Comparing apples and oranges is logically not logical. If a person wants to understand a cat he should not go around looking at leaves on a tree. My heart obviously has a more critical burden to my life than does my hand, but not even a child would say that his/her hand is inferior to his heart. Both serve an essential function of life. So too serious Torah scholarship. Serious Torah scholarship assists people's search to seek Elokim through the Torah. Inferior Torah non-scholarship talks about the Torah. It, non-scholarship, shares comparison with talking "about" a person with other people. Alas allot of people confuse talking about the Torah with personalities of Torah scholars that learned through the Torah for the purpose of seeking the rulership of Elokim within His oath dedicated lands.

Elokim judges the measure of His Divine Presence that He reveals into the world at a given moment; that's His choice NOT mine. Outside of the brit relationship i can not comprehend the Elokim. To even attempt to judge the choice of Elokim, well the mishneh in Sotah teaches explicitly on this: that if a person contemplates on matters beyond him, that which is above him etc, its better that that person should never have come into the world.

Seeing that many many folk ask the question that your asking i want to thank you for allowing me to clear this matter up.

with respect,
moshe

I wasn't asking you to compare the Mishna to the Mishna Torah.

Given all you've said (and I don't profess to understand all of it) why may an Amora not argue directly with a Tanna?

Torah addresses the brit between the nation of Israel and the Elokim. Its not the personalities that's important but rather the revelation of the Elokim through the leadership of personalities. Its a matter where one places the stress or emphasis. In the discussion at hand its not Rabbi Yehudah HaNassi and RaMBaM but rather their leadership of the Jewish people as recorded in their great works Mishneh and Mishneh Torah.
The scholars of the gemarah limited themselves towards understanding the intent of Rabbi. This in no way limits the revelation of Elokim within the soul of man. Rather it highlights the teaching of Hillel the elder that the essence of Torah centers upon learning the intent of a matter. Consequently without the gemarah scholars of later generations could only learn P'shat on the language of Rabbi. P'shat is not intent. A quick examination of the classic commentaries on the chumash reveals quite a discrepency among the Reshonim concerning how to understand P'shat. The style of the Mishneh is a Common Law approach of Case/Rule. Hence the gemarah employs a style whereby a scholar brings a precident and that precident is challenged as being a valid precident difficulty/answer. The gemarah scholars employ this technique of Common Law that a given situation or event influences or shapes a person perspective of how to "understand" the intent of the language of Rabbi. An easy example of this one can see in drafting. A blue print is a picture drawn on a 2 dimensional piece of paper, that allows the person who reads the blueprint to understand a 3 dimensional idea. It does this by giving 3 different views of the structure, a front,side, and top viewpoint of the dimensions of a given structure. Its important to discern that its not the event or action that the gemarah brings thats the issue, but rather the logic that ties or links the event or action to the language of the Mishneh. This discipline of logically tying an event or action toward understanding the Mishneh - this is Oral Torah. Contrast RaMBaM where his great work places the emphasis of upon a particular defined action or event and rules the halacha as following one given precident as opposed to another. The emphasis being how a fromm Jew should walk before Elokim according to the halacha. Very valid leadership and teaching. None the less this is a leadership decision that is entirely different than the scholars of the gemarah taught and lead their generation; which also qualifies as a very valid leadership and teaching.

Again i want to thank you, your question addresses a point of Torah scholarship that many have failed to discern - its an excellent question and requires allot of consideration.

with respect,
moshe

I am completely lost perhaps it is due to it being 2:30 in the morning here. so the sake of arugment i will say ok moshe kerr now what proof do you bring that a Noachide must make such an oath that he is a Noachide?please quote the soruce an example will be sukkah 34, shulchan aruch semin 23. or somthing of that nature.

When the Avot cut a brit with another party an oath was always involved. The Avot as teachers of bnai noach, the generations stand in their shadow. The Elokim cut a brit with Noach. A brit requires an oath according to the teaching of the Avot. Defining the nature of this oath/brit requires allot of Talmud. A Torah scholar of most basic necessity should seek to understand the intent of the oaths that the Avot swore by which to cut a brit with the Elokim. Elokim swore to give the lands of Canaan as an eternal inheritance to the descendents of the Avot; past this obvious given the study of Torah centers upon deriving the oaths that the Avot in turn swore unto the Elokim. The Avot were and remain bnai noach. The revelation of the Torah only amplified the brit bnai noach, for Avraham kept all the commandments!
I realize that our fast food generation wants fast quick answers, but deep ideas do not dawn upon the soul by spoon feeding. If these ideas were simply black and white there'd be no really pressing need to seek the Elokim. Study of Oral Torah trains a person to develop unique logical skills. Once a student develops sufficiently these basic logical fundamentals then this scholar can begin to interpret the intent of the Written Torah with an eye toward defining halacha for the needs of his/her generation. Standing the Torah upon precidents requires allot of learning. This understanding is defined as a thing in the midst of another thing; folding the gemarah upon a mishneh or a gemarah upon another gemarah to logically compare a common usage of phrase - it is not chapter and verse fundamentalism. Its the systematic approach by which a person learns Torah and thereby forms opinions and conclusions that address his/her given reality of the moment; a living Torah does not worship words in holy books, rather a Torah scholar defines and refines his/her middot tohorot and middot tumaot and dedicates his middot tohorot as the defined and refined emotional image of Elokim to entice and establishing a unity with the 13 middot Elokim, this avodah is called keeping shabbos. Developing an understanding of holiness did not occur because i read some words from a page of gemarah. Currently i'm on my 16th adventure through Sha's and this logical inference to the 39 middot of keeping shabbos hit me like wow what an opportunity! Logical deduction i personally have not found in chapter and verse memorization of scripture texts. Learning Torah is so cool when a logical deduction dawns upon rational thought and understanding. This is how i learn.

with respect,
moshe

Quote "a living Torah does not worship words in holy books,"

Yes he does. In order to know what Torah really says, of course you need to study the works of the people who understood them the best. otherwise the person sounds like randomly rambling and don't make any sense.

quote:

Currently i'm on my 16th adventure through Sha's

Wow! You're 47 and already you have learned through Shas 15 times. That's impressive.

Mind you, I don't agree with your theory that one should ideally learn Talmud without reference to the Rishonim etc.

The best sources for understanding Sh'as is midrash, tosefta, targum, Yerushalmi and of course T'nach. The later commentaries offer invaluable assitance. But the "ones who knew it best" are the contempories of the teachers who codified the Mishneh and Talmud. This is an obvious truth that all reshonim acknowledged but has become a stumbling block for many achronim.

There's a world of difference between a primary source and a secondary commentary, irregardless of how famous and popular the secondary commentary might become it in no way what so ever compares to primary sources. This is scholarship 101.

The reshonim did an invaluable service to Jewry and Judaism. Aknowledging their secondary role vis a vis halachic midrashim tosefta, yerushalmi midrash rabbah tonhuma t'nach etc in no way dimenishes their esteem and value. Rashi's commentary on the Gemarah is a work of art a treasure to Israel and an honor to Elokim. The halachic commentaries of the Rif and the Rosh gave light unto Israel in the darkest night of european exile.
But Torah teaches explicitly: Do not recognize faces in judgment. Torah constitutes as a strict discipline of defining and refining logical rational middot and tohor/tumah irrational middot. The former - conscious thought while the latter non conscious emotional drives that shapes/Yozir a person's perception of reality.

with respect,
moshe

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Yisroel Phillips,

Quote "
Currently i'm on my 16th adventure through Sha's


Wow! You're 47 and already you have learned through Shas 15 times. That's impressive."

Someone who would have done that would be able to quote Shas extensively, giving the exact Daf where every quote is located. Thus I would expect, even if you don't want to quote from the Rishonim, many proofs from all over Shas in order to support your theories (and also in all other threads of the GY that discuss Gemaras.)

measure for measure, bring a gemarah and we can discuss.

with respect,
moshe

What I meant is, when people ask their Shailos, that you should be able to contribute by quoting as many Gemaras that pertain to it.