Quote “the people who were living right before him where the basraim according to you.”

No, then Rav Sadya would be the Basra when he argued.

Quote “Now for example, the Rambam argues on the Gemara about the idea of miracles. You see from this that there is no such thing as psak in hashkafa”

The Rambam was a Daas Yachid in this. From Rashba to Gra, all those after him heavily criticize him for this (I posted these M’koros in the forum “Parshas Hakatores.) The Bais Yosef says it was told to him from the Magid that in heaven they wanted to punish the Rambam for these views (Magid MAsharim.) So as to the Halacha is there Halacha or Hashkafa, since the Rambam is alone in this and all others criticize him harshly for this, we must conclude that there is Halacha for Hashkafa.

Quote “I am sure the Ritva did not say that if 2 people are arguing with each other and one says yes and one says no as to if something is kosher, that the Ritva would say they are both correct.”

Yes he does. Even though both sides feels that there side is more correct. But those looking after them can realize that both sides have a valid point and both can be interpreted into the Torah, so why can’t both be correct. That was the Medrish he brought down (to explain Eilu V’Eilu Divrei Elokim Chaim) that Moshe Rabienu was shown on every Shaila 39 ways of saying Kosher and 39 non_kosher. When he questioned Hashem on this, he said that both are correct (And could be learnt into the Torah) and it’s up to the Rabbonim how they learn it to what the Halacha is.

Quote “There is no way to reconcile reward and punishment together with reincarnation. It doesn't make sense that a person can be a gilgul 4 times and then finally there is a final judgement. “

Why doesn’t it make sense? Why doesn’t it make sense to say Gilgul is a punishment?

Quote “The fact is the person got a second chance and nowhere in the Torah does it say that people get second chances. We only have one life that we are to choose the way to live.”

That is why we need Torah Shebal Peh (which Zohar is a part of) to explain it to us.

Quote “Life or death as the posuk says in the Torah and Hashem tells us to choose life.”

This is referring to doing Torah and Mitzvos, not choosing one life or one death.

Quote “that one of the Rishonim said that although reincarnation is true, it cannot be proven through logic but we believe in it because it is in the Zohar. So you see he held that he could not support the position through logic. “
There are a lot of Torah that cannot be supported by logic. Could you support by logic that your supposed to shake a Lulav and Esrig on Sukkos? Could you prove by logic there is a Gan Eden or Gehennim? We only know this from what the Torah says. How is anybody supposed to know what happens to our Neshamos after we’re dead if not we rely on what the Torah tells us?

Quote “Rav Chaim Brisker did not believe in reincarnation.”

I would like to know your M’kor to this. (I’m skeptical that a Litvisha Rav would argue with the Gra in the Inyan of Kabbalah, just a hunch.)

Quote “I don't claim to be on the level of the Gra or other Rabbonim. I am holding on to an opinion which is supported from great Rishonim. Let's say the Rambam believed he was not as great as Rav Saadia Gaon. This would not deter him from arguing on Rav Saadia Gaon if he felt he was right about something. Was the Gra on the level of the Rambam? he wasn't so according to your thing that if they are on the same level they can argue, how could the Gra disagree with the Rambam? He has to agree according to the Rambam according to you. But you see he does not because in Hashkafa there is no psak. So your argument is not valid. “

First of all, we must defrenciate between people in the same league and those who are not in the same league. If someone is not that less than another, he’s considered as in one league, like Rishonim to each other. But someone who’s not close, like an Achron to a Rishon, they cannot argue. So the Rambam could argue with Rav Sadya even if he’s not on the exact same level, and they do even in Halachic matters. The Gra could argue on Rambam, 1) since other Rishonim argue with him 2) the Gra was considered on the level of Rishonim, and thus the exception to the rule.

Quote “What i said proving that the Rambam did not hold of reincarnation is a valid proof and you have no argument to support your position that he believe in it.”

I never said he believed in it. I just said there is no proof he did, and I don’t think you proved it because he didn’t mention it. If he talks about a topic and leaves out a detail, then it’s a Diyuk that he doesn’t hold of it, but if he leaves out a whole topic, and you can’t point to a place where he should of put in it, I feel it’s not something you can put your finger on that he doesn’t hold of it.

Quote “The Rambam wrote a sefer on Hashkafa and if he felt reincarnation was a fundamental belief would he not write it? so you see he did not hold of it.”

First, maybe it didn’t fit in there. Second, the Rambam always disproves ideas he disagree with in his hashkafa works if it was prevelent. This can be used as a proof against your idea, since if he actually disagreed with it, he should of said that those groups that believe in it is wrong. The very fact he doesn’t proves he was either not dealing with the topic or was in doubt about the topic or didn’t have a deffinite opinion on the topic.

BTW, even though I’m arguing as how it fits into the Torah, there is research that supports Gilgul. Dr. Brian Weiss, a psychiatrist, accidentally got a patient, in hypnosis, to regress into a pass lifetime. See his book, “Many lives many masters.”

First of all what does the word basraim mean to you?

Second of all, first of all the Rambam was not a Daas Yachid on the matter or miracles. First of all all other Rishonim do NOT criticize him for his views. Show me one source for the Beis Yosef criticizing the Rambam on this, or any other Rishon for that matter. Also, the fact is either an animal is kosher or not kosher and Eylu Veylu Divrey Elokim Chaim does not mean that anyone can come and say whatever they want to explain a posuk. I am sure your misunderstaning the Ritva.

Gilgul is giving someone a second chance to rectify his sins after he dies. There is no where mentioned in the Torah that a person can come back to this world and make up for the sins he did. Rav Saadia disproves gilgul and the proponents of gilgul CANNOT prove that it is true. The burden of proof is on YOU to explain that it is true, and you can't. Life and death in the Torah also means not to sin and that its a one time chance. Moshe never says you can come back and do it all over again. This is a security blanket for people so that they can rectify what they did wrong, and this is wrong.

The Gra was not on the level of the Rambam, so according to you, he cannot argue on the Rambam. He never says because other Rishonim disagree with the Rambam, therefore I can argue with him. He disagreed with the Rambam because he thought he was correct in this issue. Read the introduction to the Chovos Halevovos where he says one must use his mind and not only rely on tradition. He talks about how one must use his mind in all areas. This means that Hashem wants all of us to use our minds, not just parrot great Rabonim. It means nothing if one can repeat what a great person says if he himself doesnt understand it or cant support it with his own arguments. Its just parroting. No chochma is involved. The fact is, if the Rambam felt reincarnation was a belief one must have, he would have written in in the Moreh Nevuchim, but he did not. This proves he did not believe in it because he obviously saw that it went against the principle of schar v'onesh, so there was no need to say he didn't believe in reincarnation, because its obvious he didn't since it would go against a fundamental principle. With regards to that doctor, people make up and circulate stories so im sure this guy was fantasizing and was crazy, or he was just looking to become famous which many people try to do.

Lulov and Esrog and Shatnez and all Chukim, are rational and have reasons for them, but we don't know the reason. All Rishonim though do give reasons and say that there are reasons for Chukim, NOT like many people out there who think that they have no reasons. Also all concepts in Torah are logical. Reincarnation is not.

quote:

Originally posted by Debby:

quote:

Originally posted by laurence shore:

Since as the Arbarnel (15th cent), who SUPPORTS REINCARNATION, points out that the soul actions are determinined by the nature of the body, one can't hold one responsible for what happened in a different body.

Aryeh Shore

Hi Aryeh. Are you the same Aryeh Shore who posted the following on yichudim.org?

"The Arbarbanel (15th century Spain), no stranger to the kabballah, brings the major arguments of Aristotle, the holy one (sic), that IT CAN NOT BE since the soul and body are judged at the resurrection and every body is different so the soul can not be held responsible for different bodies and lives."

I'm confused. Did Arbarbanel "support reincarnation" as you mention here? Or did he say "it can not be," as you mention in the yichudim.org post? What am I misreading here? Thanks.

Dear Debbie,
Yichudim.org?? I will look it up.

The Arbarbanel presents about eight arguments against reincarnation. I think these arguments are very clear so I brought his premise. However, he refutes the arguments. I could not understand how he refutes them. The print is very small and I don't see that good to keep reading it till I understand. I wrote our local Arbarnel expert from this website and I was waiting to continue when I got his answers but he never did.

Aryeh Shore

Quote “First of all what does the word basraim mean to you?”

Basra means later. Like Bav Basra is the last gate.

Quote “Second of all, first of all the Rambam was not a Daas Yachid on the matter or miracles. “

OK, who else held like him.

Quote “First of all all other Rishonim do NOT criticize him for his views. Show me one source for the Beis Yosef criticizing the Rambam on this, or any other Rishon for that matter.”

See Darkai Moshe (from the Rama on Tur) in YD 246:9 which quotes the T’shuvas Rashba that criticizes the Rambam. The Bais Yosef is in Magid Masharim. (I don’t know the page # off hand, but in the new editions, it’s brought in the index, so it would be easy to find out. See Biur Hagra 179:13 where he blasts the Rambam for this.

Quote “Also, the fact is either an animal is kosher or not kosher and Eylu Veylu Divrey Elokim Chaim does not mean that anyone can come and say whatever they want to explain a posuk. I am sure your misunderstaning the Ritva.”

I never said ANYBODY. T^almiedai Chachamim are allowed to Darshen as how they see fit. What does Eilu V’Eilu mean to you? Check the Ritva yourself, explain to me how you understand it and how I misunderstood it. (I’m sure you’ll see my reading is quite accurate.)

Quote “There is no where mentioned in the Torah that a person can come back to this world and make up for the sins he did.”

Yes it does, if it says in the Zohar, which is part of Torah Shebaal Peh, then it says in the Torah. I think that is very simple. Unless you want to claim that the Zohar is not part of Torah, then what else are you going to do with a Zohar.

Quote “Rav Saadia disproves gilgul”

He asks questions on Gilgul which the people who held of Gilgul already answered. It’s like any other Rishon that has questions on a Shita and other Rishonim answer the questions. Yes, we know Rav Sadya holds there is no Gilgulim, but the Torah doesn’t start or end by Rav Sadya.

Quote “and the proponents of gilgul CANNOT prove that it is true. The burden of proof is on YOU to explain that it is true, and you can't. “

No it’s not. The Zohar says it, so unless you can prove the Bavli disagrees with the concept, then it’s part of Kabalas Hatorah.

Quote “. Life and death in the Torah also means not to sin and that its a one time chance.”

Prove it. Let’s not read between the lines. It never says “one time chance” so there is no reason to believe that is the meaning of the Pasuk.

Quote “Moshe never says you can come back and do it all over again.”

He never says the opposite, so we must seek in Torah Shebaal Peh what was his Shita was, and the Zohar says it does exist, and if the Zohar came from the Torah that Moshe handed down at Sinai, so then that was Moshe’s Shita.

Quote “The Gra was not on the level of the Rambam, so according to you, he cannot argue on the Rambam.”

First of all, the Gra was in the same league. Second, his comments are all based on how the Rishonim learnt otherwise than the Rambam. He doesn’t need to start quoting people, there Shitos are incorperated in the Gra’s comments.

Quote “Read the introduction to the Chovos Halevovos where he says one must use his mind and not only rely on tradition. He talks about how one must use his mind in all areas. This means that Hashem wants all of us to use our minds, not just parrot great Rabonim. It means nothing if one can repeat what a great person says if he himself doesnt understand it or cant support it with his own arguments. Its just parroting. No chochma is involved. “

So therefore I recommend that you understand my arguments and to think into them and don’t just quote “Rav Sadya disproved them.” (I find it ironic that you’re quoting someone not to quote someone.) I also don’t think the Chovas Halivavos is telling us to think for ourselves to argue with the Rabbis. To the thinker, this is very illogical, and in real life we never do this. If someone knows a lot more than you, logic dictates that his opinion has a much greater chance to be correct than yours. You go to a doctor when your sick (and you don’t just think for yourself how to heal yourself. When you have a plumbing problem you go to a plumber. The reason why we do it, because we know they know better and if we don’t we’ll end up dead and with a flooded house. (Over here, since there is no outright consequence, so we can argue with more knowledgeable people and walk away with a smugness that we outsmarted them.) What the Chovas Livavos is saying that we must think about what the Rabbis are saying and understand why they say it.

Quote “The fact is, if the Rambam felt reincarnation was a belief one must have, he would have written in in the Moreh Nevuchim, but he did not.”

How did the “fact” came about? As you said, I must think for myself, and I don’t see any reason why that should be the “fact.” Why should he? Was that his purpose for the Moreh? Does he explain everything he believes in the Moreh? What is the proof that the Moreh needed to be an all encompassing Hashkafa Sefer? He disproved notions in the Moreh which he didn’t hold of, why didn’t he disprove Gilgul? (this, of course you didn’t answer from my last post.)

Quote “Lulov and Esrog and Shatnez and all Chukim, are rational and have reasons for them, but we don't know the reason.”

Because of our limited understanding. So if you don’t understand Gilgul, well it could still have a reason which you’re not aware of. This is my original point, just because you don’t get it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Planes fly whether or not you understand the mechanics behind it, so logically you can apply the same thing to Gilgul.

Quote “All Rishonim though do give reasons and say that there are reasons for Chukim, NOT like many people out there who think that they have no reasons.”

They are only speculated reasons, not definite reasons, and you can’t take any reasons that that’s the reason, as the Tur points out in YD 181. At the end, we don’t know the reason. (As the Gemarah in 2nd Perek of Sanhedrin says, so we shouldn’t rationalize thta the Mitzvah doesn’t apply to him, since you’ll rationalize the reason doesn’t apply to you, when it really does.)

Quote “Also all concepts in Torah are logical. Reincarnation is not.”

How do you know that all Torah is logical even if you personally don’t understand, because you believe the Torah. So why can’t someone apply that logic to Gilgul (even though I don’t see the logical flaws in it.)



I think this argument is going around in circles (that I’m answering the same questions over and over again. You bring up the same proofs (Rav Sadya says so (which others argue on him) and the Pasuk says “one time chance” (which it doesn’t) and blanket statement like “it’ illogical” “it doesn’t make sense” and basically “that’s the way it is” without saying why it’s illogical or why that’s the way it is. You need more solid reasoning why it’s wrong, not that your gut feeling that it’s wrong.

To Rav Chaim: There is no such thing as psak in Hashkafa because why did the Rabbonim argue then? maybe the Rambam and other rishonim who agreed with him should have changed their views because there were also other people who held otherwise? the fact they argued on each shows that there is no psak in hashkafa and you keep failing to prove this wrong. Your keep twisting things to make it fit your hashkafa which is wrong. To say that the Rambam would have held of gilgul is lying. The Rambam knew it contradicts schar v'onesh and if gilgul is disproven and illogical the fact that we can disprove it is true and to say that there is an answer when you fail to provide one is lying to uself and saying that there is an answer to gilgul when there isnt. Even Rav Chesdai Crescas acknowledges that and says that it cant be proven logically and he himself did not hold of gilgul. You can definitely say the Rambam did not hold of gilgul because as i mentioned before, it would contradict schar vonesh. The first important thing to know is that numbers do not play a role in truth and if it does, then maybe we should all be christians according to u? you see this is where you get stuck because now you have to go against your whole view of following the majority in matters of Hashkafa when in reality there is no rule that one must follow the rov with regards to hashkafa. The Ritva is not saying that all opinions are true. He of course would acknowledge that there is ONLY one truth. The Ran in drashos haran says there is only one truth. The chovos halevovos is saying that one must use their minds to see whats true and whats false. how can u twist his words and say that he doesnt mean to use ur mind to see whats truth and whats fallacy when that is EXACTLY what he says? he wrote this sefer for all the people, not for Rabbonim only. Also, we dont know if the Zohar is authentic and you even find many Rabbonim arguing against the idea of gilgul and you also find people who held of the zohar disagreeing with gilgul and many other concepts in the zohar. Moshe Rabbeynu says to choose life or death. he doesnt mentioned anything about coming back for a second chance so how can add in something in the Torah when it is mentioned no where in the Torah or Gemara? Moshe Rabbaynu tells the Jews to choose one or the other. To say you have another chance, contradicts Moshe Rabbeynu's own words! You cant lie to urself and say gilgul exists when one can clearly disprove that it does not. Thats being totally untruthful. Your the one not giving any solid reasoning and the one who needs to answer these major questions which you see you cannot.

To Elazer:

quote:

maybe the Rambam and other rishonim who agreed with him should have changed their views because there were also other people who held otherwise? the fact they argued on each shows that there is no psak in hashkafa and you keep failing to prove this wrong.

This is of course no proof what so ever. Did the Rambam retracted any of his Halacha statements where others disagree with him? NO. According to your logic, there should be no P'sak in Halacha either, since he didn't retract. But obviously there is Psak, and we Paskin in many instances not like the Rambam even though the Rambam never retracted. So we can have a Psak even without a retraction.

quote:

you also find people who held of the zohar disagreeing with gilgul and many other concepts in the zohar.

OK, who are they?

All the other "proofs" you brought I already dealt with at leanth, and I feel no reason to rewrite them. They are all written in the above and it would be up to the readers to decide who's correct and who's being obnoxious by not listening to reasoning. Wether I'm twisting the words and lying or am I trying to enlignten you into broadening your horizons, to think outside the propaganda. So I will end with a poll to see what the Olam thinks.

A person can follow his own mind if he studies an area thouroughly and looks at the Gemara and Rishonim who discuss the issue. A person can do this and come to his own conclusion and follow his psak. A person does not need to go to a Rav for a psak if he learns the area himself and looks at the different opinions. When he comes to his own conclusion, he can follow his opinion. Obviously, the person needs to be honest with himself. This is no contradiction to the idea that there is psak in halacha.

Rav Yaakov Emden wrote the sefer mitpachas seforim in which he brings 300 questions on the zohar. Many Rabbonim were against the zohar such as, Rav Eliyahu Delmedigo, the Sefer Ari Nohem, amongst others.

I brought proofs from sources and using my mind, whereas you tried to answer me back with other views which still dont answer the questions that proponents of gilgul have to answer. That is not reasoning. Also, you have no right to call me obnoxious when your clearly twisting sources such as the Chovos Halevovos to fit your beliefs. That is dishonest and untruthful. You think your enlightening people by confusing them with irrational ideas? thats not the way people will be attracted to Torah. The Torah is a perfect and rational system and as the Kuzari says when talking to the King "Heaven forbid that there should be anything in the bible to contradict that which is manifest or proved!" By making Judaism into a fantasy and bringing in irrational ideas, these are harmful and not enlightening people. Go ahead, put whatever poll you want to satisfy your insecurities. It is irrelevant as to how many people agree with you or me, because agreeing without being able to prove or disprove something yourself, is of no value. Again you succumb to the false notion that the amount of people believing an idea makes it true.

Dear Elazar,

I guess it time again to point out that although we are the same religion and follow the same Shulchan Aruch, there are two religious cultures, Dati and Cheredi. The Datiim believe in the four books of the Shulchan Aruch, a talmud chacham is someone whose writing and lectures has shown his merit and a pesack din needs to be presented something like a brief, the author tries to convince by argument and precedence. In the Cheredi culture, they have the fifth book of the Shulchan Aruch that only they can read, a gadol hador is the head of the group even if he hasn't written anything, and they don't explain anything in the pesack, just because the authority says it is accepted. The Cheredi culture has made a tremendous comeback and although the MO are the majority in the US, the Cheredi community is gaining ascendency. R. Chaim is expressing the views of his culture, he is not being intellecually dishonest. What he is saying is perfectly logical within his system. What you find annoying is the holistic view of Judiasm that somehow the Rambam and the Ari HaKadosh would agree on anything but that is the way they look at it.

Aryeh Shore

Are you a rabbi? I am not asking this to act sarcastic. But I have been reading your posts and you must be a Rabbi, but your post says that you are an endocrinologist? You don't sound like an endocronoligist...

quote:

A person can follow his own mind if he studies an area thouroughly and looks at the Gemara and Rishonim who discuss the issue. A person can do this and come to his own conclusion and follow his psak. A person does not need to go to a Rav for a psak if he learns the area himself and looks at the different opinions. When he comes to his own conclusion, he can follow his opinion. Obviously, the person needs to be honest with himself.

I disagree with this alot. If the person is not mature enough in his learning, he can fool himself thinking he knows what he's talking about when he doesn't. He doesn't even know enough to know that he doesn't know what he's talking about. It's obvious to the real learned that those who are not (but think they are) do not follow proper Torah logic. If someone that it's not capeable to Paskin Shailos and does anyhow because of his Gavah, he's considered a Maizid when he makes a mistake in P'sak (as the Gemarah at the end of 2nd Perek of BM says) and will eventually will have to give a Chesbon to his Creater for it

Listen, you can call my Lumdus "twisted" or "lying" trying to discredit what I'm saying without disproving my logical points. You can say all you want the propaganda that my answers "just are not right" without actually dealing with the reasoning which I had put forth. You don't fool anyone this way and everyone can see right pass these non-answers. If you have any logical disproofs to my answers then right them. Don't just say there "just wrong" and dismiss them. By doing so, your just showing immaturity in your learning and proving my point how dangerous it is to have any person think they're capeable to Paskin Shailos.

Two sages of Chelm got into a deep philisophical argument.
"Since you are so wise, Said one sarcasticaly."
Try to answer this question.
"Why is it that when a slice of buttered bread falls to the ground, it is bound to fall on the buttered side?"
But as the sage was a bit of a scientist he decided to disprove this theory by a practical experiment. He went and buttered a slice of bread. Then he dropped it.
"There you are!" He cried triumphantly. "The bread, you see, hasn't fallen on its buttered side at all. So what is your theory now?
"Ho-ho! laughed the other, derisively!" You think youre so smart! You buttered the bread on the wrong side!

Rav Chaim says:

quote:

so we must seek in Torah Shebaal Peh what was his Shita was, and the Zohar says it does exist, and if the Zohar came from the Torah that Moshe handed down at Sinai, so then that was Moshe’s Shita.

Why do you assume as a dovor poshut that the Zohar was handed down at Sinai?

To Rav Chaim: I never said that he can paskin for someone else. I was saying that the person can follow his mind after analyzing all the sources. He can follow it for himself but he cannot tell someone else to follow him if he isn't a posek. Also, your not proving your points and answering my questions on you, so its the opposite as you say. You are not being honest and truthful with yourself.

To Laurence Shore: The fact is that people who try to say that the Rambam and the Ari agree on points which are totally contradictory are lying to themselves and not being truthful. This is what he trying to do when saying that people who do not hold of gilgul really agree with the people who hold of gilgul (like when he says the Gra would reconcile both opinions). This is twisting the words of the Rabbonon and is not being truthful, and what he is saying in his posts is NOT logical.

quote:

Originally posted by olivia:
Are you a rabbi? I am not asking this to act sarcastic. But I have been reading your posts and you must be a Rabbi, but your post says that you are an endocrinologist? You don't sound like an endocronoligist...

Dear Oliva,

I think I have made it clear before that I am not a Rabbi and not a physician. Actually as of January, I am now (also?) a toxicologist. Sort of a veteranarian CSI.
You can check me out on the net as Laurence Shore or LS Shore or Shore Kimron. I have prepared a website but our Institute still hasn't put up their site yet.

Aryeh Shore

quote:

To Laurence Shore: The fact is that people who try to say that the Rambam and the Ari agree on points which are totally contradictory are lying to themselves and not being truthful. This is what he trying to do when saying that people who do not hold of gilgul really agree with the people who hold of gilgul (like when he says the Gra would reconcile both opinions). This is twisting the words of the Rabbonon and is not being truthful, and what he is saying in his posts is NOT logical.

Dear Elazar,

I really don't think I am the one to present the other side, but if you accept as an axiom that all of the gedolim were perfect and had Daas Torah (something like a direct line to Hashem), then the gedolim can't contradict each other, therefore it is because of our incomplete understanding that it just may seem that way.


Aryeh Shore

a little side note. in boston, MA at Temple Israel R' Gilldah fleer is given a talk on reincartion, Dec 3rd. if i recall he is a foremost exerpt on Broslov Chassidim. as well a great speaker.

Yes
R' GEDALIA FLEER is an EXPERT on BRESLOV Chasidus.
MKF

quote:

Originally posted by laurence shore:
Dear Elazar,

I guess it time again to point out that although we are the same religion and follow the same Shulchan Aruch, there are two religious cultures, Dati and Cheredi.
Aryeh Shore

R' Aryeh this is extremely inciteful. Although because of my imersion in the "charedei" religious culture I am somwhat unfamiliar with the "dati" and why the approach would be different. However, I must note that the postings that you are commenting on seem more to me like the approach of political talk radio than learned discourse. The process of make vague statement, shoot down anybody elses position by telling them to prove it but don't support their position in a substantial way would not be accepted in any Yeshivah or any forensic debating society in the secular world. It's verbal bullying at best. And, nobody can ever progress in the disdcussion because of an absence of a clear and supported opinion; and the intention to knock everybody else down it is contrary to the spirit of this website which I thought was to build up Torah dialouge.
MKF

To Laurence Shore: If people think that there were Rabbonim who argued on each other and they agreed with each other at the same time on the things they were arguing about, then this is lying and twisting the Rabbonon's words. They argued on each other and searched for truth, but they respected each other of course.

quote:

Originally posted by MK Fink:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by laurence shore:
Dear Elazar,

I guess it time again to point out that although we are the same religion and follow the same Shulchan Aruch, there are two religious cultures, Dati and Cheredi.
Aryeh Shore

quote:

R' Aryeh this is extremely inciteful

I am not trying to be inciteful. I am simply trying to explain to an outsider that there are two religious cultures. To the secular jew, all religious jews are the same. This is similar to lumping all the Cheredim in black hats and coats and saying they are uniform in their haskaphah which, if you are familar with the community, you know is not true.

That only the Cheredim have the fifth book of the shulchan aruch and only they can understand it is ascribed to the Chazon Ish and was widely quoted by Cheredi leaders in the 1950's and 60's. That Cheredi leader rely on authority and do not explain their pesakim, you can determine yourself by comparing the pesackim of the last ten years to those, lets say of fifty years ago. You will also see a disconcerting tendency to no longer include the opinions of Rabbis not associated with the group. The lack of reference to R. Kook is famous. In the fifties , they sometimes referred to him as "one chacham said".

As I have mentioned before, the question is if the purpose of the forum to encourage good jewish practice and bring people closer to Judiasm or to critically examine issues in the search for some sort of consensus among us. Let just say if I don't express the contrary view, R. Chaim wont be able to show the reader the true torah way.

Aryeh Shore