Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
i like this quote from another forum on line, by poster Levite on Jan. 17, 2011
"We do not proselytize because we deem that Torah and the Covenant of Sinai are the ways in which God and the Jewish People relate to one another. We presume that other peoples have their own ways of relating to God, and if God wanted something specific from them, He would tell them, and not us. And also, since God is infinite and possessed of unlimited and varying aspects, it would seem unreasonable to suppose that He might not appear to different peoples in different ways, and ask different things of them, for reasons of His own."
it's like when I have kids i want them to learn to read, so we go to the library and some want science fiction, some historical novels, some poetry, some car repair manuals. The important thing is that they learn to read. So here on planet earth we are like little kids and God gives people around the globe different stories to draw everyone close to Him. makes sense to me. We trust that God knows how to reach everybody and draw everyone close around the warm fire for story time and hot cocoa.
it's none of our business. our concern is to keep our focus on our own 4 cubits around us and live a Jewish life. Period.
everything we do every moment of the day either brings us closer to God, or pulls us away from God.
meddling in the beliefs of non-Jews, pulls us away from God.
Maybe I'm wrong and you accept talmudic and post talmudic wisdom as authoritative and normative. That's great. I just thought after reading some of your posts (like the one about "who is a Jew according to torah law" and the comments about how the talmud is simply man's commentary) that you would only accept a black and white, text based answer. It would be good to know I'm wrong and that you embrace the torah sheb'al peh and Orthodox responsa as correct.
Maybe I'm wrong and you accept talmudic and post talmudic wisdom as authoritative and normative. That's great. I just thought after reading some of your posts (like the one about "who is a Jew according to torah law" and the comments about how the talmud is simply man's commentary) that you would only accept a black and white, text based answer. It would be good to know I'm wrong and that you embrace the torah sheb'al peh and Orthodox responsa as correct.
I accept anything that makes sense...I say what is the difference between me understanding something versus a Rabbi understanding something...Like a college educated individual versus a SEO-taucht individual...It's the piece of paper...I can teach myself that 2 + 2 = 4 or I can pay someone that will teach me that 2 + 2 = 4 and give me a piece of paper proving that I learned it from a qualified individual...Do you understand me?...
I accept anything that makes sense...I say what is the difference between me understanding something versus a Rabbi understanding something...Like a college educated individual versus a SEO-taucht individual...It's the piece of paper...I can teach myself that 2 + 2 = 4 or I can pay someone that will teach me that 2 + 2 = 4 and give me a piece of paper proving that I learned it from a qualified individual...Do you understand me?...
Not really -- think of a rabbi as a PhD. You and he can both get the same raw data, but he has experience, a breadth of knowledge and an appreciation of method that you don't have. So if something doesn't make sense to you it might not be because he is wrong, but because he is righter than you can appreciate. You can look at a textual verse and Rashi can, and you each can draw conclusions, but his are informed by an encyclopedic knowledge of stuff you have never even seen. If you decide his conclusions don't make sense then that speaks more to what you don't know than to what he does know.
If you decide his conclusions don't make sense then that speaks more to what you don't know than to what he does know.
Not necessarily. Generally, perhaps, but sometimes R65 (or anyone else) might have a different take that is also classically supported, but the rabbi chose to ignore that one, or to allow HIS favorite "authority" to take precedence over it.
Not necessarily. Generally, perhaps, but sometimes R65 (or anyone else) might have a different take that is also classically supported, but the rabbi chose to ignore that one, or to allow HIS favorite "authority" to take precedence over it.
To deny the established rabbinical authority in deference to a personal read because the established authority doesn't make sense points to a lack of understanding of the authority, not its having flaws. If I go and develop a textual reading that doesn't agree with Rashi's then that's fine. But if I reject studying Rashi, or gloss through and decide that his explanation doesn't conform to my personal sensibility, and refuse to give him credit for the breadth of his knowledge and the nature of his method then that is foolishness. We cannot stand on the shoulders of geniuses if we refuse to acknowledge them as such.
When our own personal views are in conflict with those of chazal, the issue isn't with chazal's view. We don't have the personal merit to overrule chazal.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
