Another terrorist incident? You can bet the mainstream media will say that Islam had nothing to do with it. They will blame it on guns.
12.6.16
Who has that authority to interpret Torah?
I had a blog a few years ago where dealt with different ways of interpreting the Torah
But I did not deal with the question who has that authority?
Mainly I considered the question settled by the approach I saw in the yeshiva of Rav Freifeld in Far Rockaway. That was Shar Yashuv. Later at the Mir Yeshiva in NY I saw the approach was the same so I did not think much about it afterwards.
The idea is mainly that we depend on "סברא" logic along with the Oral Law. That is in order of precedence: The two Talmuds, Rishonim[mediaeval authorities], Achronim [authorities after Rav Joseph Karo].
There is a mixture of faith mixed in with this. That is though the Gemara does not claim Divine inspiration we give it more authority than if it would be simply a product if human minds. We assume it is inspired to a lesser degree than the Bible, but still that it is inspired.
This is a settled question--or it should be. Recently I have seen many people to grab authority from the Talmud and claim it themselves. Usually-with intention to legitimize some kind of idolatry of some individual.
Appendix: I imagine an expanded essay on this might be in order. Mainly because of the amount of confusion I have seen on this issue. The actual Oral Law is the two Talmuds. But they do not actually state a legal decision except rarely. Also it is sometimes hard to resolve contradictions. So we go by rishonim, Rif, Rambam, Rabbainu Tam, all the authors of Tosphot, etc. There is an assumption that rishonim are never wrong on any point of logic. This is always in fact the case. Achronim can be wrong and often are. Especially on points of logic. But in any case, they do not have the authority of a rishon except for the Gra. The main use of achronim is to understand the rishonim.
As far as Halacha goes achronim have no authority except in so far as they can help understand the rishonim.
The achronim that wrote on the Shuclchan Aruch [Shach, Taz, Ketzot, etc.] are very valuable if you have learned the subject in the actual Gemara Rashi and Tosphot.
The Achronim that wrote on Shas like Rabbi Akiva Eiger are great --but again -only because they shed light on rishonim.
.
Mainly I considered the question settled by the approach I saw in the yeshiva of Rav Freifeld in Far Rockaway. That was Shar Yashuv. Later at the Mir Yeshiva in NY I saw the approach was the same so I did not think much about it afterwards.
The idea is mainly that we depend on "סברא" logic along with the Oral Law. That is in order of precedence: The two Talmuds, Rishonim[mediaeval authorities], Achronim [authorities after Rav Joseph Karo].
There is a mixture of faith mixed in with this. That is though the Gemara does not claim Divine inspiration we give it more authority than if it would be simply a product if human minds. We assume it is inspired to a lesser degree than the Bible, but still that it is inspired.
This is a settled question--or it should be. Recently I have seen many people to grab authority from the Talmud and claim it themselves. Usually-with intention to legitimize some kind of idolatry of some individual.
Appendix: I imagine an expanded essay on this might be in order. Mainly because of the amount of confusion I have seen on this issue. The actual Oral Law is the two Talmuds. But they do not actually state a legal decision except rarely. Also it is sometimes hard to resolve contradictions. So we go by rishonim, Rif, Rambam, Rabbainu Tam, all the authors of Tosphot, etc. There is an assumption that rishonim are never wrong on any point of logic. This is always in fact the case. Achronim can be wrong and often are. Especially on points of logic. But in any case, they do not have the authority of a rishon except for the Gra. The main use of achronim is to understand the rishonim.
As far as Halacha goes achronim have no authority except in so far as they can help understand the rishonim.
The achronim that wrote on the Shuclchan Aruch [Shach, Taz, Ketzot, etc.] are very valuable if you have learned the subject in the actual Gemara Rashi and Tosphot.
The Achronim that wrote on Shas like Rabbi Akiva Eiger are great --but again -only because they shed light on rishonim.
.
"Torah with Derech Eretz."Shimshon Refael Hirsch and Rav Cook.
When I have doubts in life about the proper path it helps me to look back to the basic approach of my parents. This path was what could be called "Torah with Derech Eretz." Which means the Law of Moses along with learning a vocation and good character traits. The way I try to go about this is to have small sessions daily in each area of value. That is a little music, a little Gemara, Rashi, Tosphot, and Musar, a little Physics. etc. That is I strive for balance. I strive for the center.
I admit this is limited in so far as when some doubt about a specific issue arises, there still is no advice but to go to God directly in prayer.
This Torah with Derech Eretz was is in the Mishna, Pirkei Avot and the Rambam was decided the halacha like this. This path became known as the path of Shimshon Refael Hirsch and also of Rav Cook. But Rav Cook had a extra emphasis on the Land of Israel also.
I admit this is limited in so far as when some doubt about a specific issue arises, there still is no advice but to go to God directly in prayer.
This Torah with Derech Eretz was is in the Mishna, Pirkei Avot and the Rambam was decided the halacha like this. This path became known as the path of Shimshon Refael Hirsch and also of Rav Cook. But Rav Cook had a extra emphasis on the Land of Israel also.
There have been times when I experimented with different kinds of review in learning. I can not say what works best for everyone. But I wanted to mention something that I found helpful. I a have mentioned that the Gemara in Avoda Zara has this idea of one should just say the words and go on. And I think that is right. But a few years ago with a text in Quantum Physics I did a slightest variation on this. I would get to the end of a chapter, and then instead of gong on to the next chapter, I would go back over the last one in reverse order, section by section. This I think can be helpful for others, so I thought to mention it here. The idea is let's say chapter 2 has ten sections. I would (after reading the whole chapter straight), go back to section ten. Then nine, then eight. etc.
You could do this with the Gemara itself. When I was in Yeshiva in NY the emphasis there was how many times you finished a chapter. There was one store-owner I remember who did chapter three of one tractate a whole bunch of times.
You could do this with the Gemara itself. When I was in Yeshiva in NY the emphasis there was how many times you finished a chapter. There was one store-owner I remember who did chapter three of one tractate a whole bunch of times.
Communism, socialism and labor theory of value.
I do not like Communism nor socialism. While I am no expert but I am slightly familiar with some of the relevant books [Marx et al. ] and societies that were operating on socialist principles. I was in Israel during the time the Socialist Labor party was in power. The money there at that time had a half life of about four months. If you loaned someone $100 worth of shekels at the end of the year they repaid you what was then 1/10 of the original value. This is my major observation about socialism. It is a way to get power by making people think they will rob the rich. But then society under those principles does not work very well.
Just for the record I might mention what is wrong with communism-it is the labor theory of value. The idea that labor makes something valuable. It is from this that Marx can derive the theory of exploitation and the power differences of class. If more physical labor makes it more valuable then why do not the workers get all the benefits? Exploitation. But if you start in the opposite direction something has worth according to how much people want it then it does not matter how much labor went into making it. What matters is getting it to the people that want it. And that is the organizers and managers. and thus there is no exploitation and And thus communism falls away as false theory.
Just for the record I might mention what is wrong with communism-it is the labor theory of value. The idea that labor makes something valuable. It is from this that Marx can derive the theory of exploitation and the power differences of class. If more physical labor makes it more valuable then why do not the workers get all the benefits? Exploitation. But if you start in the opposite direction something has worth according to how much people want it then it does not matter how much labor went into making it. What matters is getting it to the people that want it. And that is the organizers and managers. and thus there is no exploitation and And thus communism falls away as false theory.
Sapolsky makes a point that to lock away dangerous criminals does not depend on their having free will.
He is obviously coming from a chemical aspect so you would expect him to see things in the light of his own field. Still the point should be well taken. Maybe someone's genes and DNA comes from some Muslim or Tartar background. So they think theft and murder are nice and pleasant things in one's free time or for recreation. Or as he suggest Toxo-plasmosis. Like he says who know how many more things are out there like that that take over one's mind.
[See his ideas on stress]
The whole concept of courts trying to determine if one is responsible for his actions makes no sens e to Saplosky. You stay away from crocodiles even if you do not think their are morally culpable for their actions.
And we can go further to put equate evil with death as the Torah itself does in Deuteronomy.
Thus Adam and Eve did not need to have free will in order to do evil. And they could not have known what they were doing was evil.
The most important ideas on Adam and Eve are Rambam and Avot Deravi Natan.
Mainly we have from Rambam (Maimonides) the allegory idea plus the sin of not going after the tree of life which was knowledge of truth as opposed to falsehood and instead went to the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Avot DeRavi Natan says one should not make a fence for his words as Adam did. And it refers to this as a debate between the sages of the Misha. Some said one should make a fence.Others said one should not. And it compares the fence of Adam to the fences make as rabbinical decrees. That is to say that some sages did not agree with the idea of making rabbinical decrees at all. I have not mentioned this on my blog here much. But it does give you an idea of why I look mainly to fulfill the commandments of the Torah and not to add or subtract.
He is obviously coming from a chemical aspect so you would expect him to see things in the light of his own field. Still the point should be well taken. Maybe someone's genes and DNA comes from some Muslim or Tartar background. So they think theft and murder are nice and pleasant things in one's free time or for recreation. Or as he suggest Toxo-plasmosis. Like he says who know how many more things are out there like that that take over one's mind.
[See his ideas on stress]
The whole concept of courts trying to determine if one is responsible for his actions makes no sens e to Saplosky. You stay away from crocodiles even if you do not think their are morally culpable for their actions.
And we can go further to put equate evil with death as the Torah itself does in Deuteronomy.
Thus Adam and Eve did not need to have free will in order to do evil. And they could not have known what they were doing was evil.
The most important ideas on Adam and Eve are Rambam and Avot Deravi Natan.
Mainly we have from Rambam (Maimonides) the allegory idea plus the sin of not going after the tree of life which was knowledge of truth as opposed to falsehood and instead went to the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Avot DeRavi Natan says one should not make a fence for his words as Adam did. And it refers to this as a debate between the sages of the Misha. Some said one should make a fence.Others said one should not. And it compares the fence of Adam to the fences make as rabbinical decrees. That is to say that some sages did not agree with the idea of making rabbinical decrees at all. I have not mentioned this on my blog here much. But it does give you an idea of why I look mainly to fulfill the commandments of the Torah and not to add or subtract.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)