Compassion (was Re: Shabbat, carrying, and burning buildings)
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
Many things. We've been up and down and all around it.
One of her points was; (paraphrasing) "I had hoped that halacha was
"compassionate" and was disappointed to find one case where it was
not".
I've been thinkaing about that line. Here's what I came up with.
Rebbe Nachman was against philosophy and speculation. He taught that
Judaism is based on simple faith and practice. When people would ask
him questions about G-d's actions he woukd say as follows: "A shaine
Gut vult Ehr givein, ven _du_ volst Ihm farshtanen - He would be
some nice G-d, if _you_ could understand Him". IOW, since G-d is so
far above our limited, finite, understanding, there are _sure_ to be
questions (for us) about G-d's actions. They are not the actions of
humans, l'havdil.
Could be the same can be said about halacha. "A shaine halacha vult
ess givein, ven _du_ volst ehm farshtanen - It would be some nice
system of Laws, if _you_ could understand it". IOW, while compassion
is definitely a wonderful trait, it is _not_ he be-all and end-all of
halacha. The Torah, as given by G-d at Sinai, and developed over the
millenia is the basis of halacha. So every once-in-a-while, you're
going to come across a halacha, which does not meet your criteria of
compassionate. Nu. Look at it as a reminder that my _personal_
definition of compassionate is _not_ the yardstick of halacha.
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
Gmar Chasima Tova
Andy Katz
>Could be the same can be said about halacha. "A shaine halacha vult
>ess givein, ven _du_ volst ehm farshtanen - It would be some nice
>system of Laws, if _you_ could understand it". IOW, while compassion
>is definitely a wonderful trait, it is _not_ he be-all and end-all of
>halacha. The Torah, as given by G-d at Sinai, and developed over the
>millenia is the basis of halacha. So every once-in-a-while, you're
>going to come across a halacha, which does not meet your criteria of
>compassionate. Nu. Look at it as a reminder that my _personal_
>definition of compassionate is _not_ the yardstick of halacha.
Now you've got me curious, Moshe, is it supposed that the reasons
behind halacha were better understood at the time it was
given/developed?
Andy Katz
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>
>>Could be the same can be said about halacha. "A shaine halacha vult
>>ess givein, ven _du_ volst ehm farshtanen - It would be some nice
>>system of Laws, if _you_ could understand it". IOW, while compassion
>>is definitely a wonderful trait, it is _not_ he be-all and end-all of
>>halacha. The Torah, as given by G-d at Sinai, and developed over the
>>millenia is the basis of halacha. So every once-in-a-while, you're
>>going to come across a halacha, which does not meet your criteria of
>>compassionate. Nu. Look at it as a reminder that my _personal_
>>definition of compassionate is _not_ the yardstick of halacha.
>
> Now you've got me curious, Moshe,
That's good. :-)
> is it supposed that the reasons behind halacha were better
> understood at the time it was given/developed?
I would think so, yes.
Yisroel Markov
>purple...@yahoo.com (Larisa) writes:
>
>Many things. We've been up and down and all around it.
>
>One of her points was; (paraphrasing) "I had hoped that halacha was
>"compassionate" and was disappointed to find one case where it was
>not".
>
>I've been thinkaing about that line. Here's what I came up with.
>
>Rebbe Nachman was against philosophy and speculation. He taught that
>Judaism is based on simple faith and practice.
No kidding. Doesn't the Breslov prayer book (Likutei Tefillot 30) say:
"Master of the Universe! Cancel and remove all the foreign opinions,
external sciences, philosophies, and heresies! Invest them with a
spirit of stupidity, confound them and shut them up!"
[snip]
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for unbiased analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
Larisa
> Could be the same can be said about halacha. "A shaine halacha vult
> ess givein, ven _du_ volst ehm farshtanen - It would be some nice
> system of Laws, if _you_ could understand it". IOW, while compassion
> is definitely a wonderful trait, it is _not_ he be-all and end-all of
> halacha. The Torah, as given by G-d at Sinai, and developed over the
> millenia is the basis of halacha. So every once-in-a-while, you're
> going to come across a halacha, which does not meet your criteria of
> compassionate. Nu. Look at it as a reminder that my _personal_
> definition of compassionate is _not_ the yardstick of halacha.
But people had a significant part in developing halacha. The
Sanhedrin were human. The rabbi who ruled that electric lights may
not be switched on/off on Shabbat was human. The rabbi who said that
wild raspberries are not OK is human. Why should I listen to some
other human's personal definition of "compassionate" instead of my
own? In what way is that any better than listening to my own?
LM
Eliyahu Rooff
"Larisa" <purple...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:34e2d56d.04092...@posting.google.com...
who made the rulings. They discussed, debated, studied and invested many
hours of time to find out which laws and rulings would best apply to a
given situation or circumstances, and how to interpret them properly.
It's not a question of who is the most compassionate or who will make
the most lenient ruling. If it were, each of us could make his or her
own halacha, and we'd have total chaos. I'm sure that there are many
times when any given rabbi has to make rulings that he'd much rather
not, giving decisions in one direction when he'd dearly love to be able
to point the other way.
Eliyahu
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote in message
>
>> Could be the same can be said about halacha. "A shaine halacha vult
>> ess givein, ven _du_ volst ehm farshtanen - It would be some nice
>> system of Laws, if _you_ could understand it". IOW, while compassion
>> is definitely a wonderful trait, it is _not_ he be-all and end-all of
>> halacha. The Torah, as given by G-d at Sinai, and developed over the
>> millenia is the basis of halacha. So every once-in-a-while, you're
>> going to come across a halacha, which does not meet your criteria of
>> compassionate. Nu. Look at it as a reminder that my _personal_
>> definition of compassionate is _not_ the yardstick of halacha.
>
> But people had a significant part in developing halacha. The
> Sanhedrin were human. The rabbi who ruled that electric lights may
> not be switched on/off on Shabbat was human. The rabbi who said that
> wild raspberries are not OK is human. Why should I listen to some
> other human's personal definition of "compassionate" instead of my
> own? In what way is that any better than listening to my own?
Because halacah is _NOT_, repeat _NOT_ equivalent to "compassionate".
So the rabbi's definition is _NOT_, repeat _NOT_ of "compassionate"
but of halacha. And you should listen to that human's definition of
_halacha_ because he is someone who has devoted his life to mastering
halacha.
Larisa you work with customs officials. Would you say; Even though the
customs official says I must pay for a certain item, _I_ feel it is
more "compassionate" to waive the payment and I'll ignore the ruling
of the customs official?
HTH
BlackMonk
"Eliyahu Rooff" <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:10lhql0...@corp.supernews.com...
Why is that a bad thing? I don't see what we gain if everyone agrees that we
shouldn't play musical instruments on Shabbat.
BlackMonk
the payment, but it's not more compassionate for you to not pay. Actually,
that's selfishness and acting in your own self-interest, just the opposite
of compassion.
See, you're so compassionate that in the middle of an argument, you make
points for the other side.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
>> Because halacah is _NOT_, repeat _NOT_ equivalent to "compassionate".
>> So the rabbi's definition is _NOT_, repeat _NOT_ of "compassionate"
>> but of halacha. And you should listen to that human's definition of
>> _halacha_ because he is someone who has devoted his life to mastering
>> halacha.
>>
>> Larisa you work with customs officials. Would you say; Even though the
>> customs official says I must pay for a certain item, _I_ feel it is
>> more "compassionate" to waive the payment and I'll ignore the ruling
>> of the customs official?
>>
> Bad example. It might be more compassionate on the official's part
> to waive the payment, but it's not more compassionate for you to
> not pay. Actually, that's selfishness and acting in your own
> self-interest, just the opposite of compassion.
I didn't tell you that the item in question is for the use of a
home-bound parapalegic who needs it in order to be able to communicate.
He sent _me_ to pick it up from customs because he's home-bound.
Now the customs agent has no right to be "compassionate" if the law
makes no exceptions for home-bound parapalegics. My point was that
_I_ cannot ignore rulings based on my feelings of "compassion".
> See, you're so compassionate that in the middle of an argument,
> you make points for the other side.
SDNWOTN.
Susan Cohen
How many years have you studied the law?
*That*'s* why we listen to rabbis who make it their life's work to correctly
interpret the Law for us.
Susan
Larisa
The question, then, is what all this halacha is for. Customs laws
have a purpose - controlling the flow of items in and out of a
country. Why follow halacha? Is it a pointless exercise done just for
the sake of doing it, or is there more to it?
Someone mentioned that not following Shabbat laws will cause me to die
a spiritual death, in the previous thread. What is this "spiritual"
stuff? If you are all just following halacha because it's halacha,
why care about spirituality?
And how can one be spiritually alive without being compassionate?
LM (tempted to quote Isaiah, but I'm sure you can quote him yourself
with no help from me - somehow, he seemed to think that just following
halacha without compassion was not enough)
Sheldon Ackerman
news:34e2d56d.04092...@posting.google.com:
> But people had a significant part in developing halacha. The
> Sanhedrin were human. The rabbi who ruled that electric lights may
> not be switched on/off on Shabbat was human. The rabbi who said that
> wild raspberries are not OK is human. Why should I listen to some
> other human's personal definition of "compassionate" instead of my
> own? In what way is that any better than listening to my own?
>
>
There are many answers to that question, but the main one would be "how
many times did you learn through all of Hilchos Shabbos?
To me it sounds just as funny as a layman arguing with an expert doctor
over what medical procedure should be followed.
--
(Drop the first S for Emailing)
(s)acke...@dorsai.org
Sheldon Ackerman
> The question, then, is what all this halacha is for. Customs laws
> have a purpose - controlling the flow of items in and out of a
> country. Why follow halacha? Is it a pointless exercise done just for
> the sake of doing it, or is there more to it?
The Torah and Halacha is our life. It is our true life. The physical life
on this world is definitly temporary. Just as our bodies need oxygen, our
Neshama needs the Torah and its commandments. We believe in an afterlife
that will be eternal. The torah and mitzvos is the sustanence for this. If
one only believes in this world, then obviously there is no point in doing
many of the mitzvos. Who really then would care if they wear shatnez, or
don't wear tefillin, or pick apples of a tree on Shabbat? We believe that
just as there are physical organs, the neshama has equivalent spiritual
organs and that each mitzvah nurtures one or more of these organs. And for
what its worth, there is a Targum Yonusan ben Uziel on the famous verse
"sof davar hakol nishmah." (loosely translated: at the end everything will
be revealed.) that at the end, in the world to come it will be obvious to
all which mitzvoss we skipped because we may g-d forbid be missing certain
organs that we failed to nurture while we had the chance.
> Someone mentioned that not following Shabbat laws will cause me to die
> a spiritual death, in the previous thread. What is this "spiritual"
> stuff? If you are all just following halacha because it's halacha,
> why care about spirituality?
It is obvious based on what I wrote above that if one has that belief then
halacha equals spirituality.
>
> And how can one be spiritually alive without being compassionate?
>
> LM (tempted to quote Isaiah, but I'm sure you can quote him yourself
> with no help from me - somehow, he seemed to think that just following
> halacha without compassion was not enough)
>
The question, Larisa, is whose definition of compassion? Yours, mine, or
the Torah's. King Shaul was being very compassionate when he decided not to
kill the other king. However, that was the reason for his punishment. The
Torah defines compassion, and if it is against halacha it is not
compassion. There is a statement somewhere, (maybe Josh will come through
again) that translates something along the lines that if one is
compassionate when he should not be, he will be the opposite (can't think
of a proper adjective) when he should be compassionate.
I do hope you are reading these posts with an open mind.
Sheldon Ackerman
news:%Dg6d.15444$54.2...@typhoon.sonic.net:
> People who believe that halacha is God's expectation of righteous
> behavior will follow it for that reason alone. People who believe that
> it isn't, probably won't. People who aren't sure, but who are curious,
> will probably follow some things and eventually follow others. If
> someone doesn't share your basic assumption, or if you're not willing
> to accept theirs, chances are your subsequent discussions will be
> meaningless.
>
Scoop...I think you are quite correct.
Eliyahu Rooff
"Sheldon Ackerman" <sack...@dorsai.org> wrote in message
news:Xns95728B087EEBF...@129.250.170.86...
looking for is in Pirke Avot.
Eliyahu
Larisa
> > <mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote in message
>
> >> Because halacah is _NOT_, repeat _NOT_ equivalent to "compassionate".
> >> So the rabbi's definition is _NOT_, repeat _NOT_ of "compassionate"
> >> but of halacha. And you should listen to that human's definition of
> >> _halacha_ because he is someone who has devoted his life to mastering
> >> halacha.
> >>
> >> Larisa you work with customs officials. Would you say; Even though the
> >> customs official says I must pay for a certain item, _I_ feel it is
> >> more "compassionate" to waive the payment and I'll ignore the ruling
> >> of the customs official?
> >>
> > Bad example. It might be more compassionate on the official's part
> > to waive the payment, but it's not more compassionate for you to
> > not pay. Actually, that's selfishness and acting in your own
> > self-interest, just the opposite of compassion.
>
> I didn't tell you that the item in question is for the use of a
> home-bound parapalegic who needs it in order to be able to communicate.
> He sent _me_ to pick it up from customs because he's home-bound.
>
> Now the customs agent has no right to be "compassionate" if the law
> makes no exceptions for home-bound parapalegics. My point was that
> _I_ cannot ignore rulings based on my feelings of "compassion".
And as a result, we get a person who had to live in an airport for 10
years. Yes, 10 years. It's a story that took place in France -
observe:
http://www.geektimes.com/michael/culture/reality/merhan-nasseri/stranded.html
(I love Google! You find the most interesting things)
As another result, you get a boat full of desperate Jewish refugees
being turned away from America's shores and sent back to Hitler's
death camps.
I think I will quote Isaiah after all:
"Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of
injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free
and break every yoke? Is it not to share your food with the hungry and
to provide the poor wanderer with shelter-- when you see the naked, to
clothe him, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?"
Sure sounds like compassion to me.
LM
Herman Rubin
Scoop <no-...@sonic.net> wrote:
>Quoth Larisa:
>: mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote in message news:<2004Sep2...@mm.huji.ac.il>...
.................
>:> > But people had a significant part in developing halacha. The
>:> > Sanhedrin were human. The rabbi who ruled that electric lights may
>:> > not be switched on/off on Shabbat was human. The rabbi who said that
>:> > wild raspberries are not OK is human. Why should I listen to some
>:> > other human's personal definition of "compassionate" instead of my
>:> > own? In what way is that any better than listening to my own?
.................
>: The question, then, is what all this halacha is for. Customs laws
>: have a purpose - controlling the flow of items in and out of a
>: country. Why follow halacha? Is it a pointless exercise done just for
>: the sake of doing it, or is there more to it?
>People who believe that halacha is God's expectation of righteous behavior
>will follow it for that reason alone. People who believe that it isn't,
>probably won't. People who aren't sure, but who are curious, will probably
>follow some things and eventually follow others. If someone doesn't share
>your basic assumption, or if you're not willing to accept theirs, chances
>are your subsequent discussions will be meaningless.
As Larisa has pointed out, PEOPLE had a significant part in
developing halakhah. I have looked at a fair sampling of the
arguments used. A few of them are based on applications of
knowledge to the problems of interpreting Torah, and on those
I use my greater knowledge (this is not being arrogant; they
did not have the knowledge of biology or history which we
have acquired) to decide what to do.
In other places, people used the beliefs of their group as to
how to interpret the Torah, and even made up legends to put
these on almost the same level of the Torah. Also, they took
the position that God had already given ALL the information
needed, and that they could coax it out of the texts they had
by philosophy alone. These I must reject outright, and go
back to the Torah to see if any of their reasoning is valid.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Larisa
> Now the customs agent has no right to be "compassionate" if the law
> makes no exceptions for home-bound parapalegics. My point was that
> _I_ cannot ignore rulings based on my feelings of "compassion".
Yup. Neither could the immigration officials who turned away a boat
full of Jews fleeing Hitler's Germany. That boat traveled all around
the world, and was not accepted anywhere. So they were sent to the
death camps - the law is the law, after all. Why ignore rulings based
on a feeling of "compassion"?
I think I will quote Isaiah after all:
"Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of
injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free
and break every yoke? Is it not to share your food with the hungry and
to provide the poor wanderer with shelter-- when you see the naked, to
clothe him, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?"
Sure sounds like compassion to me.
LM
P.S. For another example of what happens when a law lacks compassion,
read this story:
http://www.geektimes.com/michael/culture/reality/merhan-nasseri/stranded.html
How would you like to be stranded in an airport for 11 years?
Larisa
"Do not make the Torah a spade to dig with" - wasn't the study of the
Talmud supposed to be an amateur occupation? I believe most of the
great sages who wrote the Talmud had other employment.
And regardless of how many years I have studied the Law, I have just
as much right to interpret it as any other Jewish adult.
LM
Larisa
> news:34e2d56d.04092...@posting.google.com...
> > mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote in message
> news:<2004Sep2...@mm.huji.ac.il>...
> >
> >
> > > Could be the same can be said about halacha. "A shaine halacha vult
> > > ess givein, ven _du_ volst ehm farshtanen - It would be some nice
> > > system of Laws, if _you_ could understand it". IOW, while compassion
> > > is definitely a wonderful trait, it is _not_ he be-all and end-all
> of
> > > halacha. The Torah, as given by G-d at Sinai, and developed over the
> > > millenia is the basis of halacha. So every once-in-a-while, you're
> > > going to come across a halacha, which does not meet your criteria of
> > > compassionate. Nu. Look at it as a reminder that my _personal_
> > > definition of compassionate is _not_ the yardstick of halacha.
> >
> > But people had a significant part in developing halacha. The
> > Sanhedrin were human. The rabbi who ruled that electric lights may
> > not be switched on/off on Shabbat was human. The rabbi who said that
> > wild raspberries are not OK is human. Why should I listen to some
> > other human's personal definition of "compassionate" instead of my
> > own? In what way is that any better than listening to my own?
> >
> Halacha didn't develop in a vacuum, and it wasn't just one or two rabbis
> who made the rulings. They discussed, debated, studied and invested many
> hours of time to find out which laws and rulings would best apply to a
> given situation or circumstances, and how to interpret them properly.
So why can't I argue with them? They're not a priestly caste - a
rabbi is just a random Jew who happens to know more than another
random Jew. We don't have priests anymore. Every one of us can
interpret the law.
> It's not a question of who is the most compassionate or who will make
> the most lenient ruling. If it were, each of us could make his or her
> own halacha, and we'd have total chaos. I'm sure that there are many
> times when any given rabbi has to make rulings that he'd much rather
> not, giving decisions in one direction when he'd dearly love to be able
> to point the other way.
Examples? Specifically, examples where the law is not compassionate?
LM
Tim Meushaw
> "Eliyahu Rooff" <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<10lhql0...@corp.supernews.com>...
>> who made the rulings. They discussed, debated, studied and invested many
>> hours of time to find out which laws and rulings would best apply to a
>> given situation or circumstances, and how to interpret them properly.
>
> So why can't I argue with them? They're not a priestly caste - a
> rabbi is just a random Jew who happens to know more than another
> random Jew. We don't have priests anymore. Every one of us can
> interpret the law.
Every one of us can argue with a doctor who's done every test under the
Sun and shown that a patient is terminally ill, while you've looked up
on a website that says the symptoms the patient has are a common cold.
Every one of us can argue in a court of law against a lawyer who's won
every case in his 40 year career, knows all of the law journals under
the sun by heart, and has an open and shut case, while you're going with
your gut feeling that you should have been able to run that stop sign
because you were in a hurry to save a burning hamster.
There's a difference between "being able to argue" and "being right" or
even "being someone anyone should listen to."
I'll also quote what you said: "A rabbi is just a random Jew who happens
to know more than another random Jew." If someone knows more than you,
why wouldn't you admit to the possibility that you might be in the wrong?
>> It's not a question of who is the most compassionate or who will make
>> the most lenient ruling. If it were, each of us could make his or her
>> own halacha, and we'd have total chaos. I'm sure that there are many
>> times when any given rabbi has to make rulings that he'd much rather
>> not, giving decisions in one direction when he'd dearly love to be able
>> to point the other way.
>
> Examples? Specifically, examples where the law is not compassionate?
Driving on Shabbat? Oh, wait, there are exceptions for compassion.
Lighting a light? Oh, wait, there are exceptions for compassion.
Playing an instrument? I can think of an exception there, too.
Once again, you harp on the non-compassionate cases. Nice agenda you've
got there. Why not just dictate Halacha is "bad" and proclaim you'll
never follow it? If we're never going to convince you it can be
compassionate, why do you keep trying to convince us it can't be?
Tim
--
Timothy A. Meushaw
meu...@pobox.com
Eliyahu Rooff
you have the skill, training and experience to interpret it
correctly, though. I have the right to write a textbook on
constitutional law, but that right doesn't mean that I'll get it
written correctly if I do so.
Eliyahu
Don Levey
>
> Once again, you harp on the non-compassionate cases.
Just don't harp on Shabbat - no instruments, after all...
--
Don Levey If knowledge is power,
Framingham, MA and power corrupts, then...
NOTE: email server uses spam filters.
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
Oy ! I think the reference is "al tihyeh tzadik harbei"; I'm not sure
if this is in Mishlei [Proverbs] or in Isaiah.
Josh
Henry Goodman
<bac...@vms.huji.ac.il> wrote in message
news:cjcj8f$97g$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
> In article <Xns95728B087EEBF...@129.250.170.86>,
Sheldon Ackerman <sack...@dorsai.org> writes:
> > purple...@yahoo.com (Larisa) wrote in
> > news:34e2d56d.04092...@posting.google.com:
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> And how can one be spiritually alive without being compassionate?
> >>
> >> LM (tempted to quote Isaiah, but I'm sure you can quote him
yourself
> >> with no help from me - somehow, he seemed to think that just
following
> >> halacha without compassion was not enough)
> >>
> >
> > The question, Larisa, is whose definition of compassion? Yours,
mine, or
> > the Torah's. King Shaul was being very compassionate when he
decided not to
> > kill the other king. However, that was the reason for his
punishment. The
> > Torah defines compassion, and if it is against halacha it is not
> > compassion. There is a statement somewhere, (maybe Josh will come
through
> > again) that translates something along the lines that if one is
> > compassionate when he should not be, he will be the opposite
(can't think
> > of a proper adjective) when he should be compassionate.
>
>
>
> Oy ! I think the reference is "al tihyeh tzadik harbei"; I'm not
sure
> if this is in Mishlei [Proverbs] or in Isaiah.
>
> Josh
>
>
I think it's in Kohelet. Look out for it this coming Shabbat
--
Henry Goodman
henry dot goodman at virgin dot net
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
To followup my own post: misguided compassion is the theme of King Saul's
sparing the life of Agag. The phrase is "al tehi tzadik harbeh" and
is found in Kohelet (Ecclesiates) 7:16 and discussed in the gemara in
Yoma 22b.
Josh
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
Kohelet (Ecclesiates) 7:16
Josh
Yisroel Markov
Others have already mentioned issues of competence. I will add this:
personal interpretation is no way to run a legal system.
>> It's not a question of who is the most compassionate or who will make
>> the most lenient ruling. If it were, each of us could make his or her
>> own halacha, and we'd have total chaos. I'm sure that there are many
>> times when any given rabbi has to make rulings that he'd much rather
>> not, giving decisions in one direction when he'd dearly love to be able
>> to point the other way.
>
>Examples? Specifically, examples where the law is not compassionate?
Aguna problems. Mamzerut situations when there's no way out.
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for unbiased analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
Susan Cohen
"Larisa" <purple...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:34e2d56d.04092...@posting.google.com...
> "Susan Cohen" <fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:<cjbt93$8t1$1...@falcon.steinthal.us>...
>>
>> > Sanhedrin were human. The rabbi who ruled that electric lights may
>> > not be switched on/off on Shabbat was human. The rabbi who said that
>> > wild raspberries are not OK is human. Why should I listen to some
>> > other human's personal definition of "compassionate" instead of my
>> > own?
>>
>> How many years have you studied the law?
>> *That*'s* why we listen to rabbis who make it their life's work to
>> correctly
>> interpret the Law for us.
>
> "Do not make the Torah a spade to dig with" - wasn't the study of the
> Talmud supposed to be an amateur occupation?
Which has *what* to do with how much you;ve studied it?
I believe most of the
> great sages who wrote the Talmud had other employment.
My aunt is a part-time real estate seller; you aren't allowed to sell real
estate, either.
>
> And regardless of how many years I have studied the Law, I have just
> as much right to interpret it as any other Jewish adult.
You just don't have the right to call it "Jewish law."
Susan
>
> LM
BlackMonk
> > <mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote in message
>
> >> Because halacah is _NOT_, repeat _NOT_ equivalent to "compassionate".
> >> So the rabbi's definition is _NOT_, repeat _NOT_ of "compassionate"
> >> but of halacha. And you should listen to that human's definition of
> >> _halacha_ because he is someone who has devoted his life to mastering
> >> halacha.
> >>
> >> Larisa you work with customs officials. Would you say; Even though the
> >> customs official says I must pay for a certain item, _I_ feel it is
> >> more "compassionate" to waive the payment and I'll ignore the ruling
> >> of the customs official?
> >>
> > Bad example. It might be more compassionate on the official's part
> > to waive the payment, but it's not more compassionate for you to
> > not pay. Actually, that's selfishness and acting in your own
> > self-interest, just the opposite of compassion.
>
> I didn't tell you that the item in question is for the use of a
> home-bound parapalegic who needs it in order to be able to communicate.
> He sent _me_ to pick it up from customs because he's home-bound.
>
You made the compassionate decision when you went to pick it up. There's
still nothing compassionate about not paying the fine. No one said
compassion was easy.
> Now the customs agent has no right to be "compassionate" if the law
> makes no exceptions for home-bound parapalegics. My point was that
> _I_ cannot ignore rulings based on my feelings of "compassion".
Are we talking about the customs agent now? He always has the option of
looking the other way and it's very possible that no one would fault him if
it were for a home-bound parapalegic, since his boss would also be making a
decision based on compassion.
>
> > See, you're so compassionate that in the middle of an argument,
> > you make points for the other side.
>
> SDNWOTN.
>
If it DWOTN, then how do you know it was S?
BlackMonk
> the Torah's. King Shaul was being very compassionate when he decided not
to
> kill the other king. However, that was the reason for his punishment. The
> Torah defines compassion, and if it is against halacha it is not
> compassion. There is a statement somewhere, (maybe Josh will come through
> again) that translates something along the lines that if one is
> compassionate when he should not be, he will be the opposite (can't think
> of a proper adjective) when he should be compassionate.
The irony is that we aren't exactly living in a world where the problem is
TOO MUCH compassion. Given a choice, I'd rather err on the side of having
too much compassion, rather than too little.
Sheldon Ackerman
>> How many years have you studied the law?
>> *That*'s* why we listen to rabbis who make it their life's work to
>> correctly interpret the Law for us.
>
> "Do not make the Torah a spade to dig with" - wasn't the study of the
> Talmud supposed to be an amateur occupation? I believe most of the
> great sages who wrote the Talmud had other employment.
>
> And regardless of how many years I have studied the Law, I have just
> as much right to interpret it as any other Jewish adult.
>
How can you rationally come up with that statement??? You have just as much
right to interpret the law as the rabbis who knew the talmud "bal peh" and
learned through shilchun aruch numerous times???
If that is what you believe then there is really no point to this
discussion. And by the way, you are wrong. The Torah was not supposed to
be an amature occupation. It is supposed to be a full-time occupation. It
is just that most of us are not on that level where we can learn full-time.
And also, having employment does not negate the fact that torah is your
full-time occupation. It is the employment that is supposed to be your
part-time occupation.
Sheldon Ackerman
>>
>> And regardless of how many years I have studied the Law, I have just
>> as much right to interpret it as any other Jewish adult.
>
> You just don't have the right to call it "Jewish law."
>
> Susan
>
I give up. For a while I did feel that Larisa was serious, but with that
attitude it is useless to continue this discussion.
Sheldon Ackerman
news:slrncljesr....@athens.meushaw.com:
>
> I'll also quote what you said: "A rabbi is just a random Jew who happens
> to know more than another random Jew." If someone knows more than you,
> why wouldn't you admit to the possibility that you might be in the wrong?
It's as my Rav once said, people think of a doctor as having a profession
that requires some knowledge but feel that anyone can be a Rav.
>
>>> It's not a question of who is the most compassionate or who will make
>>> the most lenient ruling. If it were, each of us could make his or her
>>> own halacha, and we'd have total chaos. I'm sure that there are many
>>> times when any given rabbi has to make rulings that he'd much rather
>>> not, giving decisions in one direction when he'd dearly love to be able
>>> to point the other way.
>>
>> Examples? Specifically, examples where the law is not compassionate?
>
> Driving on Shabbat? Oh, wait, there are exceptions for compassion.
> Lighting a light? Oh, wait, there are exceptions for compassion.
> Playing an instrument? I can think of an exception there, too.
>
> Once again, you harp on the non-compassionate cases. Nice agenda you've
> got there. Why not just dictate Halacha is "bad" and proclaim you'll
> never follow it? If we're never going to convince you it can be
> compassionate, why do you keep trying to convince us it can't be?
>
> Tim
>
I was being "dan l'kaf zechus", but I think I was mistaken. And Tim, there
are no noncompassionate cases. If one truly follows halacha they are being
compassionate. You made that perfectly clear to Larisa. And as far as I am
concerned, Larisa did dictate quite clearly that Halacha is "bad", but she
will follow it as long as it does not go against what she feels is wrong.
Eliyahu Rooff
"roast hamster on Shabbat" scenerio in real life, I suspect that
she'll follow it and learn to understand more of it as she
progresses. Gotta be patient with us BT's.... Some of us have a
harder time than others and take longer to change.
Eliyahu
Dr. Shlomo Argamon (Engelson)
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il writes:
I think that what the OP meant was "Hamerahhem `al ha'akhzarim sofo
le'akhzer `al harahhmanim" - one who is merciful to the cruel will end
up being cruel to the merciful. I.e., what seems compassionate in a
local view may be globally very very bad.
-Shlomo-
cindys
<bac...@vms.huji.ac.il> wrote in message
news:cjclbl$c0k$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
>
> To followup my own post: misguided compassion is the theme of King Saul's
> sparing the life of Agag. The phrase is "al tehi tzadik harbeh" and
> is found in Kohelet (Ecclesiates) 7:16 and discussed in the gemara in
> Yoma 22b.
>
> Josh
R' Chaim Shmulevitz discusses the King Saul incident at length in his mussar
shmuess (ethics lecture) called "Eved HaShem" ("The Servant of God"), which
can be found in both the Hebrew and English-translated versions of _Sichos
Mussar_.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Sheldon Ackerman
news:2ru7cdF...@uni-berlin.de:
The point is whose definition of compassion?
Sheldon Ackerman
berlin.de:
> Actually, since it's not likely that she'll have to deal with the
> "roast hamster on Shabbat" scenerio in real life, I suspect that
> she'll follow it and learn to understand more of it as she
> progresses. Gotta be patient with us BT's.... Some of us have a
> harder time than others and take longer to change.
>
> Eliyahu
>
I took her seriously until she made the point along the lines that she is
just as entitled to interpret Jewish law as the rabbis who have spend a
life time studying the law.
Sheldon Ackerman
news:tigfz52...@sunlight.cs.biu.ac.il:
>
> I think that what the OP meant was "Hamerahhem `al ha'akhzarim sofo
> le'akhzer `al harahhmanim" - one who is merciful to the cruel will end
> up being cruel to the merciful. I.e., what seems compassionate in a
> local view may be globally very very bad.
>
>
That's the quote I was looking for! Thanks!
BlackMonk
Pick one. Is there too much compassion in the world by anyone's definition?
Sheldon Ackerman
news:2rup8lF...@uni-berlin.de:
>>
>> The point is whose definition of compassion?
>
> Pick one. Is there too much compassion in the world by anyone's
> definition?
>
>
You really don't understand the question? OK...I'll pick one. How about the
compassion Jim Jones showed the 900 or so people whom he served his cool
aid? He felt he was being compassionate. How about the society where the
eldery were sent out or went out on their own to die once they reached a
certain age. That was compassion too.
Again, the point is who defines compassion? The nurse who pulls the plug on
a patient so the patient should not suffer?
Larisa
True - but if I want to look up a particular point on constitutional
law that applies to me, I can indeed read enough on it to become an
expert on that one point. Trusting the experts just because they are
experts can often lead to bad things.
For example, an expert - a doctor - told my mother that she needed to
take drugs to lower her cholesterol, and that there was no other way
to lower cholesterol. The drugs were expensive, and had the lovely
side-effect of liver damage. So, I - a non-expert - went on Medline
to research the subject of cholesterol, and ended up giving her an
article on vegetarianism instead. She now has a normal cholesterol
level without drugs, and has thrown away her medication. I'm not a
doctor; I don't claim to be a doctor; but I did enough research on
that one point to be able to give my mother better advice than her
doctor did.
LM
Larisa
But isn't that the way halacha works? Rabbi X has his personal
interpretation of a point, Rabbi Y has a different one, Rabbi Z has a
third one, they argue it out, and Rabbi Y wins - so Rabbi Y's personal
interpretation gets to be in the legal system?
LM
Larisa
> "Larisa" <purple...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:34e2d56d.04092...@posting.google.com...
> > "Susan Cohen" <fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > news:<cjbt93$8t1$1...@falcon.steinthal.us>...
> >>
> >> > But people had a significant part in developing halacha. The
> >> > Sanhedrin were human. The rabbi who ruled that electric lights may
> >> > not be switched on/off on Shabbat was human. The rabbi who said that
> >> > wild raspberries are not OK is human. Why should I listen to some
> >> > other human's personal definition of "compassionate" instead of my
> >> > own?
> >>
> >> How many years have you studied the law?
> >> *That*'s* why we listen to rabbis who make it their life's work to
> >> correctly
> >> interpret the Law for us.
> >
> > "Do not make the Torah a spade to dig with" - wasn't the study of the
> > Talmud supposed to be an amateur occupation?
>
> Which has *what* to do with how much you;ve studied it?
Which has everything to do with how much I *can* study it. I have
plenty of free time on my hands; anyone wanna be my Internet study
partner?
> I believe most of the
> > great sages who wrote the Talmud had other employment.
>
> My aunt is a part-time real estate seller; you aren't allowed to sell real
> estate, either.
And? I can study for the real estate agent exam and sell real estate.
I am, presently, studying for the patent agent exam, so I can write
patents. So?
> > And regardless of how many years I have studied the Law, I have just
> > as much right to interpret it as any other Jewish adult.
>
> You just don't have the right to call it "Jewish law."
If I get ordained as a rabbi, do I get to call it "Jewish law"?
LM
Larisa
> > Sanhedrin were human. The rabbi who ruled that electric lights may
> > not be switched on/off on Shabbat was human. The rabbi who said that
> > wild raspberries are not OK is human. Why should I listen to some
> > other human's personal definition of "compassionate" instead of my
> >
> >
>
> many times did you learn through all of Hilchos Shabbos?
How many times should I do so? I'm game - what's a good bilingual
edition?
> To me it sounds just as funny as a layman arguing with an expert doctor
> over what medical procedure should be followed.
Funny it may be, but I always argue with doctors. They're frequently
wrong. If I had accepted my doctor's advice unquestioningly, I would
have had an unnecessary operation on my hands (and possibly, no
feeling in my fingers) - thankfully, I took the time to research the
subject beforehand, and was able to say no in time. My hands are OK
now.
If my mother had accepted her doctor's advice unquestioningly, she'd
still be taking cholesterol medication. Her doctor forgot to tell her
that cholesterol is modifiable through diet and exercise. I didn't
forget, though - I researched the subject, and my mother is now a
healthy vegetarian, with a normal cholesterol level (it went down by
80 points in two months), and no medication.
And while we're on the subject of arguing with "experts", let me say
that my failure to research the structure of a Chevy van cost me $1000
- money that I could have saved by a simple read-through of the car's
manual. The "experts" did not hesitate to take my money - and my
unquestioning trust cost me $1000.
LM
Larisa
Thank you. I really do think there's a common definition of
"compassion", by the way. "What is harmful to yourself, do not do to
another" sounds like a good one.
LM
Eliyahu Rooff
yourself..."
Eliyahu
BlackMonk
> "BlackMonk" <Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote in
> news:2rup8lF...@uni-berlin.de:
>
> >>
> >> The point is whose definition of compassion?
> >
> > Pick one. Is there too much compassion in the world by anyone's
> > definition?
> >
> >
>
> You really don't understand the question? OK...I'll pick one. How about
the
> compassion Jim Jones showed the 900 or so people whom he served his cool
> aid? He felt he was being compassionate.
How do you know? He died with the rest, so you have no idea what was going
on in his mind.
How about the society where the
> eldery were sent out or went out on their own to die once they reached a
> certain age. That was compassion too.
What society was that, and how do you know it was done out of compassion.
> Again, the point is who defines compassion? The nurse who pulls the plug
on
> a patient so the patient should not suffer?
>
Does the patient want the plug to be pulled?
I think you missed the point, too. Do you really think there's any way that
the world can be considered to have too much compassion? When that's a
problem, then you can argue about definitions, but until then, the lack of
compassion in the world is a bigger concern.
Dr. Shlomo Argamon (Engelson)
Sheldon Ackerman <sack...@dorsai.org> writes:
> arg...@sunlight.cs.biu.ac.il (Dr. Shlomo Argamon (Engelson)) wrote in
> news:tigfz52...@sunlight.cs.biu.ac.il:
>
> >
> > I think that what the OP meant was "Hamerahhem `al ha'akhzarim sofo
> > le'akhzer `al harahhmanim" - one who is merciful to the cruel will end
> > up being cruel to the merciful. I.e., what seems compassionate in a
> > local view may be globally very very bad.
> >
> >
>
> That's the quote I was looking for! Thanks!
You're velcome! And it's very very true!
:-) |^^| .| !!
-Shlomo
Julie
news:34e2d56d.04092...@posting.google.com...
> "Eliyahu Rooff" <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<2rtsfpF...@uni-berlin.de>...
> > you have the skill, training and experience to interpret it
> > correctly, though. I have the right to write a textbook on
> > constitutional law, but that right doesn't mean that I'll get it
> > written correctly if I do so.
>
> True - but if I want to look up a particular point on constitutional
> law that applies to me, I can indeed read enough on it to become an
> expert on that one point. Trusting the experts just because they are
> experts can often lead to bad things.
And a man who has himself for a lawyer has a fool for a client.
> For example, an expert - a doctor - told my mother that she needed to
> take drugs to lower her cholesterol, and that there was no other way
> to lower cholesterol. The drugs were expensive, and had the lovely
> side-effect of liver damage. So, I - a non-expert - went on Medline
> to research the subject of cholesterol, and ended up giving her an
> article on vegetarianism instead. She now has a normal cholesterol
> level without drugs, and has thrown away her medication. I'm not a
> doctor; I don't claim to be a doctor; but I did enough research on
> that one point to be able to give my mother better advice than her
> doctor did.
B"H your mother is better.
You've yet to demonstrate that you've approached this same level
of study with Jewish law. Doesn't mean you're a bad person, it just
means you've yet to do the actual research to understand the issues
involved. FWIW, I've yet to do it either, but I dare say I'm a lot
further along than you. Far enough to know that some things are
right, even if they seem a bit whacked, but no so far enough along
that I don't remember when I was in your shoes and thought it was
a bunch of nonsense.
One of the things that I personally find frustrating about your posts
is that the =secular= advice in, say, the subject of a hamster left
inside a burning house, is exactly the same as the halacha. "Get
out. Your life is more important than the life of a hamster". For
example, I have china that was my mothers. Not only does it have
huge sentimental value, it also has huge financial value. This is
antique bone china. Leaving it inside my burning house would be a
huge issue. Yet, I'd definitely leave it behind becaues my life is
more important than that china.
I really would be more than happy to talk to you off-line. I've
responded to you quite a few times and you've never replied. It
could be that you're using Google and don't see my posts, so I've
not put the "X-No-Archive" thingy in this one.
--
Julianne Frances Haugh Life is either a daring adventure
txj...@austin.rr.com or nothing at all.
-- Helen Keller
Dr. Shlomo Argamon (Engelson)
purple...@yahoo.com (Larisa) writes:
> "Susan Cohen" <fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<cjco9f$h0k$1...@falcon.steinthal.us>...
> > "Larisa" <purple...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:34e2d56d.04092...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Susan Cohen" <fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > > news:<cjbt93$8t1$1...@falcon.steinthal.us>...
> > >>
> > >> > But people had a significant part in developing halacha. The
> > >> > Sanhedrin were human. The rabbi who ruled that electric lights may
> > >> > not be switched on/off on Shabbat was human. The rabbi who said that
> > >> > wild raspberries are not OK is human. Why should I listen to some
> > >> > other human's personal definition of "compassionate" instead of my
> > >> > own?
> > >>
> > >> How many years have you studied the law?
> > >> *That*'s* why we listen to rabbis who make it their life's work to
> > >> correctly
> > >> interpret the Law for us.
> > >
> > > "Do not make the Torah a spade to dig with" - wasn't the study of the
> > > Talmud supposed to be an amateur occupation?
> >
> > Which has *what* to do with how much you;ve studied it?
>
> Which has everything to do with how much I *can* study it. I have
> plenty of free time on my hands; anyone wanna be my Internet study
> partner?
I don't have the time, unfortunately. However, I will note that "One
whose fear of heaven precedes hir wisdom, hir wisdom will endure. But
one whose wisdom precedes hir fear of Heaven, hir wisdom will not
endure." Humility is a sine qua non of entering the "Sea of the
Talmud", and comments like "Why should I listen to some other human's
personal definition" when referring to halakha or "I have just as much
right to my opinion no matter how much or little I have learned" do
not exactly express humility before a great and intricate body of
knowledge.
Think about it.
:-) |^^| .| !!
-Shlomo-
Eliyahu Rooff
"Julie" <txj...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:_ey6d.16328$dh7....@fe2.texas.rr.com...> news:Xns9572EBC672BDC...@129.250.170.83...
> learned to actually ask C and O rabbis pointy headed questions
> when the answer isn't readily obvious.
>
> She may (or not) someday realize that "just do it" actually works.
> --
In the meantime, less hostility in some of the responses here (by
others, that is) might help speed up that process. What is it that the
book of Proverbs says about a soft answer?
Eliyahu
Don Levey
> ey.m...@iname.com (Yisroel Markov) wrote in message news:<4159d294...@News.individual.net>...
> >
> > Others have already mentioned issues of competence. I will add this:
> > personal interpretation is no way to run a legal system.
>
> But isn't that the way halacha works? Rabbi X has his personal
> interpretation of a point, Rabbi Y has a different one, Rabbi Z has a
> third one, they argue it out, and Rabbi Y wins - so Rabbi Y's personal
> interpretation gets to be in the legal system?
>
Only in the same sense that any courtroom judge is personally
interpreting the cases before them. The rabbis doing so are doing so
as representatives of a larger community, not on their own behest.
They do so based upon their careers of study and experience at
adjudication, and upon years and years of case law already decided.
There is certainly an element of personal opinion involved, but it is
well grounded in the subject matter. Do you have such a grounding,
knowledge, and experience?
--
Don Levey If knowledge is power,
Framingham, MA and power corrupts, then...
NOTE: email server uses spam filters.
Don Levey
> > Assuming arguendo that you have that right, it doesn't follow that
> > you have the skill, training and experience to interpret it
> > correctly, though. I have the right to write a textbook on
> > constitutional law, but that right doesn't mean that I'll get it
> > written correctly if I do so.
>
> True - but if I want to look up a particular point on constitutional
> law that applies to me, I can indeed read enough on it to become an
> expert on that one point. Trusting the experts just because they are
> experts can often lead to bad things.
>
Very true, it can. But keep in mind that you're talking about
becoming an expert in a particular subject before making your
*educated* guess, but speaking ex cathedra without that knowledge.
> For example, an expert - a doctor - told my mother that she needed to
> take drugs to lower her cholesterol, and that there was no other way
> to lower cholesterol. The drugs were expensive, and had the lovely
> side-effect of liver damage. So, I - a non-expert - went on Medline
> to research the subject of cholesterol, and ended up giving her an
> article on vegetarianism instead. She now has a normal cholesterol
> level without drugs, and has thrown away her medication. I'm not a
> doctor; I don't claim to be a doctor; but I did enough research on
> that one point to be able to give my mother better advice than her
> doctor did.
>
Very interesting. Are you certain that the doctor didn't already
examine, and reject, that alternative? Perhaps there are *other*
side effects. Perhaps there are additional benefits to the
medication that outweighed (potential) liver damage. You don't
know, do you (or you didn't present that here)?
But even still, you did *research* before making your pronouncements
on the propriety of your mother's treatment. You didn't make the
judgement first and then find sources to support your pre-determined
point, did you?
Herman Rubin
Scoop <no-...@sonic.net> wrote:
>Quoth Herman Rubin:
>: In article <%Dg6d.15444$54.2...@typhoon.sonic.net>,
>: Scoop <no-...@sonic.net> wrote:
>:>Quoth Larisa:
>:>: mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote in message news:<2004Sep2...@mm.huji.ac.il>...
>:>:> purple...@yahoo.com (Larisa) writes:
>:>:> > mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote in message
.................
>:>:> > But people had a significant part in developing halacha. The
>:>:> > Sanhedrin were human. The rabbi who ruled that electric lights may
>:>:> > not be switched on/off on Shabbat was human. The rabbi who said that
>:>:> > wild raspberries are not OK is human. Why should I listen to some
>:>:> > other human's personal definition of "compassionate" instead of my
>:>:> > own? In what way is that any better than listening to my own?
.................
>:>: The question, then, is what all this halacha is for. Customs laws
>:>: have a purpose - controlling the flow of items in and out of a
>:>: country. Why follow halacha? Is it a pointless exercise done just for
>:>: the sake of doing it, or is there more to it?
>:>People who believe that halacha is God's expectation of righteous behavior
>:>will follow it for that reason alone. People who believe that it isn't,
>:>probably won't. People who aren't sure, but who are curious, will probably
>:>follow some things and eventually follow others. If someone doesn't share
>:>your basic assumption, or if you're not willing to accept theirs, chances
>:>are your subsequent discussions will be meaningless.
>: As Larisa has pointed out, PEOPLE had a significant part in
>: developing halakhah.
>And those who believe that halacha is God's expectation for righteous
>behavior also trust the learned rabbis who developed halacha.
>: I have looked at a fair sampling of the
>: arguments used. A few of them are based on applications of
>: knowledge to the problems of interpreting Torah, and on those
>: I use my greater knowledge (this is not being arrogant; they
>: did not have the knowledge of biology or history which we
>: have acquired) to decide what to do.
>That would be akin to using football rules to decide a baseball score. Don't
>get me wrong -- to quote Slartibartfast, "I'm a great fan of science" -- but
>you're assuming the rabbis were describing a scientific gestalt when they
>were trying instead to puzzle out a moral one.
This is wrong in many cases. They were often trying to
decide based on the past (history) or based on biology
(deciding what is leaven). On this latter point, I read
the translation of Tractate P'sakhim, and the argument
certainly looks like that of using fact to decide on
leaven; the five grains they called "leavenable" are
those they knew which would have the ability to rise
using the strategy of the time, and the two they called
"unleavenable" did not have this property. The same
seems to be the case with the rest of their discussion
on the issue.
>Remember -- it's the basic assumptions we're talking about.
>: In other places, people used the beliefs of their group as to
>: how to interpret the Torah, and even made up legends to put
>: these on almost the same level of the Torah.
>Which is, no doubt, why their practices differ from others'. But their
>intent was the same, right? "These and these are the words of the Living
>God."
And how could the know this? Only if God gave them directly,
in which case, how would the practices of other groups differ?
Their gurus got the words of God correctly, but the gurus of
the Sadducees, etc., got them wrong?
> Also, they took
>: the position that God had already given ALL the information
>: needed, and that they could coax it out of the texts they had
>: by philosophy alone. These I must reject outright, and go
>: back to the Torah to see if any of their reasoning is valid.
>Why?
If God gave us all the information, we would not need to
study the laws under which the universe operates. But
we are in fact commanded to do so, and even the form of
the laws is not contained in any of the philosophical
writings of all the religions together.
"A philosopher is someone who is looking for a
black cat in a totally dark room, which isn't
there, and finds it."
The philosophical stretches made by the rabbinic
philosophers are not there. Also, the Torah states
not to add to it; this should mean not to try to
find what is not there. Nor does it give anyone
the right to change the overt meaning.
Pirke Avoth 1:1 is so ridiculous that it should be
rejected outright. Your question "Why?" is certainly
relevant here; why was there an Oral Law at all,
given that there was a written version.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Herman Rubin
>: rabbi is just a random Jew who happens to know more than another
>: random Jew. We don't have priests anymore. Every one of us can
>: interpret the law.
>Sure. And doctors are just random people who happen to know more about
>medicine than any other random people. Every one of us can go to the
>drugstore, after all...
Very often this is the case. Anyone who blindly follows
the instructions of a physician, without getting an adequate
explanation, is someone I find difficult to trust as having
enough ability to make a judgment.
cindys
"Eliyahu Rooff" <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:10llg7c...@corp.supernews.com...
She has stated outright that her agenda is to find the cruelty in halacha.
She continues to say incorrect and extremely rude and ugly things about
halacha and Orthodox Judaism no matter how many times she is corrected. A
lot of us are so frustrated and disgusted with her attitude that we have
ceased to reply to her posts at all. I could understand why you would want
to stay out of the foray because I know you dislike hostility, but
throughout this exchange you have repeatedly defended her. I don't
understand. She is the one who began attacking Orthodox Judaism, halacha,
and Orthodox Jews, and she follows this pattern every time she posts to
SCJM. And when we call a "shovel a shovel" (as Shlomo would say), she whines
that we are "villainizing" her. I'm sorry, but it seems to me that if you
are going to be rebuking anyone for rudeness and hostility, you should be
rebuking her.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Larisa
> purple...@yahoo.com (Larisa) writes:
>
> > > Assuming arguendo that you have that right, it doesn't follow that
> > > you have the skill, training and experience to interpret it
> > > correctly, though. I have the right to write a textbook on
> > > constitutional law, but that right doesn't mean that I'll get it
> > > written correctly if I do so.
> >
> > True - but if I want to look up a particular point on constitutional
> > law that applies to me, I can indeed read enough on it to become an
> > expert on that one point. Trusting the experts just because they are
> > experts can often lead to bad things.
> >
> Very true, it can. But keep in mind that you're talking about
> becoming an expert in a particular subject before making your
> *educated* guess, but speaking ex cathedra without that knowledge.
I think I acquired a good knowledge of the relevant issues just from
the discussion - but granted. Can you recommend a good translation of
the Talmud?
> > For example, an expert - a doctor - told my mother that she needed to
> > take drugs to lower her cholesterol, and that there was no other way
> > to lower cholesterol. The drugs were expensive, and had the lovely
> > side-effect of liver damage. So, I - a non-expert - went on Medline
> > to research the subject of cholesterol, and ended up giving her an
> > article on vegetarianism instead. She now has a normal cholesterol
> > level without drugs, and has thrown away her medication. I'm not a
> > doctor; I don't claim to be a doctor; but I did enough research on
> > that one point to be able to give my mother better advice than her
> > doctor did.
> >
> Very interesting. Are you certain that the doctor didn't already
> examine, and reject, that alternative? Perhaps there are *other*
> side effects. Perhaps there are additional benefits to the
> medication that outweighed (potential) liver damage. You don't
> know, do you (or you didn't present that here)?
I know what my mother told me. She went to a doctor for a regular
checkup. The doctor said "You have high cholesterol - you need to
lower it. Here, take this medication." My mother asked if there were
any non-drug ways to lower cholesterol; the doctor said "no". That
was the doctor visit. My mother started taking the drugs.
I am not sure what other benefits there could have been to the
medication; my mother is healthy, not at a high risk for heart
disease, and has never had heart trouble that would warrant such
aggressive treatment.
Note that after 2 months on the vegetarian diet, my mother went back
to the same doctor, who told her that her cholesterol was normal and
that she did not need to take the drugs.
> But even still, you did *research* before making your pronouncements
> on the propriety of your mother's treatment. You didn't make the
> judgement first and then find sources to support your pre-determined
> point, did you?
I had an initial hypothesis and did the research with an open mind.
But I did have the initial hypothesis, to start with.
Had I trusted the expert, though, my mother would have still been on
medication.
LM
Larisa
> I really would be more than happy to talk to you off-line. I've
> responded to you quite a few times and you've never replied. It
> could be that you're using Google and don't see my posts, so I've
> not put the "X-No-Archive" thingy in this one.
That was the problem; I use Google, and this is the first post of
yours I've seen. Sorry about that.
LM
Larisa
Humility is important in encountering any great body of knowledge -
but so is skepticism and analysis. A worshipful acceptance of
*everything* is just as unthinking as a blind rejection of
*everything*. I intend to approach the Talmud with as much humility,
and as much critical thought, as I approach everything else I learn.
LM (the offer still stands - anyone want to be my study partner? If
you don't mind my bad Hebrew, that is - I'd probably need a
parallel-text English translation)
Herman Rubin
Sheldon Ackerman <sack...@dorsai.org> wrote:
>purple...@yahoo.com (Larisa) wrote in
>news:34e2d56d.04092...@posting.google.com:
>>> How many years have you studied the law?
>>> *That*'s* why we listen to rabbis who make it their life's work to
>>> correctly interpret the Law for us.
>> "Do not make the Torah a spade to dig with" - wasn't the study of the
>> Talmud supposed to be an amateur occupation? I believe most of the
>> great sages who wrote the Talmud had other employment.
>> And regardless of how many years I have studied the Law, I have just
>> as much right to interpret it as any other Jewish adult.
>How can you rationally come up with that statement??? You have just as much
>right to interpret the law as the rabbis who knew the talmud "bal peh" and
>learned through shilchun aruch numerous times???
Considering that "bal peh" is not justifiable, this casts
doubt on everything following.
As for having "learned" it many times, this would not be
accepted in any branch of logical or scientific knowledge.
The amateur often sees what the learned professional can
no longer envision.
Also, it is a mistake to class the principles of a religion
as law. For there to be a law, there must be an enforcement
procedure. I know the Orthodox would like there to be a
"religion police" to enforce their views on the others, but
this is not the case.
If you state that God is the enforcer, then human enforcers
are not needed, and there is no need to have people enforce
God's law. The laws of nature are self-enforcing; one
CANNOT violate them.
>If that is what you believe then there is really no point to this
>discussion. And by the way, you are wrong. The Torah was not supposed to
>be an amature occupation. It is supposed to be a full-time occupation.
Very definitely NOT. Most of the early rabbis had full-time
secular occupations.
Don Levey
> Don Levey <Don_...@the-leveys.us> wrote in message news:<m3k6udw...@dauphin.the-leveys.us>...
> > purple...@yahoo.com (Larisa) writes:
> >
> > > > Assuming arguendo that you have that right, it doesn't follow that
> > > > you have the skill, training and experience to interpret it
> > > > correctly, though. I have the right to write a textbook on
> > > > constitutional law, but that right doesn't mean that I'll get it
> > > > written correctly if I do so.
> > >
> > > True - but if I want to look up a particular point on constitutional
> > > law that applies to me, I can indeed read enough on it to become an
> > > expert on that one point. Trusting the experts just because they are
> > > experts can often lead to bad things.
> > >
> > Very true, it can. But keep in mind that you're talking about
> > becoming an expert in a particular subject before making your
> > *educated* guess, but speaking ex cathedra without that knowledge.
>
> I think I acquired a good knowledge of the relevant issues just from
> the discussion - but granted. Can you recommend a good translation of
> the Talmud?
>
I wish I could - I've not yet studied it, let alone in any way that
would lead me to believe I could recommend one version over another.
As I understand it, it is best studied with someone else, anyway.
I'm sure that there are those more knowledgeable who CAN make such a
recommendation; you could also work with your local rabbi to see what
classes are available to you and what versions they use.
> > > For example, an expert - a doctor - told my mother that she needed to
> > > take drugs to lower her cholesterol, and that there was no other way
> > > to lower cholesterol. The drugs were expensive, and had the lovely
> > > side-effect of liver damage. So, I - a non-expert - went on Medline
> > > to research the subject of cholesterol, and ended up giving her an
> > > article on vegetarianism instead. She now has a normal cholesterol
> > > level without drugs, and has thrown away her medication. I'm not a
> > > doctor; I don't claim to be a doctor; but I did enough research on
> > > that one point to be able to give my mother better advice than her
> > > doctor did.
> > >
> > Very interesting. Are you certain that the doctor didn't already
> > examine, and reject, that alternative? Perhaps there are *other*
> > side effects. Perhaps there are additional benefits to the
> > medication that outweighed (potential) liver damage. You don't
> > know, do you (or you didn't present that here)?
>
> I know what my mother told me. She went to a doctor for a regular
> checkup. The doctor said "You have high cholesterol - you need to
> lower it. Here, take this medication." My mother asked if there were
> any non-drug ways to lower cholesterol; the doctor said "no". That
> was the doctor visit. My mother started taking the drugs.
>
OK...
> I am not sure what other benefits there could have been to the
> medication; my mother is healthy, not at a high risk for heart
> disease, and has never had heart trouble that would warrant such
> aggressive treatment.
>
Well, not being a doctor, I can't say what other benefits there
might be, or drawbacks there might be to controlling via the diet
you found.
> Note that after 2 months on the vegetarian diet, my mother went back
> to the same doctor, who told her that her cholesterol was normal and
> that she did not need to take the drugs.
>
Very good.
> > But even still, you did *research* before making your pronouncements
> > on the propriety of your mother's treatment. You didn't make the
> > judgement first and then find sources to support your pre-determined
> > point, did you?
>
> I had an initial hypothesis and did the research with an open mind.
> But I did have the initial hypothesis, to start with.
>
But instead of just trusting your hypothesis, you went to study
and determine what could be done. By the way, who said you had to
trust the word of only one doctor? You, in fact, chose to trust the
word of MANY doctors, because you worked through the literature of
many doctors and studies (I am assuming that you didn't just pot-luck
select one article and choose to stake your mother's health on that).
If you choose to study talmud and halacha, you're not just blindly
trusting in one source; there have been many rabbis and scholars over
the centuries who have contributed to that body of knowledge.
> Had I trusted the expert, though, my mother would have still been on
> medication.
>
There's also, in medicine, the principle known as the "second opinion."
It's often exercised when the patient either does not trust, or does not
like, the diagnosis of a single doctor.
Had the entire medical board of Hadassah Hospital reviewed your mother's
case and made recommendations, would you have felt just as free in
discarding their opinion?
Larisa
> > True - but if I want to look up a particular point on constitutional
> > law that applies to me, I can indeed read enough on it to become an
> > expert on that one point. Trusting the experts just because they are
> > experts can often lead to bad things.
>
> And a man who has himself for a lawyer has a fool for a client.
True; but how many people have gotten themselves into trouble because
they had bad lawyers, and could not tell they were bad?
I will further note that my unquestioning acceptance of a realtor's
competence, and my unwillingness to question him, cost me $16,000 two
years ago. The only reason it didn't cost me more was because I
finally looked into the matter myself and fired the idiot. Ignorance
- especially willful ignorance - can be really expensive.
> > For example, an expert - a doctor - told my mother that she needed to
> > take drugs to lower her cholesterol, and that there was no other way
> > to lower cholesterol. The drugs were expensive, and had the lovely
> > side-effect of liver damage. So, I - a non-expert - went on Medline
> > to research the subject of cholesterol, and ended up giving her an
> > article on vegetarianism instead. She now has a normal cholesterol
> > level without drugs, and has thrown away her medication. I'm not a
> > doctor; I don't claim to be a doctor; but I did enough research on
> > that one point to be able to give my mother better advice than her
> > doctor did.
>
> B"H your mother is better.
>
> You've yet to demonstrate that you've approached this same level
> of study with Jewish law. Doesn't mean you're a bad person, it just
> means you've yet to do the actual research to understand the issues
> involved. FWIW, I've yet to do it either, but I dare say I'm a lot
> further along than you. Far enough to know that some things are
> right, even if they seem a bit whacked, but no so far enough along
> that I don't remember when I was in your shoes and thought it was
> a bunch of nonsense.
The thing is - even if I learn it, do you honestly think anyone on
this newsgroup will take me seriously?
> One of the things that I personally find frustrating about your posts
> is that the =secular= advice in, say, the subject of a hamster left
> inside a burning house, is exactly the same as the halacha. "Get
> out. Your life is more important than the life of a hamster". For
> example, I have china that was my mothers. Not only does it have
> huge sentimental value, it also has huge financial value. This is
> antique bone china. Leaving it inside my burning house would be a
> huge issue. Yet, I'd definitely leave it behind becaues my life is
> more important than that china.
Ah - but that's not the situation as described. Obviously, if you
have to get out NOW because you need to save your life, you might not
take the hamster with you. But if you have plenty of time, and if you
are right near the hamster cage, I can't think of any secular advice
that will tell you to leave the hamster there, *assuming you can
easily take it*. That is what does not make sense to me.
LM
Herman Rubin
Larisa <purple...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Eliyahu Rooff" <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<2rtsfpF...@uni-berlin.de>...
>> "Larisa" <purple...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:34e2d56d.04092...@posting.google.com...
>> > "Susan Cohen" <fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> > news:<cjbt93$8t1$1...@falcon.steinthal.us>...
>> >> "Larisa" <purple...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:34e2d56d.04092...@posting.google.com...
>> > And regardless of how many years I have studied the Law, I have
>> > just
>> > as much right to interpret it as any other Jewish adult.
>> Assuming arguendo that you have that right, it doesn't follow that
>> you have the skill, training and experience to interpret it
>> correctly, though. I have the right to write a textbook on
>> constitutional law, but that right doesn't mean that I'll get it
>> written correctly if I do so.
>True - but if I want to look up a particular point on constitutional
>law that applies to me, I can indeed read enough on it to become an
>expert on that one point. Trusting the experts just because they are
>experts can often lead to bad things.
>For example, an expert - a doctor - told my mother that she needed to
>take drugs to lower her cholesterol, and that there was no other way
>to lower cholesterol. The drugs were expensive, and had the lovely
>side-effect of liver damage. So, I - a non-expert - went on Medline
>to research the subject of cholesterol, and ended up giving her an
>article on vegetarianism instead. She now has a normal cholesterol
>level without drugs, and has thrown away her medication. I'm not a
>doctor; I don't claim to be a doctor; but I did enough research on
>that one point to be able to give my mother better advice than her
>doctor did.
On the subject of taking drugs for lowering cholesterol,
the medical profession is now recommending extreme lowering.
In the diabetes newsgroup, I have lambasted their articles
on this, as I consider their use of statistics to be quite
erroneous, and also that what are known to be relevant factors
were not included in their simplistic analyses.
It is for similar reasons that I, far more knowledgeable about
history, science, and logic, object to much of the methodology
of the rabbis. In addition, we know that the Jewish community
at the time of the Temple did not uniformly accept the Oral Law,
without which much, if not most, of halakhah fails, and it is
even stated that the rabbis attempted to eradicate the numerous
"heresies" of the time. Were the rabbis themselves the real
heretics by adding greatly to the Torah?
Eliyahu Rooff
>
>> You've yet to demonstrate that you've approached this same level
>> of study with Jewish law. Doesn't mean you're a bad person, it
>> just
>> means you've yet to do the actual research to understand the
>> issues
>> involved. FWIW, I've yet to do it either, but I dare say I'm a
>> lot
>> further along than you. Far enough to know that some things are
>> right, even if they seem a bit whacked, but no so far enough
>> along
>> that I don't remember when I was in your shoes and thought it was
>> a bunch of nonsense.
>
> The thing is - even if I learn it, do you honestly think anyone on
> this newsgroup will take me seriously?
>
Certainly more than they do now. More significantly, if you study
and learn it, the questions you ask and the opinions you express are
also likely to undergo changes along the way.
Eliyahu
Don Levey
> "Julie" <txj...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message news:<OZy6d.16332
>
> > > True - but if I want to look up a particular point on constitutional
> > > law that applies to me, I can indeed read enough on it to become an
> > > expert on that one point. Trusting the experts just because they are
> > > experts can often lead to bad things.
> >
> > And a man who has himself for a lawyer has a fool for a client.
>
> True; but how many people have gotten themselves into trouble because
> they had bad lawyers, and could not tell they were bad?
>
If you don't know that your lawyer is bad, how will you
know to question them?
> I will further note that my unquestioning acceptance of a realtor's
> competence, and my unwillingness to question him, cost me $16,000 two
> years ago. The only reason it didn't cost me more was because I
> finally looked into the matter myself and fired the idiot. Ignorance
> - especially willful ignorance - can be really expensive.
>
Sure - but would you reject the collective wisdom of ALL
realtors and try to sell your own house without realtor or
lawyer WITHOUT having done enough work to determine what
you need to do?
> >
> > You've yet to demonstrate that you've approached this same level
> > of study with Jewish law. Doesn't mean you're a bad person, it just
> > means you've yet to do the actual research to understand the issues
> > involved. FWIW, I've yet to do it either, but I dare say I'm a lot
> > further along than you. Far enough to know that some things are
> > right, even if they seem a bit whacked, but no so far enough along
> > that I don't remember when I was in your shoes and thought it was
> > a bunch of nonsense.
>
> The thing is - even if I learn it, do you honestly think anyone on
> this newsgroup will take me seriously?
>
I'm sure that if you demonstrate that this is the case, at
least some people will. You probably don't even need to make
a conscious effort at such a demonstration; it would be visible
in the words you use and the choice of questions that you ask.
BTW, here's an honest question: if I didn't take you seriously,
why would I bother answering you time after time? And another:
Who do you want to take you seriously, and why is it important
to you?
> > One of the things that I personally find frustrating about your posts
> > is that the =secular= advice in, say, the subject of a hamster left
> > inside a burning house, is exactly the same as the halacha. "Get
> > out. Your life is more important than the life of a hamster". For
> > example, I have china that was my mothers. Not only does it have
> > huge sentimental value, it also has huge financial value. This is
> > antique bone china. Leaving it inside my burning house would be a
> > huge issue. Yet, I'd definitely leave it behind becaues my life is
> > more important than that china.
>
> Ah - but that's not the situation as described. Obviously, if you
> have to get out NOW because you need to save your life, you might not
> take the hamster with you. But if you have plenty of time, and if you
> are right near the hamster cage, I can't think of any secular advice
> that will tell you to leave the hamster there, *assuming you can
> easily take it*. That is what does not make sense to me.
>
The secular advice will, by necessity, exclude religious matters.
However, it's the very definition of "easily" that's in question.
I'm assuming that you're looking at this on a primarily physical
level. But if you observe Shabbat, there are other considerations
that you keep in mind, often at a subconscious level. Therefore,
it ceases to remain "easy" because it potentially contains
forbidden activity.
If you've already failed to take prior precautions (eruv, etc),
perhaps you can bring the hamster to the front door. That way,
the firefighters would not be taking as much risk when they try
to retrieve it. But also not that the failure to save the animal
doesn't happen at the time of the fire, it happens at the time you
fail to make proper arrangements. Likewise if you let your dog
run outside without a leash and it gets run over by a car, the
main problem is that you let your dog out without a leash, not that
you couldn't run fast enough to catch the dog in time.
Herman Rubin
>:>: developing halakhah.
>:>And those who believe that halacha is God's expectation for righteous
>:>behavior also trust the learned rabbis who developed halacha.
>:>: I have looked at a fair sampling of the
>:>: arguments used. A few of them are based on applications of
>:>: knowledge to the problems of interpreting Torah, and on those
>:>: I use my greater knowledge (this is not being arrogant; they
>:>: did not have the knowledge of biology or history which we
>:>: have acquired) to decide what to do.
>:>That would be akin to using football rules to decide a baseball score.
>:>Don't get me wrong -- to quote Slartibartfast, "I'm a great fan of
>:>science" -- but you're assuming the rabbis were describing a scientific
>:>gestalt when they were trying instead to puzzle out a moral one.
>: This is wrong in many cases. They were often trying to
>: decide based on the past (history) or based on biology
>: (deciding what is leaven). On this latter point, I read
>: the translation of Tractate P'sakhim, and the argument
>: certainly looks like that of using fact to decide on
>: leaven; the five grains they called "leavenable" are
>: those they knew which would have the ability to rise
>: using the strategy of the time, and the two they called
>: "unleavenable" did not have this property. The same
>: seems to be the case with the rest of their discussion
>: on the issue.
>And why were they trying to decide this? For a scientific or for a moral
>purpose?
For a moral purpose, but their argument was scientific.
They did not use anything about the morality of using any
of the grains for leavening, but about the possibility.
>:>Remember -- it's the basic assumptions we're talking about.
>:>: In other places, people used the beliefs of their group as to
>:>: how to interpret the Torah, and even made up legends to put
>:>: these on almost the same level of the Torah.
>:>Which is, no doubt, why their practices differ from others'. But their
>:>intent was the same, right? "These and these are the words of the Living
>:>God."
>: And how could the know this? Only if God gave them directly,
>: in which case, how would the practices of other groups differ?
>Because they also believed that God gave them both the Torah and the
>principles by which they could decide cases. I think you think the word of
>God to be uninterpretable by humans; that contradicts the little I know
>about the classic Jewish mindset.
The principles by which they could decide cases are those of
reasoning and using the knowledge of the laws of the universe.
They claimed that they got additional information and laws from
God in the Oral Torah; it is I who claim that these must be
rejected, and that we go back to the written Torah only, and
what we can deduce using our knowledge of what they knew.
>: Their gurus got the words of God correctly, but the gurus of
>: the Sadducees, etc., got them wrong?
>Why must different = wrong?
So why must we follow Pharisaic halakhah?
>:> Also, they took
>:>: the position that God had already given ALL the information
>:>: needed, and that they could coax it out of the texts they had
>:>: by philosophy alone. These I must reject outright, and go
>:>: back to the Torah to see if any of their reasoning is valid.
>:>Why?
>: If God gave us all the information, we would not need to
>: study the laws under which the universe operates.
>Why not? How do we know that's not /how/ God gives us information?
>: Pirke Avoth 1:1 is so ridiculous that it should be
>: rejected outright.
>You seem to have done so. As I am not a literalist, I choose not to follow
>suit.
Read it carefully, and ask if you would believe this about
anything else.
>: Your question "Why?" is certainly relevant here; why was there an Oral Law
>: at all, given that there was a written version.
>Do you light Shabbat candles? What blessing do you make over them, and why?
Herman Rubin
Scoop <no-...@sonic.net> wrote:
>Quoth Herman Rubin:
>: In article <Jjj6d.15493$54.2...@typhoon.sonic.net>,
>: Scoop <no-...@sonic.net> wrote:
>:>Quoth Larisa:
>:>: So why can't I argue with them? They're not a priestly caste - a
>:>: rabbi is just a random Jew who happens to know more than another
>:>: random Jew. We don't have priests anymore. Every one of us can
>:>: interpret the law.
>:>Sure. And doctors are just random people who happen to know more about
>:>medicine than any other random people. Every one of us can go to the
>:>drugstore, after all...
>: Very often this is the case. Anyone who blindly follows
>: the instructions of a physician, without getting an adequate
>: explanation, is someone I find difficult to trust as having
>: enough ability to make a judgment.
>This is a bit of a strawman -- following a rabbi's ruling doesn't exempt one
>from asking what his reasoning was.
But following halakhah?
If a doctor tells you that this is the way it is because his
teacher and his teacher, etc., decided this, you should get
another doctor who only uses modern medicine. We respect the
findings of Galileo and Newton, but we do not blindly follow
them, and any high school student who is allowed to learn the
necessary mathematics by the schools can easily understand all
they did and discuss it intelligently. Very often we reject
much of their interpretations; we do not accept anything Newton
said about physical optics.
Herman Rubin
>:>How can you rationally come up with that statement??? You have just as much
>:>right to interpret the law as the rabbis who knew the talmud "bal peh" and
>:>learned through shilchun aruch numerous times???
>: Considering that "bal peh" is not justifiable, this casts
>: doubt on everything following.
>You keep saying that as though it's objectively true, rather than a basic
>assumption. As I said upthread, until and unless you accept that someone
>else's basic assumption is as valid as yours, you shouldn't wonder at the
>cool reception to your thesis.
The ONLY written claim for it is Pirke Avoth 1:1. Also,
the existence of n'viim after Malachi had been rejected,
so the rabbis could not claim that status.
Take a critical look at the claimed evidence for the
authority of the Oral Torah. In fact, look at any of
the arguments for the DH, and consider the alternative.
Consider the fact that the Sefer Torah has material
which is objectively wrong, and ask where does that
place the sources?
Don Levey
Interestingly, modern medicine is finding that there's a lot
to be said for "traditional" practices, and more and more
physicians are finding ways to incorporate such practices into
their work.
The ones rejecting it, on the other hand, are doing what their teachers
told them, which is what their teachers told them, etc. Curiously, this
is what they call "modern." Sometimes you have to go back to the old
ways.
Dr. Shlomo Argamon (Engelson)
hru...@stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
And if my lawyer says "This is the law because of what the judges and
the legislature etc. etc. said" I should respond, "Bt I think the law
should be DIFFERENT!" and then act on my own thoughts of what makes
the most sense? And then complain when I'm jailed or fined? Once
again: HALAKHA IS NOT SCIENCE (or medicine, which is arguably
scientific).
Julie
>
> > > True - but if I want to look up a particular point on constitutional
> > > law that applies to me, I can indeed read enough on it to become an
> > > expert on that one point. Trusting the experts just because they are
> > > experts can often lead to bad things.
> >
> > And a man who has himself for a lawyer has a fool for a client.
>
> True; but how many people have gotten themselves into trouble because
> they had bad lawyers, and could not tell they were bad?
Well, no one said to be ignorant of the law, only that relying on yourself
as a legal authority is a mistake.
> I will further note that my unquestioning acceptance of a realtor's
> competence, and my unwillingness to question him, cost me $16,000 two
> years ago. The only reason it didn't cost me more was because I
> finally looked into the matter myself and fired the idiot. Ignorance
> - especially willful ignorance - can be really expensive.
Yanno, a lot of us can tell similar stories. Eventually we do learn to
study subject matter that affects us. And sometimes we even learn
to question and question and question until we get an answer we like.
For example, I have two different china patterns. One is mine and
I've had it for about 13 years now. I treasure it because it is both
very expensive stuff, and I have a lot of fond memories associated
with it. When I went to start keeping kosher and asked about
kashering it I was told I could only kasher it with a hammer because
it would be unable to withstand the heat needed to make it kosher.
Which, as anyone who knows anything about bone china is a bunch
of hooey -- bone china is often one of the few things that survives a
house fire unharmed. I pushed and pushed on the issue until I found
an answer I liked. Had I taken the first answer I got I'd have been
out about $4,000 worth of china and all the memories associated
with it. What did it take to get that answer? I asked the question
"How hot do I have to heat it in order to kasher it?" When I said
I'd bake my china at 500F for an hour if need be, people started
taking me seriously. I knew they were wrong that the china wouldn't
stand the heat and I put my proverbial money where my mouth is
(tho in the case of a $300 serving bowl it isn't "proverbial" money,
it's "real" money).
> > B"H your mother is better.
> >
> > You've yet to demonstrate that you've approached this same level
> > of study with Jewish law. Doesn't mean you're a bad person, it just
> > means you've yet to do the actual research to understand the issues
> > involved. FWIW, I've yet to do it either, but I dare say I'm a lot
> > further along than you. Far enough to know that some things are
> > right, even if they seem a bit whacked, but no so far enough along
> > that I don't remember when I was in your shoes and thought it was
> > a bunch of nonsense.
>
> The thing is - even if I learn it, do you honestly think anyone on
> this newsgroup will take me seriously?
Yes. And again, I'm proof of that. You remind me so much of me
two years ago that sometimes you're posts are very painful for me to
read. But the thing is, you have to actually learn it. You can't just
read a little blurb and assume that's everything. And you can't read
something at the introductory level, even if it's a huge tome, and
assume that you know all the details. When I spend Shabbat at
Chabad I spend most of the time between Mussaf and Havdalah
studying the giant stacks of books they have.
> > One of the things that I personally find frustrating about your posts
> > is that the =secular= advice in, say, the subject of a hamster left
> > inside a burning house, is exactly the same as the halacha. "Get
> > out. Your life is more important than the life of a hamster". For
> > example, I have china that was my mothers. Not only does it have
> > huge sentimental value, it also has huge financial value. This is
> > antique bone china. Leaving it inside my burning house would be a
> > huge issue. Yet, I'd definitely leave it behind becaues my life is
> > more important than that china.
>
> Ah - but that's not the situation as described. Obviously, if you
> have to get out NOW because you need to save your life, you might not
> take the hamster with you. But if you have plenty of time, and if you
> are right near the hamster cage, I can't think of any secular advice
> that will tell you to leave the hamster there, *assuming you can
> easily take it*. That is what does not make sense to me.
No one is =forcing= you to leave the hamster, and whether or not
your community will think of you as a bad person for taking the
hamster depends a lot on the community. In real life people can
be confronted with very difficult decisions. Sometimes they choose
to violate halacha and just deal with it.
Thing is, unless you are =literally= right next to that hamster, my
advice -- secularly speaking -- would be to leave it and get the hell
out. If you response is "oh, but I have plenty of time", my answer
is "don't delude yourself". The only time you have "plenty of time"
is when you could put the fire out with a bucket of water, in which
case you may well be commanded to do that (CYLOR). So what
do you do? Take the hamster and leave something else? Take
the hamster and risk not getting out (and really -- don't delude
yourself into thinking you're just going to stroll out the front door)?
Take the hamster and then decide to go back for some favorite
chochkis of yours and die anyway? Maybe you should just leave.
What I think most people find so offensive about your posts, and
I don't speak for them, is that you've utterly fixated on this very
unlikely scenario as proof that halacha is stupid. You want to know
what? I think the "no poultry and dairy" law is also stupid. But I
don't eat poultry and dairy when I'm at home. Sometimes I do
when I'm out (because we have =one= kosher restaurant in town
that isn't a sandwich bar in the local kosher store ...) because I'm
confronted with a menu that has cheese on just about everything.
Would I rather never mix poulty and dairy? Yes. Do I think the
law is stupid? Yes. But I know that once I start saying "Oh, this
law is dumb, I won't do it" that I'm prone to start ignoring laws
that aren't just the opinion of some rabbi 2,000 years ago.
--
Julianne Frances Haugh Life is either a daring adventure
txj...@austin.rr.com or nothing at all.
-- Helen Keller
Julie
> purple...@yahoo.com (Larisa) writes:
> > Ah - but that's not the situation as described. Obviously, if you
> > have to get out NOW because you need to save your life, you might not
> > take the hamster with you. But if you have plenty of time, and if you
> > are right near the hamster cage, I can't think of any secular advice
> > that will tell you to leave the hamster there, *assuming you can
> > easily take it*. That is what does not make sense to me.
> >
> The secular advice will, by necessity, exclude religious matters.
> However, it's the very definition of "easily" that's in question.
> I'm assuming that you're looking at this on a primarily physical
> level. But if you observe Shabbat, there are other considerations
> that you keep in mind, often at a subconscious level. Therefore,
> it ceases to remain "easy" because it potentially contains
> forbidden activity.
This is true -- but I also think that religious advice has secular
components built into it. Remember that there were no secular
laws, only religious ones. So any "secular" issues would have
had religious laws addressing them.
> If you've already failed to take prior precautions (eruv, etc),
> perhaps you can bring the hamster to the front door. That way,
> the firefighters would not be taking as much risk when they try
> to retrieve it. But also not that the failure to save the animal
> doesn't happen at the time of the fire, it happens at the time you
> fail to make proper arrangements. Likewise if you let your dog
> run outside without a leash and it gets run over by a car, the
> main problem is that you let your dog out without a leash, not that
> you couldn't run fast enough to catch the dog in time.
Were I confronted with a case where I felt I could take out
the hamster =safely=, I'd just take the hamster out to the back
yard, which is fenced. So far as I know, and I have studied
some of the relevant laws, the fence around my backyard is
sufficient to make my back yard a private domain.
But then you get into the issue of muktzah, which is an entirely
different subject.
Julie
message news:<tigmzz9...@sunlight.cs.biu.ac.il>...
> > whose fear of heaven precedes hir wisdom, hir wisdom will endure. But
> > one whose wisdom precedes hir fear of Heaven, hir wisdom will not
> > endure." Humility is a sine qua non of entering the "Sea of the
> > Talmud", and comments like "Why should I listen to some other human's
> > personal definition" when referring to halakha or "I have just as much
> > right to my opinion no matter how much or little I have learned" do
> > not exactly express humility before a great and intricate body of
> > knowledge.
> >
> > Think about it.
>
> Humility is important in encountering any great body of knowledge -
> but so is skepticism and analysis. A worshipful acceptance of
> *everything* is just as unthinking as a blind rejection of
> *everything*. I intend to approach the Talmud with as much humility,
> and as much critical thought, as I approach everything else I learn.
Judaism encourages critical thought. Heck, it's hard to be a Jew and
not engage in critical thought. But it also requires respect. So far
that seems to be woefully lacking in your approach to halacha.
> LM (the offer still stands - anyone want to be my study partner? If
> you don't mind my bad Hebrew, that is - I'd probably need a
> parallel-text English translation)
As much as I'd love to have someone for a study partner, I'll have
to decline on the offer until your attitude changes.
Larisa
> purple...@yahoo.com (Larisa) writes:
>
> > ey.m...@iname.com (Yisroel Markov) wrote in message news:<4159d294...@News.individual.net>...
> > >
> > > Others have already mentioned issues of competence. I will add this:
> > > personal interpretation is no way to run a legal system.
> >
> > But isn't that the way halacha works? Rabbi X has his personal
> > interpretation of a point, Rabbi Y has a different one, Rabbi Z has a
> > third one, they argue it out, and Rabbi Y wins - so Rabbi Y's personal
> > interpretation gets to be in the legal system?
> >
> Only in the same sense that any courtroom judge is personally
> interpreting the cases before them. The rabbis doing so are doing so
> as representatives of a larger community, not on their own behest.
> They do so based upon their careers of study and experience at
> adjudication, and upon years and years of case law already decided.
> There is certainly an element of personal opinion involved, but it is
> well grounded in the subject matter. Do you have such a grounding,
> knowledge, and experience?
Do I have verification of the grounding, knowledge, and experience of
the rabbis whose judgment you all are following? A lawyer's
law-school diploma can be verified, his law-school grades can be
traced, and his history of successful cases can be verified. Do we
have that information for the rabbis who made halacha - verifiable
information, that is?
LM
Larisa
> In article <Jjj6d.15493$54.2...@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> Scoop <no-...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >Quoth Larisa:
> >: So why can't I argue with them? They're not a priestly caste - a
> >: rabbi is just a random Jew who happens to know more than another
> >: random Jew. We don't have priests anymore. Every one of us can
> >: interpret the law.
>
> >Sure. And doctors are just random people who happen to know more about
> >medicine than any other random people. Every one of us can go to the
> >drugstore, after all...
>
> Very often this is the case. Anyone who blindly follows
> the instructions of a physician, without getting an adequate
> explanation, is someone I find difficult to trust as having
> enough ability to make a judgment.
Yup. When I was diagnosed with a nerve problem in my wrist and the
doctor wanted to do surgery, I went online and asked about it; I read
lots and lots of books about the problem; I read journal articles and
all sorts of other things, and decided that what my hand needed was
not surgery, but rest. So, I refused the surgery. My hand is fine
now. I'm sure the doctor could have used the surgery fees, but I had
to disappoint him on that one.
Anyone who abdicates their human responsibilities - those of critical
judgment, thought, and information-gathering - deserves the troubles
they get. This applies to any area of human endeavor - including
halacha. G-d gave us brains so we could think - and "Yisra-El" means
"Wrestled with G-d" - not "Submitted to G-d". If you are looking for
blind submission, try Islam - I hear that's what it's about.
LM
Larisa
> purple...@yahoo.com (Larisa) writes:
>
> > Don Levey <Don_...@the-leveys.us> wrote in message news:<m3k6udw...@dauphin.the-leveys.us>...
> > > purple...@yahoo.com (Larisa) writes:
> > >
> > > > > Assuming arguendo that you have that right, it doesn't follow that
> > > > > you have the skill, training and experience to interpret it
> > > > > correctly, though. I have the right to write a textbook on
> > > > > constitutional law, but that right doesn't mean that I'll get it
> > > > > written correctly if I do so.
> > > >
> > > > True - but if I want to look up a particular point on constitutional
> > > > law that applies to me, I can indeed read enough on it to become an
> > > > expert on that one point. Trusting the experts just because they are
> > > > experts can often lead to bad things.
> > > >
> > > Very true, it can. But keep in mind that you're talking about
> > > becoming an expert in a particular subject before making your
> > > *educated* guess, but speaking ex cathedra without that knowledge.
> >
> > I think I acquired a good knowledge of the relevant issues just from
> > the discussion - but granted. Can you recommend a good translation of
> > the Talmud?
> >
> I wish I could - I've not yet studied it, let alone in any way that
> would lead me to believe I could recommend one version over another.
> As I understand it, it is best studied with someone else, anyway.
> I'm sure that there are those more knowledgeable who CAN make such a
> recommendation; you could also work with your local rabbi to see what
> classes are available to you and what versions they use.
I will definitely look into that; though I am kinda tickled by the
idea of studying Talmud via the Internet.
> > Note that after 2 months on the vegetarian diet, my mother went back
> > to the same doctor, who told her that her cholesterol was normal and
> > that she did not need to take the drugs.
> >
> Very good.
>
> > > But even still, you did *research* before making your pronouncements
> > > on the propriety of your mother's treatment. You didn't make the
> > > judgement first and then find sources to support your pre-determined
> > > point, did you?
> >
> > I had an initial hypothesis and did the research with an open mind.
> > But I did have the initial hypothesis, to start with.
> >
> But instead of just trusting your hypothesis, you went to study
> and determine what could be done. By the way, who said you had to
> trust the word of only one doctor? You, in fact, chose to trust the
> word of MANY doctors, because you worked through the literature of
> many doctors and studies (I am assuming that you didn't just pot-luck
> select one article and choose to stake your mother's health on that).
> If you choose to study talmud and halacha, you're not just blindly
> trusting in one source; there have been many rabbis and scholars over
> the centuries who have contributed to that body of knowledge.
Yes, but there are many cases in medicine where *all* the experts are
uniformly wrong. Medicine is a subject I find interesting, so I read
a lot about it. There was a time when all doctors believed in the
doctrine of the "laudable pus", and purposely infected patients'
wounds so they would suppurate. That was the dominant opinion, and
many doctors from Galen onwards contributed to that opinion. If one
disagreed with them, one found oneself in a small, and uncomfortable,
minority.
> > Had I trusted the expert, though, my mother would have still been on
> > medication.
> >
> There's also, in medicine, the principle known as the "second opinion."
> It's often exercised when the patient either does not trust, or does not
> like, the diagnosis of a single doctor.
Actually, the other doctor may have very well prescribed the same
drugs. Drug companies are very aggressive in marketing their wares,
and most doctors are too busy or too harried to talk to the patient
about non-drug interventions. It's easier - and more lucrative - to
sell them a pill.
> Had the entire medical board of Hadassah Hospital reviewed your mother's
> case and made recommendations, would you have felt just as free in
> discarding their opinion?
Yes. Especially if I knew they had an ulterior motive in pushing
their recommendation.
LM
Larisa
> purple...@yahoo.com (Larisa) writes:
>
> > "Julie" <txj...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message news:<OZy6d.16332
> >
> > > > True - but if I want to look up a particular point on constitutional
> > > > law that applies to me, I can indeed read enough on it to become an
> > > > expert on that one point. Trusting the experts just because they are
> > > > experts can often lead to bad things.
> > >
> > > And a man who has himself for a lawyer has a fool for a client.
> >
> > True; but how many people have gotten themselves into trouble because
> > they had bad lawyers, and could not tell they were bad?
> >
> If you don't know that your lawyer is bad, how will you
> know to question them?
You have to look into the matter - if you don't, you deserve what you
get. Abdicating our human responsibility to think and question is not
an adult thing to do.
> > I will further note that my unquestioning acceptance of a realtor's
> > competence, and my unwillingness to question him, cost me $16,000 two
> > years ago. The only reason it didn't cost me more was because I
> > finally looked into the matter myself and fired the idiot. Ignorance
> > - especially willful ignorance - can be really expensive.
> >
> Sure - but would you reject the collective wisdom of ALL
> realtors and try to sell your own house without realtor or
> lawyer WITHOUT having done enough work to determine what
> you need to do?
It depends. Would I get a realtor's license before I attempt to sell
my own house? Probably not. Would I just stick a "for sale" sign on
the window and hope? Probably not. I'd do as much research as I need
- but not more.
> > > You've yet to demonstrate that you've approached this same level
> > > of study with Jewish law. Doesn't mean you're a bad person, it just
> > > means you've yet to do the actual research to understand the issues
> > > involved. FWIW, I've yet to do it either, but I dare say I'm a lot
> > > further along than you. Far enough to know that some things are
> > > right, even if they seem a bit whacked, but no so far enough along
> > > that I don't remember when I was in your shoes and thought it was
> > > a bunch of nonsense.
> >
> > The thing is - even if I learn it, do you honestly think anyone on
> > this newsgroup will take me seriously?
> >
> I'm sure that if you demonstrate that this is the case, at
> least some people will. You probably don't even need to make
> a conscious effort at such a demonstration; it would be visible
> in the words you use and the choice of questions that you ask.
> BTW, here's an honest question: if I didn't take you seriously,
> why would I bother answering you time after time? And another:
> Who do you want to take you seriously, and why is it important
> to you?
It's not. I just don't think that any amount of study - even if I
were to become a rabbi - would make a difference in how my arguments
are taken in this newsgroup.
Well, sure - but if you let your dog run outside without a leash and
you see it running around, you will go and catch it and bring it in.
If you don't, you're negligent - regardless of who let the dog outside
without a leash.
A law that results in a death that would not have happened if the law
hadn't been there is not a good law.
LM
Larisa
That's what the civil rights advocates did in the 60's - act on their
own thoughts, which were that all people should be treated equally,
regardless of skin color.
For that matter, that's what the anti-slavery people did, a little
earlier - they acted on their own thoughts, which were that no person
should be a slave to another person, regardless of skin color.
Want more examples? The Germans who saved Jewish children in WWII
were violating German law - they thought the law should have been
different, and acted on their own moral guidelines instead of on the
Nazi laws. I'm sure they were terribly wrong - they should have sent
the kids to the concentration camps instead.
> Once
> again: HALAKHA IS NOT SCIENCE (or medicine, which is arguably
> scientific).
No. It's law. And law can be just, or unjust; it can be
compassionate or cruel; it can reflect the prejudices of its time or
transcend them. And a blind acceptance of the law just because it is
the law can lead to horrendous cruelty. I'm not talking about burning
hamsters, either - think about burning heretics, instead. That was
the Inquisition's law at the time - and people blindly followed it
because it was the law. Look where *that* led them.
LM
Larisa
> "Larisa" <purple...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:34e2d56d.04092...@posting.google.com...
> > arg...@sunlight.cs.biu.ac.il (Dr. Shlomo Argamon (Engelson)) wrote in
> message news:<tigmzz9...@sunlight.cs.biu.ac.il>...
> > > I don't have the time, unfortunately. However, I will note that "One
> > > whose fear of heaven precedes hir wisdom, hir wisdom will endure. But
> > > one whose wisdom precedes hir fear of Heaven, hir wisdom will not
> > > endure." Humility is a sine qua non of entering the "Sea of the
> > > Talmud", and comments like "Why should I listen to some other human's
> > > personal definition" when referring to halakha or "I have just as much
> > > right to my opinion no matter how much or little I have learned" do
> > > not exactly express humility before a great and intricate body of
> > > knowledge.
> > >
> > > Think about it.
> >
> > Humility is important in encountering any great body of knowledge -
> > but so is skepticism and analysis. A worshipful acceptance of
> > *everything* is just as unthinking as a blind rejection of
> > *everything*. I intend to approach the Talmud with as much humility,
> > and as much critical thought, as I approach everything else I learn.
>
> Judaism encourages critical thought. Heck, it's hard to be a Jew and
> not engage in critical thought.
Oh? Can't you just follow the laws in the halacha and never think?
> But it also requires respect. So far
> that seems to be woefully lacking in your approach to halacha.
Respect, I have. Worshipful swallowing of everything in it, however,
is another story. I take halacha with a grain of salt, the way I take
everything else.
> > LM (the offer still stands - anyone want to be my study partner? If
> > you don't mind my bad Hebrew, that is - I'd probably need a
> > parallel-text English translation)
>
> As much as I'd love to have someone for a study partner, I'll have
> to decline on the offer until your attitude changes.
Ah well. Anyone else?
LM
Larisa
> What I think most people find so offensive about your posts, and
> I don't speak for them, is that you've utterly fixated on this very
> unlikely scenario as proof that halacha is stupid. You want to know
> what? I think the "no poultry and dairy" law is also stupid. But I
> don't eat poultry and dairy when I'm at home. Sometimes I do
> when I'm out (because we have =one= kosher restaurant in town
> that isn't a sandwich bar in the local kosher store ...) because I'm
> confronted with a menu that has cheese on just about everything.
> Would I rather never mix poulty and dairy? Yes. Do I think the
> law is stupid? Yes. But I know that once I start saying "Oh, this
> law is dumb, I won't do it" that I'm prone to start ignoring laws
> that aren't just the opinion of some rabbi 2,000 years ago.
But there's a danger to accepting every law - even the ones you think
are wrong. That way lies institutionalized slavery, witch-burning,
and other awful things.
I do not think halacha is stupid. I do, however, think that there
should be no cruelties, however unlikely, in a body of law; and if
there is a cruelty, however unlikely, it is an indication that the law
needs to be changed or amended. Cruelty does not belong in law.
Period.
LM
Don Levey
> "Don Levey" <Don_...@the-leveys.us> wrote in message
> news:m3u0tgr...@dauphin.the-leveys.us...
> > purple...@yahoo.com (Larisa) writes:
> > > Ah - but that's not the situation as described. Obviously, if you
> > > have to get out NOW because you need to save your life, you might not
> > > take the hamster with you. But if you have plenty of time, and if you
> > > are right near the hamster cage, I can't think of any secular advice
> > > that will tell you to leave the hamster there, *assuming you can
> > > easily take it*. That is what does not make sense to me.
> > >
> > The secular advice will, by necessity, exclude religious matters.
> > However, it's the very definition of "easily" that's in question.
> > I'm assuming that you're looking at this on a primarily physical
> > level. But if you observe Shabbat, there are other considerations
> > that you keep in mind, often at a subconscious level. Therefore,
> > it ceases to remain "easy" because it potentially contains
> > forbidden activity.
>
> This is true -- but I also think that religious advice has secular
> components built into it. Remember that there were no secular
> laws, only religious ones. So any "secular" issues would have
> had religious laws addressing them.
>
In a system where religious authorities control all of life,
this is certainly true. At which point, as you say, even those
laws which would otherwise be covered by a secular authority
would still be made by the religious one. And those laws would
contain a religious component. Our (US) Federal government says
that murder is wrong because we "know" that it is wrong, and
because it is contrary to opur goal of maintaining a civil society.
Judaism says that killing is wrong because Gd says it is wrong.
Same end result, different paths to the conclusion.
> > If you've already failed to take prior precautions (eruv, etc),
> > perhaps you can bring the hamster to the front door. That way,
> > the firefighters would not be taking as much risk when they try
> > to retrieve it. But also not that the failure to save the animal
> > doesn't happen at the time of the fire, it happens at the time you
> > fail to make proper arrangements. Likewise if you let your dog
> > run outside without a leash and it gets run over by a car, the
> > main problem is that you let your dog out without a leash, not that
> > you couldn't run fast enough to catch the dog in time.
>
> Were I confronted with a case where I felt I could take out
> the hamster =safely=, I'd just take the hamster out to the back
> yard, which is fenced. So far as I know, and I have studied
> some of the relevant laws, the fence around my backyard is
> sufficient to make my back yard a private domain.
>
...And that would be a resolution to the problem that would
(probably) make both parties (Larisa and halacha) happy.
And you've studied and asked questions enough to be able to
make that decision, and not the derision.
> But then you get into the issue of muktzah, which is an entirely
> different subject.
I couldn't even *begin* to comment on that, and how it would relate
to fluffy the hamster.
Don Levey
> "Julie" <txj...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message news:<4wI6d.16701$dh7....@fe2.texas.rr.com>...
> > "Larisa" <purple...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:34e2d56d.04092...@posting.google.com...
> > > arg...@sunlight.cs.biu.ac.il (Dr. Shlomo Argamon (Engelson)) wrote in
> > message news:<tigmzz9...@sunlight.cs.biu.ac.il>...
> > > > I don't have the time, unfortunately. However, I will note that "One
> > > > whose fear of heaven precedes hir wisdom, hir wisdom will endure. But
> > > > one whose wisdom precedes hir fear of Heaven, hir wisdom will not
> > > > endure." Humility is a sine qua non of entering the "Sea of the
> > > > Talmud", and comments like "Why should I listen to some other human's
> > > > personal definition" when referring to halakha or "I have just as much
> > > > right to my opinion no matter how much or little I have learned" do
> > > > not exactly express humility before a great and intricate body of
> > > > knowledge.
> > > >
> > > > Think about it.
> > >
> > > Humility is important in encountering any great body of knowledge -
> > > but so is skepticism and analysis. A worshipful acceptance of
> > > *everything* is just as unthinking as a blind rejection of
> > > *everything*. I intend to approach the Talmud with as much humility,
> > > and as much critical thought, as I approach everything else I learn.
> >
> > Judaism encourages critical thought. Heck, it's hard to be a Jew and
> > not engage in critical thought.
>
> Oh? Can't you just follow the laws in the halacha and never think?
>
Sure. Isn't it possible to buy a house, a car, engage a lawyer or
a doctor, and never think? There's a difference between the *possible*
and the *likely*, and just because halacha *encourages* a set of
behaviour like critical thinking doesn't mean that the encouragement
will take root.
> > But it also requires respect. So far
> > that seems to be woefully lacking in your approach to halacha.
>
> Respect, I have. Worshipful swallowing of everything in it, however,
> is another story. I take halacha with a grain of salt, the way I take
> everything else.
>
Unfortunately, that respect isn't coming across. I don't think
I worshipfully swallow every aspect of halacha - but I like to think
I am respectful to it, and those who follow it. Part of that respect,
by the way, is trying hard to understand the perspective of the
"other party."
> > > LM (the offer still stands - anyone want to be my study partner? If
> > > you don't mind my bad Hebrew, that is - I'd probably need a
> > > parallel-text English translation)
> >
> > As much as I'd love to have someone for a study partner, I'll have
> > to decline on the offer until your attitude changes.
>
> Ah well. Anyone else?
>
I must respectfully decline, at this time.
Eliyahu Rooff
> "Julie" <txj...@austin.rr.com> writes:
>
>>
>> Were I confronted with a case where I felt I could take out
>> the hamster =safely=, I'd just take the hamster out to the back
>> yard, which is fenced. So far as I know, and I have studied
>> some of the relevant laws, the fence around my backyard is
>> sufficient to make my back yard a private domain.
>>
> ...And that would be a resolution to the problem that would
> (probably) make both parties (Larisa and halacha) happy.
> And you've studied and asked questions enough to be able to
> make that decision, and not the derision.
>
>> But then you get into the issue of muktzah, which is an entirely
>> different subject.
>
> I couldn't even *begin* to comment on that, and how it would
> relate
> to fluffy the hamster.
>
No, no... "Fluffy" was the cat. "Krispy" is the hamster... :-)
Eliyahu
Eliyahu Rooff
would be like the blind leading the blind.
Eliyahu
Don Levey
> hru...@stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote in message news:<cjevpn$4v...@odds.stat.purdue.edu>...
> > In article <Jjj6d.15493$54.2...@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> > Scoop <no-...@sonic.net> wrote:
> > >Quoth Larisa:
> > >: So why can't I argue with them? They're not a priestly caste - a
> > >: rabbi is just a random Jew who happens to know more than another
> > >: random Jew. We don't have priests anymore. Every one of us can
> > >: interpret the law.
> >
> > >Sure. And doctors are just random people who happen to know more about
> > >medicine than any other random people. Every one of us can go to the
> > >drugstore, after all...
> >
> > Very often this is the case. Anyone who blindly follows
> > the instructions of a physician, without getting an adequate
> > explanation, is someone I find difficult to trust as having
> > enough ability to make a judgment.
>
> Yup. When I was diagnosed with a nerve problem in my wrist and the
> doctor wanted to do surgery, I went online and asked about it; I read
> lots and lots of books about the problem; I read journal articles and
> all sorts of other things, and decided that what my hand needed was
> not surgery, but rest. So, I refused the surgery. My hand is fine
> now. I'm sure the doctor could have used the surgery fees, but I had
> to disappoint him on that one.
>
I'll see that, and raise you one.
My father, a few short years ago, was diagnosed with colon cancer.
His doctor told him that surgery was mandatory. He did not want
surgery. He could have casted aspersions upon the doctor, said
that his judgement was just as good, and found every borderline
(and beyond) case where surgery didn't help, where an alternate
treatment caused a miracle cure, etc. Had he done that, he would be
dead right now.
Instead, he chose to trust in those who had made a lifetime of
studying his cancer. He placed his trust not only in the doctor,
but in the community of doctors at the hospital, and in the reputation
of the doctor and the community.
You asked elsewhere how we can "prove" the authority and learning
of the rabbis from 1000 years ago. I doubt they'll have degrees
that you can research. But you're not talking about lone, renegade
rabbis. You're talking about an entire community, and that
community's reputation. That counts for a lot.
> Anyone who abdicates their human responsibilities - those of critical
> judgment, thought, and information-gathering - deserves the troubles
> they get. This applies to any area of human endeavor - including
> halacha. G-d gave us brains so we could think - and "Yisra-El" means
> "Wrestled with G-d" - not "Submitted to G-d". If you are looking for
> blind submission, try Islam - I hear that's what it's about.
>
You're absolutely correct - but you need to know what the laws are
before you can adequately argue against them. That includes the
context in which those laws sit.
I seem to recall you're a musician - as am I. You need to know
Bach, before Bartok, before BeBop. That is, you need to know the
rules before you can break those rules and be effective at anything
other than cacophany. My son, for example, plays with rhythm and
pitch, but I wouldn't put him on the radio just yet. To me, it sounds
as if you're trying to play with laws you don't yet understand.