 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
Forum
-> Interesting Discussions
poelmamosh
|
 Thu, Dec 05 2013, 11:56 pm
| Tzippora wrote: | The second day of yom tov doesn't make any sense. And hasn't since we got a calendar. There. I said it.
I keep it for social reasons only because anyone with half a brain can see it isn't logical for it to exist. |
It might not be logical, but there is a (mystical) reason, as per the Alter Rebbe. The significance in celebrating each Yom Tov with its particular practices is to draw down unique G-dly energies into the world and the individual. Since Eretz Yisroel is "holier", so to speak, this is accomplished in one day. Throughout Golus, though, we are in a situation where we must avail ourselves to a more protracted process. (the ramifications in halacha of this concept are brought there in the AR's Shaar HaKollel. This contrasts his normative psak on the subject in shulchan aruch, which is generally not based on Kabbalah).
| amother wrote: | For example, in this week's parsha, Yosef sent wagons back to Yaakov. Rashi quotes a midrash saying that Yosef sent wagons so that Yaakov would know it was true, because they were learning "egla arufa" when Yosef was kidnapped.
There are a thousand reasons that this midrash is not literally true. The most important reason is that of course it's ridiculous. But that doesn't mean that it's not meaningful. In fact, it's part of the experience of Torah - building on what came before based on what it means to you. The dvar torah is interesting because this is the meaning it had to our forebears, who gave us our Judaism. Finding this meaning depends on the ability to understand that it wasn't the factual truth, but that by the time the midrash was learning the story of Yosef, the chachamim saw learning together as the obvious connection that a father would have with his favorite child, and would see devoutness as the first concern of a parent who has been separated from his child for decades. What would we imagine Yakov's concern to be? What would our cherished memory be, if we were to be separated from a child? What would our concern be upon an imminent reunion? What do the answers to these questions say about us? It's a much deeper engagement with the parsha, and if we think that the midrash is literally true, we wouldn't have it. |
I'm not sure what is so ridiculous about understanding this literally (though all midrashim are not, this particular one is brought by Rashi, which means it melds with pshat). I'm also not sure why taking it at face value precludes deeper examination/explanation. ALL of Torah is to be understood in various ways-- pshat, remez, drush, sod, each including multiple levels and which can be further enhanced and enmeshed through the unique lens of pnimius Hatorah. So there were real wagons, there was a message from father to son regarding learning (more precious to Yaakov than Yosef's physical status) and there was also a deeply symbolic MO (and this one can be personal) for a Jew navigates Golus (the eglah arufa being a response to Jewish leaders of their repsonsibility to the [spiritually] dead in the [spiritual] desert).
| spring13 wrote: |
Kitniyot is a decent example: I think it's shtuyot, and someday Hashem is going to say "I appreciate that you tried, but dudes that was totally not necessary." He'll appreciate that we tried - because kitniyot is an extension of avoiding chametz, and there is (non-rational but still meaningful) meaning in the process of keeping Pesach. I do what we have a tradition to do, but I keep a cool head about it. |
I respectfully disagree. I have learned that minhag is actually a manifestation of Hashem's deepest ratzon (so to say), the one that is not expressed, but that is adopted by the (a) Jewish community as a result of our--well for this thread's sake--let's say, irrational connection to Him.
This thread has been an amazing exercise for me, mentally, as I am trying to envision my approach to Judaism sans Chassidus. It would be like a puzzle, where the most important pieces are missing, say, all the end pieces that create context...or maybe the background, but the subject is gone...or perhaps even that the pieces each have their own individual micro-image, but it is impossible to put together because there is no bigger picture at all.
| |
|
| Back to top |
 3
|
poelmamosh
|
Fri, Dec 06 2013, 12:01 am
| amother wrote: | | Poelmamosh, name one Sefer or even maamar chassis us that does not use the Zohar or something based on it (e.g. Arizal) as one of its primary sources. Op's dh now holds that those were total frauds. |
The gemara, many classic commentaries, even Rambam, are chockfull of Kabbalistic references. Are those off limits too?
| |
|
| Back to top |
1
|
amother
|
Fri, Dec 06 2013, 12:13 am
| poelmamosh wrote: | | amother wrote: | | Poelmamosh, name one Sefer or even maamar chassis us that does not use the Zohar or something based on it (e.g. Arizal) as one of its primary sources. Op's dh now holds that those were total frauds. |
The gemara, many classic commentaries, even Rambam, are chockfull of Kabbalistic references. Are those off limits too? | I did not say Kabbalah, I said Zohar, arizal and family. I challenge you to find anything readable about Kabbalah that is not based on a historically questionable source such as those.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
|
fromthedepths
|
Fri, Dec 06 2013, 12:15 am
I don't have time to read the whole thread, but just wanted to mention that dh has some friends who are into rationalist Judaism. Makes for some fascinating discussions at the Shabbos table  . Not my cup of tea, but certainly mainstream. I don't see it as them vs. the rest of the frum world. You probably see it this way because it is so new to you. The truth is that many big poskim would actually agree with many "rationalist" ideas. They're not so unusual. If your neshama derives its nourishment from this approach then it's a wonderful path in avodas Hashem. (Yes, I know, I just threw in some mysticism. Sorry, can't help it  .)
| |
|
| Back to top |
6
|
amother
|
Fri, Dec 06 2013, 9:16 am
| poelmamosh wrote: |
| amother wrote: | For example, in this week's parsha, Yosef sent wagons back to Yaakov. Rashi quotes a midrash saying that Yosef sent wagons so that Yaakov would know it was true, because they were learning "egla arufa" when Yosef was kidnapped.
There are a thousand reasons that this midrash is not literally true. The most important reason is that of course it's ridiculous. But that doesn't mean that it's not meaningful. In fact, it's part of the experience of Torah - building on what came before based on what it means to you. The dvar torah is interesting because this is the meaning it had to our forebears, who gave us our Judaism. Finding this meaning depends on the ability to understand that it wasn't the factual truth, but that by the time the midrash was learning the story of Yosef, the chachamim saw learning together as the obvious connection that a father would have with his favorite child, and would see devoutness as the first concern of a parent who has been separated from his child for decades. What would we imagine Yakov's concern to be? What would our cherished memory be, if we were to be separated from a child? What would our concern be upon an imminent reunion? What do the answers to these questions say about us? It's a much deeper engagement with the parsha, and if we think that the midrash is literally true, we wouldn't have it. |
I'm not sure what is so ridiculous about understanding this literally (though all midrashim are not, this particular one is brought by Rashi, which means it melds with pshat). I'm also not sure why taking it at face value precludes deeper examination/explanation. ALL of Torah is to be understood in various ways-- pshat, remez, drush, sod, each including multiple levels and which can be further enhanced and enmeshed through the unique lens of pnimius Hatorah. So there were real wagons, there was a message from father to son regarding learning (more precious to Yaakov than Yosef's physical status) and there was also a deeply symbolic MO (and this one can be personal) for a Jew navigates Golus (the eglah arufa being a response to Jewish leaders of their repsonsibility to the [spiritually] dead in the [spiritual] desert).
|
1. According to the story found in the Torah, the Torah hadn't been given yet, so to think that Yakov was learning it is by definition irrational.
2. There is no evidence of topical, halachic Torah study before bayis sheini at the earliest.
3. The message relies on a pun that worked in 2448. There is no reason to assume it worked 200 years earlier.
4. The story assumes that because they were learning together, both Yakov and Yosef would interpret the "agalot" as a pun 22 years later. But the pasuk says that the agalot were Par'oh's idea. Obviously, it was a rational thing to do with or without the homophone. So who says that Yakov would get the reference? And who says that if he saw the connection, he would assume it was intentional? And all that said, how is this a better outcome than simply asking the brothers?
Moreover, the way you've expressed your understanding of the piece shows where you and I differ. That Rashi says it doesn't make it "pshat", unless you define "pshat" by "what Rashi said" (which is a fine definition, but not universal). In my view, the correct inquiry would be, given that this is clearly not the straightforward intent of the pasuk (I.e. not pshat), why does Rashi, who claims to favor pshat, include it?
I'm also uncertain about your assertion that all (I.e. every individual snippet) of Torah includes p'shat, remez, drush and sod. This bit, according to my understanding, is already drush. Does every drush also contain pshat, remez, drush, and sod? Moreover, you seem to understand pshat, remez, drush, and sod as each being pre-determined elements that are a part of the "one true Torah". I see the search for individual personal meaning as leading to and creating pshat, remez, drush, and sod.
| |
|
| Back to top |
1
|
poelmamosh
|
Fri, Dec 06 2013, 10:47 am
I'm not going to attempt a point-by-point on Friday morning, perhaps I'll come back to it later. Briefly: the gemara states unequivocally that the avos kept Torah (yes, the nuances are in dispute, but not the statement). Why is it more rational to say they didn't? Is there empirical proof that they even existed? Where do you draw the line between what you accept at face value and what is questionable --what makes sense to you in 2013?
How about this, as an alternative reading of the opening Passuk in our Parsha (again, mystical, sorry) with the caveat that Yoseph and Yehudah are merely parabolic and never really lives, since it can't be proven?
And the force of Sovereignty (Malchus, Yehuda) came near to the forcefield of Foundation (Yoseph, Yesod) and subjugated herself to him, while in Egypt, (the depraved society, aka exile) the worldliness of Yesod wins out (but the Yeshiva environment must be established through Yehudah). Ultimately, though, Yehudah is the stronger and the true purpose of this world is the perfect balance of the two, as we see at the End of Days, where there will be the dual leadership of Moshiach ben Yoseph (preceding) Moshiach ben David.
And yes, every Passuk in the Torah can be read this way and exists on a level that is not on this physical plane. Otherwise, how would there even be an argument that concludes:"Lo Bashamayim hee?"
| |
|
| Back to top |
4
|
poelmamosh
|
Fri, Dec 06 2013, 10:59 am
One more thing: IIRC, the exact quote from Rashi is "אני לא בא אלא לפרש פשוטו של מקרא"
(My commentary is nothing except to interpret the pshat) It's a much stronger, precise statement than "favoring".
| |
|
| Back to top |
3
|
PinkFridge
|
Fri, Dec 06 2013, 11:04 am
| amother wrote: | [
I'm also uncertain about your assertion that all (I.e. every individual snippet) of Torah includes p'shat, remez, drush and sod. This bit, according to my understanding, is already drush. Does every drush also contain pshat, remez, drush, and sod? Moreover, you seem to understand pshat, remez, drush, and sod as each being pre-determined elements that are a part of the "one true Torah". I see the search for individual personal meaning as leading to and creating pshat, remez, drush, and sod. |
Re all that I didn't quote: what did they learn in the yeshiva of Shem and Ever?
About personal meaning: I think it was Rav Yechezkel Abramsky, zt'l who said something very personally meaningful re prayer that one might extrapolate here a bit. He said that when we daven we might find ourselves injecting words with meanings that might not be intended or fit perfectly and that that's alright and part of our personal avodah and connection. (If anyone's familiar with this thought, please feel free to correct and/or clarify.)
OTOH, there's creative midrash, the pitfalls and often silliness of which was illustrated very well by Allegra Goodman (not sure which book. Kaaterskill Falls?). If we don't have some respect for the process at some point, some bottom line, learning might end becoming meaningless. But again, I'm beginning to wonder if I'm overstepping my safe-haven bounds. I'm not trying to argue or question, just want to get some things spelled out.
| |
|
| Back to top |
1
|
Dolly Welsh
|
Fri, Dec 06 2013, 11:18 am
Person 1: So, are we continuing history, or are we living in this one minute right now?
Person 2:Yes.
Person 1: What?
Person 2: Yes! If you would come out from under the bed, I could show you a Cezanne.
Person 1: What's so great about that?
Person 2: There is no way to look at a Cezanne through the eyes of your ancestors. You have to look at it for yourself.
Person 1: That's scary! I'm staying under the bed.
Person 2: Fine. Good night.
Person 1: Wait! What about the monsters?
Person 2: Don't worry. I will push some Calvin and Hobbes books under the bed for you.
Person 1: Thanks. You're a pal.
Person 2: Don't mention it. Sigh.
| |
|
| Back to top |
8
|
amother
|
Fri, Dec 06 2013, 11:49 am
| poelmamosh wrote: | I'm not going to attempt a point-by-point on Friday morning, perhaps I'll come back to it later. Briefly: the gemara states unequivocally that the avos kept Torah (yes, the nuances are in dispute, but not the statement). Why is it more rational to say they didn't? Is there empirical proof that they even existed? Where do you draw the line between what you accept at face value and what is questionable --what makes sense to you in 2013?
How about this, as an alternative reading of the opening Passuk in our Parsha (again, mystical, sorry) with the caveat that Yoseph and Yehudah are merely parabolic and never really lives, since it can't be proven?
And the force of Sovereignty (Malchus, Yehuda) came near to the forcefield of Foundation (Yoseph, Yesod) and subjugated herself to him, while in Egypt, (the depraved society, aka exile) the worldliness of Yesod wins out (but the Yeshiva environment must be established through Yehudah). Ultimately, though, Yehudah is the stronger and the true purpose of this world is the perfect balance of the two, as we see at the End of Days, where there will be the dual leadership of Moshiach ben Yoseph (preceding) Moshiach ben David.
And yes, every Passuk in the Torah can be read this way and exists on a level that is not on this physical plane. Otherwise, how would there even be an argument that concludes:"Lo Bashamayim hee?" |
1. The gemara states it unequivocally, but whether the gemara was factually correct and whether the gemara is pshat is not for the gemara to decide. Rationality and pshat are related but I'm not making a rationality argument here. I'm making a pshat argument - according to the simple meaning of the words of the Torah, it hadn't been given yet. Therefore, the avos could not have kept it. I do not know whether the avos existed empirically (I suspect not) but according to the pshat in the Torah they did. I accept the face value assertions of the Torah at face value in reading the Torah. I don't accept them as empirical fact.
2. This is a wonderful drush. I am glad that you created and experienced meaning and poetry in the words of the Torah. Similarly, I appreciate that Rav did when he said that the avos kept the Torah, and that the midrash Rashi cites did when it said that Yosef send "agalot" to Yakov to signify that he remained devout.
3. The argument that concludes "Lo bashamayim hee" is a reference to a voice descending from the heavens and has nothing to do with existence on a non-physical plane.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
|
amother
|
Fri, Dec 06 2013, 11:58 am
| PinkFridge wrote: | | amother wrote: | [
I'm also uncertain about your assertion that all (I.e. every individual snippet) of Torah includes p'shat, remez, drush and sod. This bit, according to my understanding, is already drush. Does every drush also contain pshat, remez, drush, and sod? Moreover, you seem to understand pshat, remez, drush, and sod as each being pre-determined elements that are a part of the "one true Torah". I see the search for individual personal meaning as leading to and creating pshat, remez, drush, and sod. |
Re all that I didn't quote: what did they learn in the yeshiva of Shem and Ever?
About personal meaning: I think it was Rav Yechezkel Abramsky, zt'l who said something very personally meaningful re prayer that one might extrapolate here a bit. He said that when we daven we might find ourselves injecting words with meanings that might not be intended or fit perfectly and that that's alright and part of our personal avodah and connection. (If anyone's familiar with this thought, please feel free to correct and/or clarify.)
OTOH, there's creative midrash, the pitfalls and often silliness of which was illustrated very well by Allegra Goodman (not sure which book. Kaaterskill Falls?). If we don't have some respect for the process at some point, some bottom line, learning might end becoming meaningless. But again, I'm beginning to wonder if I'm overstepping my safe-haven bounds. I'm not trying to argue or question, just want to get some things spelled out. | AFAIK, Yeshivas Shem v'Ever is another midrash. I don't know this offhand, but that would also be a "retrojection" that Chazal put in, similar to the idea of Yosef learning with his Yakov.
And I understand that there must be limits to creative midrash, but that doesn't necessarily mean we can't accept that a lot of midrash was originally intended as creative midrash. And whatever limitations rationalism comes up with should not be founded on the fallacious notion that no legitimate midrash was a "creative midrash".
An underlying theme of all of this is that modern-day frum people have a series of assumptions that is so deeply ingrained that they assume that it's the baseline default rational state of things. But thinking it does not make it so. It is more likely that Rav never intended to say that Avraham only used badatz hashgacha than it is that Avraham used badatz hashgacha.
| |
|
| Back to top |
1
|
PinkFridge
|
Fri, Dec 06 2013, 12:18 pm
| amother wrote: |
1. The gemara states it unequivocally, but whether the gemara was factually correct and whether the gemara is pshat is not for the gemara to decide. Rationality and pshat are related but I'm not making a rationality argument here. I'm making a pshat argument - according to the simple meaning of the words of the Torah, it hadn't been given yet. Therefore, the avos could not have kept it. I do not know whether the avos existed empirically (I suspect not) but according to the pshat in the Torah they did. I accept the face value assertions of the Torah at face value in reading the Torah. I don't accept them as empirical fact.
2. This is a wonderful drush. I am glad that you created and experienced meaning and poetry in the words of the Torah. Similarly, I appreciate that Rav did when he said that the avos kept the Torah, and that the midrash Rashi cites did when it said that Yosef send "agalot" to Yakov to signify that he remained devout.
3. The argument that concludes "Lo bashamayim hee" is a reference to a voice descending from the heavens and has nothing to do with existence on a non-physical plane. |
No shocked emoticons or anything. Just woooooow. So who are you comfortable averring existed before George Washington?
| |
|
| Back to top |
6
|
mille
|
Fri, Dec 06 2013, 2:42 pm
| poelmamosh wrote: |
| spring13 wrote: |
Kitniyot is a decent example: I think it's shtuyot, and someday Hashem is going to say "I appreciate that you tried, but dudes that was totally not necessary." He'll appreciate that we tried - because kitniyot is an extension of avoiding chametz, and there is (non-rational but still meaningful) meaning in the process of keeping Pesach. I do what we have a tradition to do, but I keep a cool head about it. |
I respectfully disagree. I have learned that minhag is actually a manifestation of Hashem's deepest ratzon (so to say), the one that is not expressed, but that is adopted by the (a) Jewish community as a result of our--well for this thread's sake--let's say, irrational connection to Him. |
Seriously? So that seems to say something interesting about sefardi folk and those who don't keep kitniyot if keeping kitniyot is Hashem's "deepest ratzon". This sounds a lot more like something to justify the keeping of kitniyot when it is not longer relevant or necessary, or to justify the practice of a complete stringency, not Hashem's "deepest ratzon" regarding Pesach observance.
Also to the OP, as a rationalist who went to a Chabad seminary who had the "just learn some chasidus!" thrown at me a lot to help quell my evil logical religious foundations, go ahead and try, but don't expect it to be a cure. And expect your husband to disagree with everything and not really get it, because imo chasidus and rational judaism are quite big opposites. I feel like adding chasidus to the equation may only really hurt the shalom bayis aspect, not really help. Just my personal perspective, though. Obviously you know yourself and your relationship best.
| |
|
| Back to top |
6
|
amother
|
Fri, Dec 06 2013, 3:13 pm
| PinkFridge wrote: | | amother wrote: |
1. The gemara states it unequivocally, but whether the gemara was factually correct and whether the gemara is pshat is not for the gemara to decide. Rationality and pshat are related but I'm not making a rationality argument here. I'm making a pshat argument - according to the simple meaning of the words of the Torah, it hadn't been given yet. Therefore, the avos could not have kept it. I do not know whether the avos existed empirically (I suspect not) but according to the pshat in the Torah they did. I accept the face value assertions of the Torah at face value in reading the Torah. I don't accept them as empirical fact.
2. This is a wonderful drush. I am glad that you created and experienced meaning and poetry in the words of the Torah. Similarly, I appreciate that Rav did when he said that the avos kept the Torah, and that the midrash Rashi cites did when it said that Yosef send "agalot" to Yakov to signify that he remained devout.
3. The argument that concludes "Lo bashamayim hee" is a reference to a voice descending from the heavens and has nothing to do with existence on a non-physical plane. |
No shocked emoticons or anything. Just woooooow. So who are you comfortable averring existed before George Washington? | The wording of your question is a bit off, given that I didn't say he didn't exist. If you read my earlier posts, you will see my opinion that history and Torah don't occupy the same "factual" space. Thus, I don't really think much about whether Avraham actually existed outside the realm of the Torah. Other characters who appear in the realm of history qua history, I evaluate in historical terms.
| |
|
| Back to top |
1
|
sequoia
|
Fri, Dec 06 2013, 3:25 pm
|
Exactly. Non-overlapping magisteria.
| |
|
| Back to top |
1
|
freidasima
|
Sat, Dec 07 2013, 12:07 pm
|
Oy. Just oy. Do you really think amother with the avos business, that you can get that across to anyone who hasn't had that type of education? (I have an I agree on the cerebral level and rational level while on the emotional level I still think of Avraham and company as real people... the dichotomy never bothered me, just like it never bothered my friend who teaches geology at the Hebrew University and talks in class about millions of years but when he walks out of class and someone asks him as a believing Jew how old the world is he will say five thousand seven hundred....etc.
| |
|
| Back to top |
1
|
baba
|
Sat, Dec 07 2013, 5:59 pm
I'm sorry, I didnt read everything and it's close to my bedtime, but I just had to respond.
I understand that all this is new for you, but I think you need to know that most of what you think is super controversial is probably already out there and accepted in certain circles.
My dh learned in a "rationalist" yeshive, rambamistim all the way. In fact, his RY is considered a great expert in anything concerning the rambam. In the beginning I used to be a little shocked, but now I'm used to it. I never liked those types of stories you mentioned in the beginning and they always took away from my emuna. To this day I cringe when my kids come home with stories from the parsha that are so far from the pshat.
I dont know what kind of environment you live in, but I would suggest looking into something open MO.
As an aside, I just started learning Moreh Nevuchim with dh, so I'm getting all kinds of new mind boggling stuff. I just cant understand how some of his beliefs are clearly being ignored in mainstream dati society.
ps, I would go into more detail, but I dont feel this is the place for it. Are you on the MO board?
| |
|
| Back to top |
2
|
amother
|
Sat, Dec 07 2013, 8:11 pm
| baba wrote: | I'm sorry, I didnt read everything and it's close to my bedtime, but I just had to respond.
I understand that all this is new for you, but I think you need to know that most of what you think is super controversial is probably already out there and accepted in certain circles.
My dh learned in a "rationalist" yeshive, rambamistim all the way. In fact, his RY is considered a great expert in anything concerning the rambam. In the beginning I used to be a little shocked, but now I'm used to it. I never liked those types of stories you mentioned in the beginning and they always took away from my emuna. To this day I cringe when my kids come home with stories from the parsha that are so far from the pshat.
I dont know what kind of environment you live in, but I would suggest looking into something open MO.
As an aside, I just started learning Moreh Nevuchim with dh, so I'm getting all kinds of new mind boggling stuff. I just cant understand how some of his beliefs are clearly being ignored in mainstream dati society.
ps, I would go into more detail, but I dont feel this is the place for it. Are you on the MO board? |
Op here. Again replying on the fly not able to respond in detail but wondering which mainstream (?) yeshivas are rationalist. Moderately so would be perfect, I don't need my kids to be philosophizing about whether the Avos existed just yet but it would be nice to find a place where they won't be led to think their father is a [gentile] for not doing kapparos, et al.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
|
poelmamosh
|
Sat, Dec 07 2013, 8:16 pm
| amother wrote: |
1. The gemara states it unequivocally, but whether the gemara was factually correct and whether the gemara is pshat is not for the gemara to decide. Rationality and pshat are related but I'm not making a rationality argument here. I'm making a pshat argument - according to the simple meaning of the words of the Torah, it hadn't been given yet. Therefore, the avos could not have kept it. I do not know whether the avos existed empirically (I suspect not) but according to the pshat in the Torah they did. I accept the face value assertions of the Torah at face value in reading the Torah. I don't accept them as empirical fact. |
Whatever terms you use, you are implying that there is a simple meaning to the Torah outside all of the known commentaries on it: Tanaim, Amuraim, Rishonim... This is not the case, unless you call yourself a Karaite. There is a process to understanding Torah, and you are free to choose a "side" when more than one is presented, but to unilaterally decide that all published, mesoraic explanations are too esoteric for your sensiblities and you understand differently is, well, I'm not sure what it is, but it is not Rationalist Judaism as I have experienced it.
| amother wrote: |
2. This is a wonderful drush. I am glad that you created and experienced meaning and poetry in the words of the Torah. Similarly, I appreciate that Rav did when he said that the avos kept the Torah, and that the midrash Rashi cites did when it said that Yosef send "agalot" to Yakov to signify that he remained devout. |
I did not create it. The original source is in Chassidus/Kabbalah. Yes, it speaks to me, but it would be ludicrous to limit Torah, G-d forbid, to any one particular interpretation.
| amother wrote: |
3. The argument that concludes "Lo bashamayim hee" is a reference to a voice descending from the heavens and has nothing to do with existence on a non-physical plane. |
That's a very literal reading:) My point was simply that there are multiple "truths" when it comes to Torah and determining Halacha.
| |
|
| Back to top |
2
|
poelmamosh
|
Sat, Dec 07 2013, 8:24 pm
| mille wrote: | | poelmamosh wrote: |
| spring13 wrote: |
Kitniyot is a decent example: I think it's shtuyot, and someday Hashem is going to say "I appreciate that you tried, but dudes that was totally not necessary." He'll appreciate that we tried - because kitniyot is an extension of avoiding chametz, and there is (non-rational but still meaningful) meaning in the process of keeping Pesach. I do what we have a tradition to do, but I keep a cool head about it. |
I respectfully disagree. I have learned that minhag is actually a manifestation of Hashem's deepest ratzon (so to say), the one that is not expressed, but that is adopted by the (a) Jewish community as a result of our--well for this thread's sake--let's say, irrational connection to Him. |
Seriously? So that seems to say something interesting about sefardi folk and those who don't keep kitniyot if keeping kitniyot is Hashem's "deepest ratzon". This sounds a lot more like something to justify the keeping of kitniyot when it is not longer relevant or necessary, or to justify the practice of a complete stringency, not Hashem's "deepest ratzon" regarding Pesach observance.
Also to the OP, as a rationalist who went to a Chabad seminary who had the "just learn some chasidus!" thrown at me a lot to help quell my evil logical religious foundations, go ahead and try, but don't expect it to be a cure. And expect your husband to disagree with everything and not really get it, because imo chasidus and rational judaism are quite big opposites. I feel like adding chasidus to the equation may only really hurt the shalom bayis aspect, not really help. Just my personal perspective, though. Obviously you know yourself and your relationship best. |
Sephardim have their own minhagim. I am not G-d forbid, implying that only Ashkenazim figured it out! The example brought was kitniyos, so I used that example, but the application is universal. To me it is obvious that the diversity of Jewish practice is intentional on Hashem's part, are you disagreeing?
As to the rest, based on what I said above, I am not advocating that a Chassidic life is for everyone. The OP is not comfortable with her DH's version of Judaism, and is not finding answers in her own. I am simply suggesting some new horizons to explore. IME, there are many women who are drawn to Chassidus although their men, as a whole, are less enthusiastic (stereotyping much, I know) I think any marriage will benefit from a happier, less conflicted wife.
| |
|
| Back to top |
2
|
|
Imamother may earn commission when you use our links to make a purchase.
© 2024 Imamother.com - All rights reserved
|  |
 |
|
 |
|
|
