Home
Log in / Sign Up
    Private Messages   Advanced Search   Rules   New User Guide   FAQ   Advertise   Contact Us  
Forum -> Interesting Discussions
Explaining segulas
Previous  1  2  3  4  Next



Post new topic   Reply to topic View latest: 24h 48h 72h

avigailmiriam




 
 
    
 

Post Sat, Jan 10 2009, 7:46 pm
miriamf wrote:
avigailmiriam wrote:
miriamf wrote:
I am afraid I don't follow. Mitzvos D'rabbanan by definition have human influence.
Perhaps I am missing something (a definite possibility) but this germ idea sounds very similar to me to expanations that laws of nidda were based on misconceptions about the menstruating woman and pig was forbidden because of some disease it used to cause which we can now eliminate. If we believe those kinds of reasons, why should we keep halacha?


People keep halacha for plenty of reasons, some of which have nothing to do with God.

1. Social: Being a part of Jewish culture may come at a price--and that price is playing by the rules, so to speak. Frum culture has many wonderful things to offer.

2. Enjoyment: Some people LIKE keeping halacha, and LIKE being religious, even if they do not believe in a divine impetus behind it's formulation.

3. Familial: A desire to raise children in the Orthodox lifestyle because one thinks it's the best way to live, a desire to stay married to one's religious spouse, a desire to please one's parents, etc.

4. Cultural: A desire to identify with one's culture/heritage/history, even if you do not believe in a divine basis for said culture.


Orthodox Judaism is predicated on the belief of divine origin. If one keeps halacha for social,enjoyment, familial, or cultural reasons, it is certainly a good deed, but without the belief, is sort of an empty shell.


To you, maybe. Other people find it fulfilling.
Back to top

Tzippora




 
 
    
 

Post Sat, Jan 10 2009, 7:48 pm
miriamf wrote:
avigailmiriam wrote:
miriamf wrote:
I am afraid I don't follow. Mitzvos D'rabbanan by definition have human influence.
Perhaps I am missing something (a definite possibility) but this germ idea sounds very similar to me to expanations that laws of nidda were based on misconceptions about the menstruating woman and pig was forbidden because of some disease it used to cause which we can now eliminate. If we believe those kinds of reasons, why should we keep halacha?


People keep halacha for plenty of reasons, some of which have nothing to do with God.

1. Social: Being a part of Jewish culture may come at a price--and that price is playing by the rules, so to speak. Frum culture has many wonderful things to offer.

2. Enjoyment: Some people LIKE keeping halacha, and LIKE being religious, even if they do not believe in a divine impetus behind it's formulation.

3. Familial: A desire to raise children in the Orthodox lifestyle because one thinks it's the best way to live, a desire to stay married to one's religious spouse, a desire to please one's parents, etc.

4. Cultural: A desire to identify with one's culture/heritage/history, even if you do not believe in a divine basis for said culture.


Orthodox Judaism is predicated on the belief of divine origin. If one keeps halacha for social,enjoyment, familial, or cultural reasons, it is certainly a good deed, but without the belief, is sort of an empty shell.


But divine origin of what? If one believed in the d'oraisa having divine origin, but not the d'rabanan, and then they did the rest for social/cultural purposes, etc? If they think most minhagim are nonsensical, but do them for comfort purposes? I know people with these and many other permutations - less than ideal, but there are plenty of people who may have some belief and some of the other factors playing in to their decisions. And certain things are not required beliefs - did you see in the 13 ikkrim that someone needs to believe that all the piskei halacha of the rishonim or of a particular rabbi, for that matter, are min hashamayim?
Back to top

avigailmiriam




 
 
    
 

Post Sat, Jan 10 2009, 7:51 pm
Tzippora wrote:

But divine origin of what? If one believed in the d'oraisa having divine origin, but not the d'rabanan


Those people are called Karaites. :p

But I get what you mean.
Back to top

Tzippora




 
 
    
 

Post Sat, Jan 10 2009, 7:53 pm
avigailmiriam wrote:
Tzippora wrote:

But divine origin of what? If one believed in the d'oraisa having divine origin, but not the d'rabanan


Those people are called Karaites. :p

But I get what you mean.


Yeah, the modern day "karaites" who might live as Orthoprax for any of the reasons you mention.
Back to top

chocolate moose




 
 
    
 

Post Sat, Jan 10 2009, 7:54 pm
I don't get it.

Isn't the bendele from Kever Ruchel, drawing on the koyach that HaShem gave Ruchel Imeinu ?

How is any segulah not power coming from HaShem?
Back to top

gonewiththewind




 
 
    
 

Post Sat, Jan 10 2009, 8:07 pm
Tzippora, I have a strong feeling that you know what I mean. AM spoke about keeping halacha without believing there is a "divine impetus" to use her words. I think you know perfectly well that I don't mean a specific psak halacha . In fact you probably agree that keeping halacha because you like, it, it is good for your family, or for social reasons as AM mentioned is not in keeping with the 13 ikkarim.

As far as science and halacha, I am going to try to access that banned message board. In the meantime, I will only quote rabbi Ahron Feldman. I found the use of the word apologetics inappropriately dismissive.

THE CREDIBILITY OF THE SAGES
There are many places in the Talmud where statements made by the Sages seem to contradict modern science. The most common are the cures and potions which the Talmud gives for various diseases. Our great halachic authorities have noted the phenomenon that these cures, in the vast majority of cases, do not seem to cure illnesses in our times.
The most widespread explanation offered for this is nishtanu hatevaim, “nature has changed” - cures that worked in the times of the Talmud are no longer effective. There are many examples of illnesses and cures, which because of environmental and nutritional differences and physical changes to the body over the years are no longer effective. Another explanation is that we cannot reproduce these cures, either because the definitions or the amounts of the ingredient of these cures are unspecified in the Talmud. It has also been suggested that the cures had their effect on the inner, spiritual level of the affected person, and therefore were effective only for the people of the era of the Sages who were on a higher spiritual level than nowadays but not for later generations when increased physicality did not permit the cures to take effect..
Against these explanations is another theory. The Sages based their wisdom on the medical knowledge of their times. This would seem perfectly legitimate, for why should they not rely on the experts of their time on issues not directly addressed by the Written or the Oral Law? Therefore, when subsequently medicine indicates that these cures are ineffectual, there would be nothing disrespectful in asserting that the scientific knowledge of antiquity available to the Sages was flawed..
This approach is mentioned by many eminent authorities in Jewish history. Rav Sherira Gaon mentions it with respect to cures. R. Avraham, son of the Rambam, mentions it with respect to all science and the Rambam with respect to astronomy.
Pachad Yizchok says that statements in the Talmud which seem to uphold spontaneous generation are incorrect, even though we do not change any laws based on their words. Rav Shamshon Refael Hirsch applies this argument to animals mentioned in the Talmud which do not seem to exist nowadays. Finally, a conversation with R. Eliyahu Eliezer Dessler recorded by Rabbi Aryeh Carmel indicates a somewhat similar approach.

This theory, more than the first, has caused the most misunderstanding. How could anyone be faulted for espousing a view stated by giants of previous generations?
The answer to this question is that although these giants did indeed espouse this view, it is a minority opinion which has been rejected by most authorities since then.
In Lev Avraham Dr. Abraham Abraham-Sofer, discusses why the cures mentioned in the Talmud should not be relied upon in actual practice. As above, he explains that either a) the cures worked for the Sages but not for us; or b) following R. Avraham, that the Sages erred when they thought that these cures work. In a note to a later edition of this work, the world famous authority R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach asked to add the following comment: “The principal explanation is the other views; that which is written “when the Sages spoke etc.” [R.. Avraham’s view], should be mentioned in the name of yesh omrim.” This means that the view of R. Avraham is a minority opinion which only “some say.”
Ten years later, a scholar, about to publish a book on the topic of Torah and health, asked R. Shlomo Zalman how an opinion held by such giants of Jewish history be relegated to the position of yesh omrim? Rav Auerbach responded in a letter stating that he did not remember his sources (it was ten years later), but he believes one source to be that it is the accepted opinion of poskim that we rely on the medical opinion of the Sages to violate Shabbos even though according to modern medical opinion the cures are ineffectual and we are violating Shabbos unnecessarily. Thus, for practical purposes we reject the view of R. Avraham.
There are other sources that this opinion is only one which “some say.” In countless places where the commentaries, whether Rishonim or Acharonim (Early or Later Authorties), are faced with a contradiction between the science of their times and a statement of the Sages, they commonly apply the principle, nishtanu hateva’im (“nature has changed”). Had they held R. Avraham’s view, they would have simply explained that the Sages erred in following whatever was the medical or scientific opinion of their times.
The Rivash, the Rashba and the Maharal write, as well, that it is forbidden to say that the Sages erred in matters of science.
Leshem Shevo Ve-achlama writes:
The main thing is: everyone who is called a Jew is obligated to believe with complete faith that everything found in the words of the Sages whether in halachos or agados of the Talmud or in the Midrashim, are all the words of the Living God, for everything which they said is with the spirit of God which spoke within them, and “the secret of God is given to those who fear Him (סוד ה' ליראיו).” This is just as we find in Sanhedrin 48b that even regarding something which has no application to Halacha and practical behavior, the Talmud asks regarding [the Sage] Rav Nachman, “How did he know this?” and the reply given is [that he knew this because] “The secret from God is given to those who fear him….”

The Chazon Ish, considered by many to be the posek acharon (final Torah authority) for our times, writes in his “Letters” that “our tradition” is that the shechita of someone who denies the truth of the Sages whether in the Halacha or Aggada (the non-halachic parts) of the Talmud is disqualified just as is someone who is a heretic. He adds that experience has shown that those who begin questioning the truth of the Sages will ultimately lose their future generations to Torah.
Why does mainstream opinion reject R.Avraham’s opinion? This is not because they considered the Sages greater scientists than their modern counterparts. Rather, they believed that, unlike R. Avraham’s view, the source of all the knowledge of the Sages is either from Sinaitic tradition (received at the Giving of the Torah) or from Divine inspiration. That they were in contact with such sources in undeniable. How else could we explain numerous examples where the Sages had scientific information which no scientist of their time had? How were they so precise in their calculations of the New Moon? How did they know that hemophilia is transmitted by the mother’s DNA, a fact discovered relatively recently? How did they know that “a drop exudes from the brain and develops into semen” without having known that the pituitary gland, located at the base of the brain, emits a hormone which controls the production of semen. None of this could have been discovered by experimentation Either they had a tradition directly teaching them these facts, or they knew them by applying principles which were part of the Oral Torah regarding the inner workings of the world. Thus they knew the precise cycle of the moon; they knew that there was a relationship between the coagulation of blood and motherhood; and they knew that there was a relationship between the brain and male reproduction.
Furthermore, the Talmud is not a mere compilation of the sayings of wise men; it is the sum total of Torah- she-be-al-peh, the Oral Torah which is the interpretation of the Written Torah. It is, then, the word of G-d, for which reason we are required to make a birchas hatorah (a blessing) before we study it, which we do not make before studying other wisdoms. As the Leshem cited above says, if even regarding matters which are not related to halacha, the Sages say, sod Hashem liyerav, “G-d reveals the secrets of nature to those who fear him,” then certainly there must have been siyata dishmaya (Divine assistance) and even ruach hakodesh (a Divine spirit) assisting the Sages in their redaction of the Oral Law. It is therefore inconceivable, to these opinions, that G-d would have permitted falsities to have been transmitted as Torah She-be-al-peh and not have revealed His secrets to those who fear Him.


R. Yosef Shalom Eliashiv, was asked, if this approach is wrong how could so many earlier authorities have held it? He answered: “They were permitted to hold this opinion; we are not.” In other words, they were authorities in their own right qualified to decide matters of Jewish law. We are not permitted to do so. We are enjoined to follow the majority opinion and our tradition as to how we are to approach Torah.
Can an individual on his own decide to follow the minority opinion? No more than he is permitted to do so in any matter of Jewish law and certainly not in matters which determine our basic approach to Torah she b’al peh which is the domain of the poskim (recognized decisors of halacha) of the Jewish people.
Back to top

gonewiththewind




 
 
    
 

Post Sat, Jan 10 2009, 8:14 pm
avigailmiriam wrote:
miriamf wrote:
avigailmiriam wrote:
miriamf wrote:
I am afraid I don't follow. Mitzvos D'rabbanan by definition have human influence.
Perhaps I am missing something (a definite possibility) but this germ idea sounds very similar to me to expanations that laws of nidda were based on misconceptions about the menstruating woman and pig was forbidden because of some disease it used to cause which we can now eliminate. If we believe those kinds of reasons, why should we keep halacha?


People keep halacha for plenty of reasons, some of which have nothing to do with God.

1. Social: Being a part of Jewish culture may come at a price--and that price is playing by the rules, so to speak. Frum culture has many wonderful things to offer.

2. Enjoyment: Some people LIKE keeping halacha, and LIKE being religious, even if they do not believe in a divine impetus behind it's formulation.

3. Familial: A desire to raise children in the Orthodox lifestyle because one thinks it's the best way to live, a desire to stay married to one's religious spouse, a desire to please one's parents, etc.

4. Cultural: A desire to identify with one's culture/heritage/history, even if you do not believe in a divine basis for said culture.


Orthodox Judaism is predicated on the belief of divine origin. If one keeps halacha for social,enjoyment, familial, or cultural reasons, it is certainly a good deed, but without the belief, is sort of an empty shell.


To you, maybe. Other people find it fulfilling.


Sure it may be fulfilling, but it is not Orthodoxy.
Back to top

BeershevaBubby




 
 
    
 

Post Sat, Jan 10 2009, 8:14 pm
chocolate moose wrote:
I don't get it.

Isn't the bendele from Kever Ruchel, drawing on the koyach that HaShem gave Ruchel Imeinu ?

How is any segulah not power coming from HaShem?


The problem is at some point, more often than not, the people believing in the segulah place WAY too much importance on the relevance of the actual object, that it is the actual red string protecting them and NOT Hashem. Needing to be reminded that the string is insignificant is A"Z...
Back to top

octopus




 
 
    
 

Post Sat, Jan 10 2009, 8:18 pm
amother wrote:
I'm with Cassandra. Before I was married I wore a red string as a segulah - my Rebbetzin cut it off my wrist without asking me first. She said it's a segulah for attracting nut-jobs... a very shtark woman with a chashuve husband and I didn't second guess her.


lol, I came home with a red bendel from school once, and my father told me to cut it off my wrist. Cassandra, I am familiar with that medrash.
Back to top

hadasa




 
 
    
 

Post Sat, Jan 10 2009, 11:37 pm
I wouldn't say it's always AZ to ascribe spiritual powers to a physical object, as long as we remember that it is Hashem who gives all powers, whether physical or spiritual. A Mezuzah guards our home, a Yarmulka is conducive to Yiras Shamayim, Tzedakah saves from death,... These and more are part of normative Judaism.
The problem is, as other posters have pointed out, when Segulos that have nothing to do with prayer or Mitzvos become the focus, letting more important things fall by the wayside. The Lubavitcher Rebbe's usual shitah is that the best Segulah is to increase in Torah and Mitzvos (although he did encourage certain specific Segulos). Also, segulos can not take the place of a person putting in the proper effort.
As I heard, also in the name of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, "while it's true that the husband's folding up his Tallis on Motzoei Shabbos is a Segula for Shalom Bayis, washing the dishes is a bigger Segulah!" Wink
Back to top

shalhevet




 
 
    
 

Post Sat, Jan 10 2009, 11:50 pm
cassandra wrote:
mali wrote:
cassandra wrote:
shalhevet wrote:

Some segulas are like a spiritual tool - for example being careful with Shabbos and Chanuka candles ensures children who are talmidei chachamim, because we show our love for these mitzvos given to us by the chachamim (as opposed to directly from the Torah).


How is proper treatment of a mitzvah (whether d'oraita or d'rabbanan) anything like a segula?
I think shalhevet meant hiddur mitzvah (beautifying the mitzvah), and not just being careful.


Hiddur mitzvah is a halachic construct, not a segula.


Yes, but in this particular case the gemorra itself says this. So maybe we don't want to call it a segula - maybe we want to call it a spiritual consequence of doing a hiddur in this case. It says 'hazahir b'ner' which can be interpreted in various ways. Lighting on time. Using olive oil on Chanuka. Using long candles. etc.
Back to top

shalhevet




 
 
    
 

Post Sat, Jan 10 2009, 11:59 pm
mali wrote:
Quote:

Hiddur mitzvah is a halachic construct, not a segula.
still, you can keep a mitzvah within the halachic borders and still be perfectly fine, and you can go beyond and beautify the mitzvah.

examples:
lighting with pure olive oil
giving tzedaka before performing another mitzvah
washing hands before getting out of bed in the morning


Just a FYI. Our rov holds it is better to wash hands at the sink in the morning. Halachically the whole house is considered 4 amos, if you don't stop. And if water drips onto the floor it is problematical with the ruach ra caused. So we consider it a hiddur NOT to wash before getting out of bed!

And as a response to the washing/ germs argument - it is clearly ridiculous and sounds like reform propaganda. Only washing hands alternately 3/4 times has the effect of removing the ruach ra. I think washing with hot water and soap gets rid of germs much more effectively. As someone mentioned - the end of that argument is to take a shower instead of going to the mikva.

Even for those of us who do not follow 'kabbalistic-based Judaism' (for want of a better definition), clearly there are many, many mitzvos in the Torah/ SA that are beyond our understanding of nature/ science/ reality or whatever you want to call it. Those here calling themselves Orthodox and starting in the direction of tuma and tahara having anything to do with hygiene, kashrus to do with health etc are on an extremely slippery, dangerous path.
Back to top

shalhevet




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jan 11 2009, 12:04 am
YESHASettler wrote:
chocolate moose wrote:
I don't get it.

Isn't the bendele from Kever Ruchel, drawing on the koyach that HaShem gave Ruchel Imeinu ?

How is any segulah not power coming from HaShem?


The problem is at some point, more often than not, the people believing in the segulah place WAY too much importance on the relevance of the actual object, that it is the actual red string protecting them and NOT Hashem. Needing to be reminded that the string is insignificant is A"Z...


I agree. There is a general problem with segulos today that someone looking for 'help' with a specific or general problem wants 'a quick fix'. What's easier? Tying a red string or sitting and davenning day after day? Wearing some stone or deciding not to speak LH two hours a day? etc.

Even with segulos themselves people don't want to make an effort. Instead of davenning in place X, they want to pay someone at the drop of a credit card to do so in their place.
Back to top

freidasima




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jan 11 2009, 1:19 am
to continue what shalhevet wrote, Tuma and Tahara have nothing to do with physical cleanliness but spiritual cleanliness. However...we do know that in a soceity where people did not wash at all, washing, however, and for any reason did bring cleanliness. Which is possibly why yiddishkeit as opposed to the non jews who were being "metaher" by using fire or burying in dirt, used water. Why water? Because the Ribono shel olam told us to use water. Why did he tell us to use water? Because he did.

But we can add interpretations of cleanliness, while remembering all along that that wasn't the reason given, but it was what we call in Hebrew, an "erekh musaf", an added value that came along with it. And who knows why the Ribono shel olam said "use water"...and who knows why the 3,4 system? Maybe that's the amount of time you need to clean? Guess what? Today they say that you need 14 seconds of running water to wash off germs as a minimum, that's about the time it takes for someone to do netilas yadayim with kavvanah! Not that I am saying that's the reason, but isn't it incredible that it works out like that?!

Gedolim Ma'aseh Hashem.
Back to top

mali




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jan 11 2009, 1:39 am
that's a very nice post, freidasima.

I'm sorry to say, but some posts on this thread sound reform.
Back to top

freidasima




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jan 11 2009, 7:27 am
Yeah well, taking a leaf out of the thread that we should always ledun lekaf zechus maybe it's just a case of the chicken and the egg or rather, mitoch shelo lishmo...so who cares if people believe that negel vasser is cleanliness, just do it, then worry about why...I was just telling someone at work today who works with a lot of non jews here in Yerushalayim, Xtian non jews, that one of the biggest differences between goyyim and yidden is that to be a good "[gentile]" you have to believe in so much but do so little and to be a good Yid you have to do so much and truthfully believe in so little or rather there is a very big expanse of belief that you can believe in and still be a good Jew. You can be chassidish of this kind or that kind or sefaradi or misnagdish or just plain whtaever or yeshivish or MO or DL and just keep the mitzvos coming folks and believe in the Ribono shel olam and you are basically ok...so that's the issue. Just keep doing mitzvos and don't worry so much about why...just keep doing them...and believe that they are from Hashem whatever the reason is that he told us to do them..
Back to top

TzenaRena




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jan 11 2009, 7:38 am
miriamf, great posts!
Back to top

Tzippora




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jan 11 2009, 7:44 am
Sigh.. I'm not Reform. And there is a big difference between tumah and tahara, which have nothing to do with cleanliness, and the old idea of sheidim/ruach ra'ah, which might have. One is a halachic construct, which was outside the bounds of cleanliness completely (you can be filthy and be tahor) and one is the idea that things need to be washed off/gotten rid of even if they're not making you tamei because they can make you sick or have negative physical effects (hands after sleep, water left open overnight).

I did not say this is the only reason for netilat yadaim, I did not even say it is a primary reason - I only said it is one understanding of how the concept of sheidim or ruach ra'ah "making one ill" came into being. For the record, non jews also believed in demons ("sheidim") in the well giving everyone dysentery or cholera. And for their purposes, it might as well have been sheidim, if it got everyone to stop drinking from the infected well. You follow?
Back to top

gryp




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jan 11 2009, 7:52 am
Quote:
The main thing is: everyone who is called a Jew is obligated to believe with complete faith that everything found in the words of the Sages whether in halachos or agados of the Talmud or in the Midrashim, are all the words of the Living God, for everything which they said is with the spirit of God which spoke within them,

Nice, miriamf. Thank you.

We've had these type of discussions before but they were never-ending.
Back to top

TzenaRena




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jan 11 2009, 7:58 am
Quote:
Sigh.. I'm not Reform.
oh, but bible criticism aka picking holes in the teachings of our sages, etc. are deficiencies in Emunah and violations of the 13 principles of faith.

Just btw, the seder of tashlich is printed in our siddurim and machzorim. (I'm not sure if you're the one who "knew" that tashlich was a made up thing.)
Back to top
Page 3 of 4 Previous  1  2  3  4  Next Recent Topics




Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> Interesting Discussions

Related Topics Replies Last Post
I did many segulas and bh was answered!
by amother
7 Mon, Dec 18 2023, 12:34 am View last post
Explaining the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur 13 Thu, Sep 14 2023, 6:26 am View last post