Where is this maintained? By whom is this embraced?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The dogma of the infallibility of the Gemara.
- Thread starter Jayhawker Soule
- Start date
This is debate material, and also doesn't belong in Judaism DIR but Same Faith Debates.
A good place to start would be Rambams Introduction to Mishneh Torah. Also Kuzari. That's a very good one. Also Shomrei Emunim (written after Shabbatai Tzvi). Also read the Gemara itself. I've only heard this question from people who've never really learned Chumash and Gemara properly.
Want verses? The most obvious ones are the ones which state things like "And G-d said to Moses: You shall repeat these laws which I have just mentioned to you to the children of Israel." Yet there are no laws anywhere mentioned near the verse. You see that quite often mentioned in the Torah. It's very alluded to in many parts. If you want historical evidence. Consider that the Mishnah was finished being written in like 200 CE and that the Talmud was finished around 500 CE. In Qumran, they found tefillin in the way Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam both learn out how to make it.
There is clear evidence of an Oral Torah historically and scripturally speaking. Most biblical critics even agree to that. They just call it by a different name and attribute different sources to it, such as they call it "Jewish Folklore" which they claim were picked up from other cultures and religions. Never the less, they say the same thing about the Torah. Saying it was picked up from other Mesopatamian religions. So, if you don't believe either of them as true and of divine origin, then there should be little question in your mind as to the authoritative influence and position they have in Judaism - since in your eyes neither of them are of divine origin and thus both false.
Want verses? The most obvious ones are the ones which state things like "And G-d said to Moses: You shall repeat these laws which I have just mentioned to you to the children of Israel." Yet there are no laws anywhere mentioned near the verse. You see that quite often mentioned in the Torah. It's very alluded to in many parts. If you want historical evidence. Consider that the Mishnah was finished being written in like 200 CE and that the Talmud was finished around 500 CE. In Qumran, they found tefillin in the way Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam both learn out how to make it.
There is clear evidence of an Oral Torah historically and scripturally speaking. Most biblical critics even agree to that. They just call it by a different name and attribute different sources to it, such as they call it "Jewish Folklore" which they claim were picked up from other cultures and religions. Never the less, they say the same thing about the Torah. Saying it was picked up from other Mesopatamian religions. So, if you don't believe either of them as true and of divine origin, then there should be little question in your mind as to the authoritative influence and position they have in Judaism - since in your eyes neither of them are of divine origin and thus both false.
Only if you drive it there. Or, yosi, you could simply answer the questions to the best of your ability.
And, of course, you can report it if you feel such a response warranted.
This thread was kindly moved to "Same Faith Debates".
Permit me, therefore, to supplement it with the following ...The entire article is well worth reading.
Shameful attempts to use the tref knife of literalism to cut away millions of religious Jews should be militantly rejected and condemned as the worst form of idolatry.
Permit me, therefore, to supplement it with the following ...
Shameful attempts to use the tref knife of literalism to cut away millions of religious Jews should be militantly rejected and condemned as the worst form of idolatry.
Last edited:
And this article proves what? That some opinions in the Gemara are not held. What's the chiddush about that? Judaism has always believed that. Orthodox Jews as well. Do we start with one candle or eight on Channukah? Is Shammai some how wrong because we don't follow his halacha? No one is saying every part of the Gemara and Torah is literal 100%.
The Gemara says you can kill lice on Shabbos because they come from sweat. However, that is scientifically not true as far as we know it. So, what's the resolution to it? There are two approaches to this.
1.) They were talking about a different kind of lice which did come from sweat. Which seems unlikely based on our knowledge of the animal kingdom. But, you can't rule that out though as reasoning to reject this as true based on the frame work which Judaism has always functioned on, though. Because if you say that the chochamim were absolutely wrong, then you're an epicorous. Arguably the most important principle in the Torah is doing first and understanding later. Just because you don't understand how it can be true based on science doesn't mean it isn't valid. Ironically, the Rambam writes that the Mitzvah of the Red Heifer makes absolutely no sense and we don't understand it and no one ever has. Yet, it is still one of the 613 mitzvot. But, you quote Rambam trying to bring rationalism to the table, yet this is by the Rambam (and for that matter, everyone) is considered superrational and not subject to scrutiny of logic.
To continue this point, if you hold the Gemara as authoritative enough to postulate that the mitzvah of Rosh Hashanah can only be followed on the first of Tishrei, you might as well accept that it's possible for lice to come from sweat. Since the Gemara says the world was created on the 25 of Elul and man was created on the 1st of Tishrei. Do you see any literal or scientific proof for any of these statements based on your deductions of the natural world and law to verify that man and the world were created on these specific days? No, you don't. But you celebrate Rosh Hashanah anyways. The whole reason we celebrate Rosh Hashana on the first of Tishrei is because that was the day man was created according to what the Gemara says. Therefor, you by default accept the dogmatic ruling of the Talmud whether you find it to be true or not - since all Jews, whether they believe in the Talmud as authentic or not, celebrate on those days.
2. This is what the scientists at the time knew. The fact that the Rabbonim made a gezerah (decree) saying you are allowed to kill lice on Shabbos still stands due to the fact that it was a gezerah made by the Sanhedrin. This holds the same validity of claim which Rosh Hashana does in terms of verification. Since we can't scientifically prove man was created on this date as far as we know, yet we are required to celebrate the holiday on that day - the binding obligation to uphold such law as equally as authoritative as the other. Killing an animal on Shabbos is an issur d'reisah (forbidden from the Torah) and Rosh Hashana is a chiyuv (requirement) d'reisah. Granted, killing lice was poskined based on the scientific understanding at the time. But, it says in Pirkei Avos (I think it's pirkei avos, it could be in Sanhedrin), states that the Shechinah rested upon the Sanhedrin. Perhaps on of the most fundamental principles in Jewish law regarding the Sanhedrin was that their law was G-d's law.
Many Amoraim and Tanaaim had different Mesorahs which contradicted with one another, that doesn't mean both of them are incorrect. We might not know what the reconcilation between the two different mesorahs/opinions are, but we don't consider them necessarily incorrect. But, two things can be mutually exclusive of one another, both claiming to be the methods in determing law, yet we don't necessarily decline their legitimacy because we don't know the reconciliation. Additionally, depending on who your Rebbe was at the time, you could follow his ****a despite the fact that it contradicts. The validity to this claim all relies on that we assume the integrity of his mesorah to be something which was passed down from Sinai, thus it is actually a valid opinion in law. But, this is not rejection of authenticity between two people. This is a difference in mesorah being followed. There is a huge difference in this, compared someone in the past few hundred years deciding whether or not the Gemara is authoritative based on apparent contradictions in mesorah. This principle was always an underlying fundamental in Judaism.
Additionally, there is a makor (source) for the legitimacy of world Jewry having Daas Torah. And absolutely no one accepted Haskalah as Judaism and considered it to be epicorous. Since a movement started which was not Daas Torah according to yiddeshkeit at the time world wide, it was never considered, and never will be considered amongst Rabbonim to be Yiddeshkeit. That doesn't mean that you're not Jewish if you follow those beliefs, though. It just means your beliefs are foreign to what Judaism always was, thus we don't count such ideas as part of our religion. Whether you agree with that sentiment or not is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, though. We're talking about Torah, not heresy.
As a point of irony I feel inclined to add. Mendelsohn, the person who started Reform Judaism, does not have one single Jewish descendant left. That speaks for itself.
Yeah, but usually that is due to polgroms, genocide, expulsion, and forced conversions. The entire goal of Mendelsohn was to assimilate Jews into the non-Jewish world. His kids were baptized on their own doings and married non-Jews and had goyishe children. That's very uncommon to hear about any other "sects" within Rabbinic Judaism. There are cases, sure. But, it was extremely rare that you find a case like Mendelsohn - especially considering what his view points encouraged at the time.
I also find it funny that the article written by the Masorti Jews quotes Rambam in context of the following:
"In his magisterial code of Jewish Law, in the opening chapters, Maimonides stipulates that the Jew must act "as though (ke-ilu) each word of Torah was spoken by God." There is a chasm of difference separating Orthodox fundamentalism (itself assimilated from the theology of Islam and the Church) and Rambam's formulation."
While we're not extremists, as these Masorti reactionists like to call us, they've clearly never read the Rambam. Rambam poskins that people who reject the Oral Torah have no portion in the world to come and to kill them is actually a mitzvah. Specifically referring to Saudacees, according to some opinions Rambam is also referring to Karaites who reject the authenticity of the Oral Torah. I'll bet if the Masorti Rabbis knew that they wouldn't of written this article! Of course even in the times of Rambam he wasn't saying to kill them. Actually doing so would be problematic considering he deemed modern Karaites tinak shenishbah (children who have been stolen from their family and don't know about Judaism), thus they wouldn't be liable to death because of their status. But, Rambam was a big fan of the Saadia Gaon. And the Saadia Gaon actually said killing a karaite isn't any different than killing a dog. Ask any Reform or Conservative/Masorti Rabbi who likes Rambam and his rationalist approach to Judaism this question: "If we knew who was a true epicoruous, would it still be a chiyuv to kill him assuming we have the ability to?"
"In his magisterial code of Jewish Law, in the opening chapters, Maimonides stipulates that the Jew must act "as though (ke-ilu) each word of Torah was spoken by God." There is a chasm of difference separating Orthodox fundamentalism (itself assimilated from the theology of Islam and the Church) and Rambam's formulation."
While we're not extremists, as these Masorti reactionists like to call us, they've clearly never read the Rambam. Rambam poskins that people who reject the Oral Torah have no portion in the world to come and to kill them is actually a mitzvah. Specifically referring to Saudacees, according to some opinions Rambam is also referring to Karaites who reject the authenticity of the Oral Torah. I'll bet if the Masorti Rabbis knew that they wouldn't of written this article! Of course even in the times of Rambam he wasn't saying to kill them. Actually doing so would be problematic considering he deemed modern Karaites tinak shenishbah (children who have been stolen from their family and don't know about Judaism), thus they wouldn't be liable to death because of their status. But, Rambam was a big fan of the Saadia Gaon. And the Saadia Gaon actually said killing a karaite isn't any different than killing a dog. Ask any Reform or Conservative/Masorti Rabbi who likes Rambam and his rationalist approach to Judaism this question: "If we knew who was a true epicoruous, would it still be a chiyuv to kill him assuming we have the ability to?"
Excellent. Thanks for sharing.
Last edited:
Much as your cynical and ignorant ( * ) ad hominem betokens pettiness and bigotry. Dogmatism has an ugly look and feel irrespective of its theological trappings.
Levite
Higher and Higher
This is something that I think is often misunderstood. I do support the halachic idea that, when it comes to matters of halachah l'maa'seh (practical law), we are bound not to directly contradict the Rabbis of the Talmud, and to accept their interpretations as binding halachah. And there are a few core matters of theology which come from the Rabbis of the Talmud that it seems clear we are all bound to accept as Rabbinic Jews.
But when it comes to matters of aggadeta (narrative exegesis, theology, philosophy, and everything else), we are by no means clearly bound to accept the ideas of the Rabbis of the Talmud as binding. Many in the tradition have disagreed with non-halachic material in the Talmud: that's hardly new.
Thank God! Were that not the case, more than a few pages of Talmud would have to be burned as heretical.
I posted this in the other thread a little ago because I got them mixed up a bit for your response. What you're saying is somewhat true. You do have to accept Chazal as correct and their aggadah. However, you can disagree with certain things they say depending on what the case is. But, you have to have a very good svara depending on what you disagree with. You can't just stam disagree with something simply because it seems contradictory to an idea in modern science or something. You have to have a legitimate source and well thought out svara to do such. But, the first assumption you go with is that chazal is always correct in everything they say or it wouldn't of been codified in the Talmud.
I think the biggest misapplication of critical thinking regarding Talmud people make is that you can just disagree with whatever you want because it doesn't make sense to you. Or because science says otherwise (which is really why Jayhawke made the thread).
I made the thread to respond to demeaning and backward sectarian bigotry.
No. You didn't you made the thread in response to the that. You made the thread in response to what I said in the other thread. Immediately after posting what I wrote, you responded by saying the Gemara is wrong and posted this thread within minutes. You didn't even consider anything offensive on the matter of bigotry until I said goy. Which was after the fact you made this thread. And your silence is demonstrative of your own self righteousness on this matter since you chose to discuss these things and duck out. Not to sound cocky, but I gave you very good points to consider. As opposed to respond to them, you remained silent by saying "I'm done with this conversation" when I said goyishe, despite my apology that you felt offended by a word that isn't a bad word. I explained to you why it isn't as well. You still insist I'm bigoted. Why?
I don't hate you. I'm not angry at you. I don't have anything personal against you because you don't adhere to what I believe. You're probably overall in real life a decent guy with many likable traits and knowledgeable in your own right who is worthy of respect. It may come across the opposite way coming from me, but that's just a severe response I put forward in an extremely direct manner, which you provoked by frequently bringing information irrelevant to the point being discussed. Which unfortunately for you is hard to swallow because the assertions you're hearing on this board coming from me, challenges what you've become accustomed to. But, who says what you've become accustomed to is Judaism? Reflective of what you've said in terms of theology and using words like "dogma" (use hashkafa, it's more Jewish), indicates to me that your "dogma" is not the "dogma" of what Judaism has been for the last 3000 years. The notions you've put forth without question are antithetical to Judaism. The biggest one you've put forth is your lack of willingness to communicate because of what is presumably misconception on your half - that's giving you the benefit of the doubt.
Contrary to what you may think, Judaism is/was not a liberal religion. Compared to the Christians who went around with swords saying "convert or die", we're very liberal you could say. But, whether you like it or not, as a result of trying to implement foreign philosophy, the idea that Judaism is open minded and liberal has resulted in more or less a new religion - called "Liberal Judaism". Presumably for the modern followers, this is inadvertent since most adherents to forms of progressive Judaism barely know their aleph beis. A perfect example demonstrating my point would be the ridiculous article from Masorti Judaism or wherever it was, stating that Orthodox Judaism assimilated from the church. Which makes it partially my fault for causing things to come to an the ugly level they're at. I should of handled things with more civility. But, your lack of effort to respond to anything in an honest and straight forward manner makes it quite easy to become irritated. You must admit that.
Also, there were no sects in Judaism until about 200 years ago when the Haskalah movement started and began to proclaim what was held authoritative for the past 3500 years as fairy tales and outdated with little practical use. There was no such thing as Orthodox until the Haskalah forced us to identify our practices as different than this new European religion called "reform". There were Chassidim, true. But, that wasn't really such a radical divergence in ideology about anything. Really all that was, was a difference in how to interepret the Arizal's Kabbalah regarding tzimtzum. After the passing of the Vilna Gaon, most of everyone was friends again. Then everyone made peace when the Haskalah movement (also know as early Reform Jews) gained more power and went around killing religious Jews and reporting them to the soviet police for imprisonment and later on death for practicing their religion. You know who Reform Jews are right? The Jews who claim to be rationalists and moderates with an open and humanitarian approach to Judaism? Yeah, those guys. The people who aren't sectarian bigots.
Aside from that, I really don't have anything per se against you. I find it ironic too that you'd say that Orthodoxy is demeaning. And even more ironic, appoint me as the local orthodox rabbi who is held accountable for your limited understanding of Orthodoxy. Considering us "Orthodox Jews" never killed any reform Jews based on their religious beliefs, or for that matter did anything considered all that demeaning to them other than putting their leaders in cherum (banishment) from the Jewish communities for spreading heretical ideas - I find it hard to believe that you some how hold this "sectarian" religion as accountable for being demeaning and backwards based on a few things I wrote you found to be insulting.
But, what really makes it feel demeaning for you, in addition to your preconceived notions which may or may not be true, is probably my written demeanor towards you. But, if you're going to say that we're sectarian bigots, you're greatly mistaken. So, again I feel sorry if you feel offended but what I have to say or how I say it. I do owe you an apology if it came across in too harsh a manner.
Also, if you're still calling me a bigot and "Orthodoxy" because I said goyishe science, and you some how assume I represent all of orthodoxy, then you're really just making a display of your own very great lack of understanding on the subject matter at hand regarding what was being discussed. I do apologize if I offend you sincerely if you honestly feel offended. Although, it's kind of hard to apologize while simultaneously telling you you're still wrong. But the things you say, I'm sorry to have to say it, are just absolutely way out of left field. Also, I don't appreciate what how you're basically saying "Oh here's Orthodoxy, look at them all bigotted and what not." If you disagree with what you consider to be Orthodoxy based on your own learning in specifically Jewish studies, please object I'm curious and open to what you have to say. Levite and I have been discussing it plenty. And it's quite insightful some of the things he has to say, especially coming from a different view point. Despite my strong disagreement with what he often has to say. So again, I do apologize if you feel offended. But your misappropriation of assumptions is somewhat astonishing.
Quite a piece of distortion. The fact is, I would never dream of denigrating Orthodoxy by holding you up as its exemplar simply because I know better.
Last edited:
sholom alaichem yochai50, i dont think we have met, but to me you sound very chareidi like me, however i was told i was the only orthodox person here lol. but i agree 120% with you on everything you say. and i have posted many similar things in other threads which speak the same message. orthdoxy is full yiddishkeit 100% toras moshe from har sinai. conservative and reform is not. it is only a leniency which people go by because they are lacking in their beliefs in the first place.
also regarding torah/talmud and science, no one does it say that the torah and talmud are scientific text books, however torah and talmud have many amazing scientific discoveries
Torah from Heaven
this is an old site which i found however there is quite a few more examples which i know they are missing, but it sure is interesting
also regarding torah/talmud and science, no one does it say that the torah and talmud are scientific text books, however torah and talmud have many amazing scientific discoveries
Torah from Heaven
this is an old site which i found however there is quite a few more examples which i know they are missing, but it sure is interesting