Am I in trouble with Judaism?

[metis]

Its about this false messianic claimant named Sabbatai Zvi. Basing himself on kaballistic ideas, he claimed to be the messiah and found himself a 'prophet' to agree with him. He caused terrible havoc among the Orthodox population of the time and its effects can still be felt today.

Thanks for the info.

I'm not so familiar with his path as I haven't really studied much of his or his student's works. I do know that he encourages going to the forest for a short time and speaking and praying to G-d naturally.
From the little bit I did see myself, I will say that assuming he doesn't require intense (intellectual) study as part of his path would be foolishness. His books are not for the layman to put it mildly. He also has a commentary on the entirety of the Shulchan Aruch, so consistent with Orthodoxy, following Halacha is paramount.

I didn't imply that he was somehow anti-intellectual and/or that the Law, the entire Law, was unnecessary to study and live out. But what he did feel is that the intellectual approach could only take one so far.

Maybe I can draw a parallel with trying to learn a new language. Yes, we can learn the words and their translations, but unless one really gets immersed in the language to the point whereas they can not only think in that language but also that they can appreciate all the nuances that may not be obvious to a person who only learns through the classroom experience, then their education is at least somewhat incomplete. To get a fuller "picture", living and dealing with those who use the language extensively can take one far deeper into various nuances.

And this is pretty much where Nachman was coming from on this. Yes, the details are all fine & dandy, but immersion will take one far deeper.

However, there's a caveat in that what can happen if one or more of the "nuances' goes against a direct and literal interpretation of a Law? This is not just a hypothetical since this not only can happen, it has happened-- many times. For example, should we still stone "disobedient sons" as prescribed in halacha? adulterers?

So, since we don't, why not? And an answer is that we don't view halacha in terms of individual commandments isolated from our cultural milieu. So, we have over the centuries found reasons not to follow the letter of the Law at times.

To put it another way, the Law can be very harsh in some areas if done as literally directed in Torah, so what our sages have done over the centuries is to put a more "human" face on it. Like my rabbi is fond of saying, all of today's Jews are reform Jews, but only some will admit it.

 

[Tumah]

I didn't imply that he was somehow anti-intellectual and/or that the Law, the entire Law, was unnecessary to study and live out. But what he did feel is that the intellectual approach could only take one so far.

Maybe I can draw a parallel with trying to learn a new language. Yes, we can learn the words and their translations, but unless one really gets immersed in the language to the point whereas they can not only think in that language but also that they can appreciate all the nuances that may not be obvious to a person who only learns through the classroom experience, then their education is at least somewhat incomplete. To get a fuller "picture", living and dealing with those who use the language extensively can take one far deeper into various nuances.

That's a great analogy and one that someone knowledgeable in these things once gave me in discussing the different expressions and words used by the various Hassidic sects.

And this is pretty much where Nachman was coming from on this. Yes, the details are all fine & dandy, but immersion will take one far deeper.

It sounded like you were going somewhere else in your previous post. Which may not be wrong, mind you. That is a method that may be consistent with some Hassidic sects. But I understand what you are syaing here.

However, there's a caveat in that what can happen if one or more of the "nuances' goes against a direct and literal interpretation of a Law? This is not just a hypothetical since this not only can happen, it has happened-- many times. For example, should we still stone "disobedient sons" as prescribed in halacha? adulterers?

Within the Hassidic world, the paths are directed by the Rabbi and he is bound by halacha. I'm pretty sure the idea is that if a path is taking you further from halachah its the wrong path.

So, since we don't, why not? And an answer is that we don't view halacha in terms of individual commandments isolated from our cultural milieu. So, we have over the centuries found reasons not to follow the letter of the Law at times.

To put it another way, the Law can be very harsh in some areas if done as literally directed in Torah, so what our sages have done over the centuries is to put a more "human" face on it. Like my rabbi is fond of saying, all of today's Jews are reform Jews, but only some will admit it.

I think to substantiate that would require disbelieving in the Divine nature of the Oral Law as well as some sort of proof that the Law was ever followed in a way consistent with Oral Law teaching.

 

[metis]

I think to substantiate that would require disbelieving in the Divine nature of the Oral Law as well as some sort of proof that the Law was ever followed in a way consistent with Oral Law teaching.

That's assuming a couple things that I do not personally assume, but I really don't want to get into that.

No branch today, including the chasidim, fully applies halacha in every hypothetical and real instance, and I've pointed out a couple of examples in my last post. We just don't.

Part of this is due to the issue of variability of interpretations whereas we do quite often inject "reasoning" into our analysis-- as we should, imo. Another deals with these "nuances", which can often help with understanding, but sometimes even more confusion may result. To a child, a tree is a simple thing; but to a botanist, a tree is very complex. And sometimes our better understanding of the complexities may change how we view what we previously thought was the simplicity.

This even gets reflected at times in the Tanakh beyond the first five books whereas one sees much more emphasis on "mercy", "forgiveness", etc. It's not that Torah doesn't have these same exact teachings but more that we see a subtle, and sometimes not so subtle, shift in emphasis at times.

Why the change? Because whether one admits it or not, the cultural milieu has an influence as do the "nuances". And, imo, there's risks in not taking both into account.