ברלנד – מעז יצא מתוק
שימו לב: יש כאן שתי שאלות, השניה כללית יותר.
העורך Editor
חדש אסור מן התורה’? לא לפי החזון איש’
בנושא לחדש מין בהמה לאכול שלא ע”פ המסורת, כתב החזון איש (יו”ד יא, ד): “ואין לפרוץ גדר במנהגן של ישראל, ואין לנו שום הכרח לזה ודי לנו בבקר וצאן שבמסורת”.ומבואר מזה, שאילו היה זה דבר שמצוה לעשות, או שאין לנו מספיק בקר וצאן, היו מחדשים גם בהמה שאין לנו עליו מסורת, ולא אומרים חדש אסור מן התורה בכל מקום. אלא היינו בודקים אם בהמה זו מעלה גרה ומפריסה פרסה ומתירין אותה. ורק מכיוון שאין חיוב לאכול מבהמה זו, וכן אין צורך כי יש מספיק בקר וצאן, ממילא מניחים הדבר שלא לשנות המנהג ומסתפקים בבהמות שיש לנו במסורת.וכן מבואר מדבריו בענין הקרבת קרבן פסח בזמן זה לפני ביאת משיח ואליהו, שדן אם צריך לחוש לבעיה של יוחסי כהונה, וכן גם על הבעיה של חסרון תכלת, ולא דן כלל על בעיה שזה דבר “חדש” שלא נהגו.וא”כ כאן שיש מצוה להתפלל על הר הבית, שזה עיקר מקום התפילה שהתפללו אבותינו עי’ רש”י ריש פרשת ויצא, וכן בהרבה מקומות בתפילת שלמה המלך. ואף אם לא נותנים להתפלל, ניתן להתפלל בלב כמבואר בשו”ע (סי’ סב סעי’ ד) בחולה שאינו יכול להתפלל בפה. וכן העלייה היא הכנה להקרבת קרבנות ובנין בית המקדש. וכן כיבוש המקום שלא ימסרו לגוים ועוד הרבה ענינים, ולכן לא שייך לומר שזה בבחינת “די לנו בבקר וצאן שבמסורת”.ובאמת כאן טעון עיקר הנקודה, אם יש לנו ענין לעלות על הר הבית, שמי שאין לו שום ענין, אז למה לשנות מה שהיה עד עכשיו, אבל מי שמבין שיש לנו ענין ולא רק ענין אלא חיוב השתדלות מכל מיני כיוונים, אז לא מסתכלים על איסור “חדש”, ואז צריך להכנס לבירור הענינים להכריע מה התורה אומרת כעת, מה מותר ומה אסור, ולא לפסול מכח שזה לא נשמע ולא יכלו לעשות בדורות שעברו [למעשה לפני כאלף שנים כן עלו להר הבית].
re: Jewish Epistemology In Short
We have said all knowledge depends on the prior acceptance of a religious yoke. There are many glaring problems with the possibility of human knowledge ex nihilo. We will mention but one, via quote:
Nietzsche … tried to apply to his own thought the teachings of cultural relativism. This practically nobody else does. For example, Freud says that men are motivated by desire for sex and power, but be did not apply those motives to explain his own science or his own scientific activity. But if he can be a true scientist, i.e., motivated by love of the truth, so can other men, and his description of their motives is thus mortally flawed. Or if he is motivated by sex or power, he is not a scientist, and his science is only one means among many possible to attain those ends.
This contradiction runs throughout the natural and social sciences. They give an account of things that cannot possibly explain the conduct of their practitioners. The highly ethical economist who speaks only about gain, the public-spirited political scientist who sees only group interest are symptomatic of the difficulty of providing a self-explanation for science and a ground for the theoretical life, which has dogged the life of the mind since early modernity but has become particularly acute with cultural relativism.
Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind (New York: 1988), pp. 203-204
By the way, we referenced the above article in our free, special ebook on answering atheists. To receive the full Hebrew ebook, subscribe to Hyehudi’s Daily Newsletter here.
The State’s False Justice System
Some excerpts from an article in Haaretz quoting an ex-Judge:
“There are judges who are not familiar with the word ‘acquittal.’ As soon as they see an indictment they can already write the verdict,” says Judge Shelly Timan. “Once I told a judge on a panel that I saw certain problems with the evidence in the case. I didn’t even mention an acquittal. He said, ‘Do you have any idea what they will do to us if we acquit?'”
What is the explanation for the huge proportion of convictions in Israel?
“Judges are flesh and blood. Each of them brings with him the education he received at home, an agenda, his past, his outlook, his professional background. Even though not every judge who comes from the ranks of the state prosecution is pro-prosecution, you can’t get away from that. People who spent most of their career in the prosecution have a hard time being defense-oriented. But beyond that, it’s an attitude.”
…
“It is not necessary to prove use of force. The present court situation is such that a woman who alleges she has been raped doesn’t have to budge, because she is apparently fossilized and cannot utter a sound. The judge is not given additional tools apart from placing his belief in one of the parties – the complainant or the accused.
“The problem is that it is very difficult to fight against this after 25 years, when there is no evidence. A person can complain about something his parents did to him until the age of 38. With the exception of crimes perpetrated by the Nazis and their henchmen, there is no other offense like this, to which the statute of limitations does not apply.
… Take note that a woman who makes a false complaint is not placed on trial, on the grounds that complainants [in sexual-abuse cases] should be encouraged.”
Sick Sales and Selling the Sick
Hyehudi.org has decried several times the total subversion of Judaism via numerous worthless fictions, including the upcoming travesty of “selling” Chametz on Erev Pesach. Although there seem to be several ancient valid legal fictions (Ha’arama), these do make sense in context, and /or cannot be unduly extended further.
One less ancient example is the custom of “selling” a mortally ill child to someone else. The idea, beyond arousing his guardians’ repentance, is that if his true parents’ actions made them culpable to lose a child, God forbid, the child in question would cease to be a legitimate target, and recover from his illness.
I have come across the claim this historical fact is a support for the validity of Jewish legal fictions in general. After all, the transaction (Kinyan) ought to be invalidated on grounds of obvious insincerity. Neither the buyer nor the seller has any intention of passing ownership: דברים שבלבו ובלב כל אדם. If legal fictions are at once wicked and Jewishly ineffective, how come Torah scholars and rabbis never protested?!
Firstly, without over-explaining, legal fictions ‘work’ fine in metaphysics, properly understood (don’t ask). In any case, a Jewish child does not legally belong to his father. More significantly, there is no religious aspect here. Even if the sale is but dark humor, neither Judaism nor Hashem are being mocked thereby. (This custom is not, in fact, uniquely Jewish.)
Note: Biblical “Pidyon Haben” consists of a symbolic monetary fine for release from sacrificial duty, not passing ownership.