Jump to content


Photo

Tcheiles B'zman Hazeh


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 torah613

torah613

    Member

  • Members
  • 71 posts

Posted 08 February 2012 - 11:05 PM

On the old site the moderator quotes the Arizal who says that tchelies only applies during the time of the Beis Hamikdash:

http://classic.frumt...orum_title=&M=0

The moderator writes there:

"For the record, one of those modern rabbis is going around dismissing the Arizal because, as noted above, some sages in the Gemora after the churban wore techeiles. The fact that they use such reasoning - that the Arizal doesnt count based on what you see in the Gemora - is itself a reason not to follow them. We cant dismiss the words of the Arizal because we think we know better. Just because they cant think of an answer to the Arizal doesnt mean someone else cant. Bishvil kushya lo yishtaneh hadin - the Halachah doesn't change because you dont understand it."

But on this website I see sources quoted which seem to indicate that if a Rishon or Acharon say somehting which doesn't fit into the gemara, then we must go with the gemarah:

http://www.jewswithq...cal-rationales/

".....the Nodah Beyehuda (II:EH:54) writes:
כבר ביארתי כמה פעמים שמדבר שלא עמדנו על דעתו, מה כוונתו ומה טעמו, אין להביא ראיה ממנו לא לראיה ולא לסתירה על דבר אחר

From the Chazon Ish (OH 52:5):
ולדינא אחרי שאין אנו יודעין כוונת הר"מ בבירור, אנו חייבם לעשות כדברי רבותנו אשר דבריהם מפורשים לנו, כי אנו תלמידיהם בהלכות אלו

Again, Chazon Ish (OH 102:24)

לדינא אין לנו אלא המבואר בגמ' ופוסקים, ואי אפשר לן ללמוד משנת הרמב"ם כל שלא נתגלה לן טעמו, עד יבא מורה צדק "


So what's the difference?

#2 Rabbi Shapiro

Rabbi Shapiro

    Member

  • Administrators
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 11 February 2012 - 10:14 PM

The difference is if a person for instance can't read Hebrew without the Nekudos, he can't say well I don't understand what it says in Shulchan Aruch because I can't read it therefore I don't need to take it into consideration.

And even if you can read without the Nekudos, you cannot dismiss what it says in Shulchan Aruch even if you have 100 questions on it without other Rishonim that are equally accepted as Halachah who disagree with him. When you have a disagreement between the Rishonim, and one of the Rishonim you cannot reconcile, you can then think about paskening like the other Rishonim.

So if the Arizal says something and you have no idea why he said it or what he's talking about, you can't dismiss it. All it means is that you are too ignorant to understand the issue being discussed.

And unless you have other "equals" who disagree with the Arizal you can't just dismiss him even if you have questions on him.

#3 torah613

torah613

    Member

  • Members
  • 71 posts

Posted 11 February 2012 - 11:36 PM

Aren't there other statements from the Arizal that aren't meant l'halacha - for example, the Arizal says that the purpose of techeiles can be fulfilled with having it on just one of the four corners - he for sure doesn't mean that l'halacha one corner is enough but rather is just saying that the kabbalistic inyan is fulfilled with one corner alone.... So maybe this Arizal here is not saying that l'halacha tchelies doesn't apply nowadays but rather that the kabbalistic inyan is only fufilled during zman Beis Hamikdash?

#4 Rabbi Shapiro

Rabbi Shapiro

    Member

  • Administrators
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 12 February 2012 - 12:14 AM

Aren't there other statements from the Arizal that aren't meant l'halacha - for example, the Arizal says that the purpose of techeiles can be fulfilled with having it on just one of the four corners - he for sure doesn't mean that l'halacha one corner is enough but rather is just saying that the kabbalistic inyan is fulfilled with one corner alone.... So maybe this Arizal here is not saying that l'halacha tchelies doesn't apply nowadays but rather that the kabbalistic inyan is only fufilled during zman Beis Hamikdash?

What Kabbalistic inyan? Do you have any idea what the Arizal is saying? Yes or no?

#5 torah613

torah613

    Member

  • Members
  • 71 posts

Posted 12 February 2012 - 12:20 AM

What Kabbalistic inyan? Do you have any idea what the Arizal is saying? Yes or no?


No, definitely not...

#6 Rabbi Shapiro

Rabbi Shapiro

    Member

  • Administrators
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 12 February 2012 - 12:30 AM


No, definitely not...

Then you don't want to suggest maybe he means this or that. Someone who has no idea what the Arizal means should leave the job of deciding whether we pasken like him to someone that does, and go back to answering questions on Hilchos Shabbos, because the Arizal's opinion on the Techeiles is out of his league.

#7 torah613

torah613

    Member

  • Members
  • 71 posts

Posted 12 February 2012 - 12:32 AM

Then you don't want to suggest maybe he means this or that if you have no idea what he said. Someone has no idea what the Arizal means should leave the explanations to someone that does and go back to answering questions on Hilchos Shabbos or something, because the Arizal's opinion on the Techeiles issue is out of his league.

But even though I have no clue what the Arizal is saying, isn't it true that kabbalah statements should not be followed when they contradict the simple halacha? Doesn't the Chasam Sofer say (Teshuvos O"C 51 - http://hebrewbooks.o...gnum=40&hilite=) that using kisvei ari to pasken halachah is like being zorei'a kil'ayim? Also, the Mishna Berura says in Siman 25 that when kabbala goes against halacha then you must go with halacha?

#8 Rabbi Shapiro

Rabbi Shapiro

    Member

  • Administrators
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 12 February 2012 - 12:41 AM






But even though I have no clue what the Arizal is saying, isn't it true that kabbalah statements should not be followed when they contradict the simple halacha? Doesn't the Chasam Sofer say (Teshuvos O"C 51 - http://hebrewbooks.o...gnum=40&hilite=) that using kisvei ari to pasken halachah is like being zorei'a kil'ayim? Also, the Mishna Berura says in Siman 25 that when kabbala goes against halacha then you must go with halacha?

Not if you can reconcile them.

And not if there's a safek in Halachah to begin with, or if there is some Halachic reasoning that squares with the kabbalah. In such cases the Kabalah often is the determining factor.

And besides, you have no idea whether the Arizal is just Kabbalistic to begin with.

#9 torah613

torah613

    Member

  • Members
  • 71 posts

Posted 12 February 2012 - 12:49 AM

Not if you can reconcile them.

And not if there's a safek in Halachah to begin with, or if there is some Halachic reasoning that squares with the kabbalah. In such cases the Kabalah often is the determining factor.

And besides, you have no idea whether the Arizal is just Kabbalistic to begin with.


"And not if there's a safek in Halachah to begin with" - Besides the Arizal, where else is there an indication that tcheiles is only b'zman Hamikdash?

#10 Rabbi Shapiro

Rabbi Shapiro

    Member

  • Administrators
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 12 February 2012 - 01:24 AM


"And not if there's a safek in Halachah to begin with" - Besides the Arizal, where else is there an indication that tcheiles is only b'zman Hamikdash?

I didnt say that. I'm talking about the safek whether this is the real techeiles.