Does Hashem care about Halachah Lemaase?Sources for Hashem being corporeal/incorporeal?Does HaShem need rest?What does Hashem see right now?Why does God care about our service?If Hashem doesn't change, how does prayer work?Knowing Hashem how?Why does Hashem react so violently against the people who demanded meat?How can Hashem judge a person לזכות, favourably, as in הדן חבירו לכף זכות דנין אותו לזכותDoes Hashem reward you for keeping negative mitzvot?Does God care about things that don't affect the Jews?
How to find a better angle and distance for clicking picture of a distorted artwork to achieve 3D effect?
What does 妄想ダダもれ mean?
Should I refuse to be named as co-author of a low quality paper?
Is Lambda Calculus purely syntactic?
Suppose leased car is totalled: what are financial implications?
As easy as Three, Two, One... How fast can you go from Five to Four?
How do you play "tenth" chords on the guitar?
Command of files and size
Generate certain list from two lists
How to write a convincing religious myth?
Most valuable information/technology for rebuilding after the apocalypse?
Canada travel to US using Global Entry
What is Gilligan's full Name?
Trying to get (more) accurate readings from thermistor (electronics, math, and code inside)
What are the unintended or dangerous consequences of allowing spells that target and damage creatures to also target and damage objects?
Tikz-cd diagram arrow passing under a node - not crossing it
Why is long-term living in Almost-Earth causing severe health problems?
A Salute to Poetry
NUL delimited variable
That's not my X, its Y is too Z
The origin of the Russian proverb about two hares
Remove border lines of SRTM tiles rendered as hillshade
Could a person damage a jet airliner - from the outside - with their bare hands?
Should I put programming books I wrote a few years ago on my resume?
Does Hashem care about Halachah Lemaase?
Sources for Hashem being corporeal/incorporeal?Does HaShem need rest?What does Hashem see right now?Why does God care about our service?If Hashem doesn't change, how does prayer work?Knowing Hashem how?Why does Hashem react so violently against the people who demanded meat?How can Hashem judge a person לזכות, favourably, as in הדן חבירו לכף זכות דנין אותו לזכותDoes Hashem reward you for keeping negative mitzvot?Does God care about things that don't affect the Jews?
Upfront: this is a metaphysical/theological question
In many (almost all?) areas of Jewish practice, there are a number of different and at times diametrically opposed opinions as to what the practice should be. Even if say that all opinions are true (eilu veilu) in some sense, we can only do one thing in practice, and hence one of the opinions is chosen to be halacha lemaase [of course different individuals/groups may choose different opinions as their halacha lemaase, as decided by the posek they ask].
My question is - after 120, does G-d care that we followed the halacha lemaase, and as long as we did that in good faith, we're ok as far as judgement and reward/punishment goes? Or perhaps He cares that we follow the right opinion (the correct truth, if such even exists), and so those who followed the wrong practical opinion would be in trouble?
As an example, one person carries outside on Shabbos while his neighbor does not, because the former takes as his practical halacha an opinion deeming the eruv as valid, while the latter's posek says it's invalid. Will they both be judged based on their faithful observance of what they thought was the right view, or will they be judged based on the correctness of only one of these views?
theology reward-punishment
|
show 5 more comments
Upfront: this is a metaphysical/theological question
In many (almost all?) areas of Jewish practice, there are a number of different and at times diametrically opposed opinions as to what the practice should be. Even if say that all opinions are true (eilu veilu) in some sense, we can only do one thing in practice, and hence one of the opinions is chosen to be halacha lemaase [of course different individuals/groups may choose different opinions as their halacha lemaase, as decided by the posek they ask].
My question is - after 120, does G-d care that we followed the halacha lemaase, and as long as we did that in good faith, we're ok as far as judgement and reward/punishment goes? Or perhaps He cares that we follow the right opinion (the correct truth, if such even exists), and so those who followed the wrong practical opinion would be in trouble?
As an example, one person carries outside on Shabbos while his neighbor does not, because the former takes as his practical halacha an opinion deeming the eruv as valid, while the latter's posek says it's invalid. Will they both be judged based on their faithful observance of what they thought was the right view, or will they be judged based on the correctness of only one of these views?
theology reward-punishment
1
I'm pretty sure you're asking the unknowable. Great question nonetheless.
– Josh K
May 27 at 1:50
I don’t see how you could have this question based on the Gemara from chulin I quoted in my last answer
– Dr. Shmuel
May 27 at 1:56
@Dr.Shmuel : I don't see how that Gemara in chulin answers the question I just asked. (Which is really a theological question about the relationship of halacha lemaase to actual reward and punishment). Please elaborate?
– user9806
May 27 at 2:09
1
There are differing camps of opinions, and it is permissible for one to follow all of any camps opinions. Not only that, but there are no wrong opinions - each camp is right with all their opinions. (That’s what the maharsha seems to say)
– Dr. Shmuel
May 27 at 2:12
2
Isn't this exactly what Eilu V'Eilu is?
– Salmononius2
May 27 at 2:12
|
show 5 more comments
Upfront: this is a metaphysical/theological question
In many (almost all?) areas of Jewish practice, there are a number of different and at times diametrically opposed opinions as to what the practice should be. Even if say that all opinions are true (eilu veilu) in some sense, we can only do one thing in practice, and hence one of the opinions is chosen to be halacha lemaase [of course different individuals/groups may choose different opinions as their halacha lemaase, as decided by the posek they ask].
My question is - after 120, does G-d care that we followed the halacha lemaase, and as long as we did that in good faith, we're ok as far as judgement and reward/punishment goes? Or perhaps He cares that we follow the right opinion (the correct truth, if such even exists), and so those who followed the wrong practical opinion would be in trouble?
As an example, one person carries outside on Shabbos while his neighbor does not, because the former takes as his practical halacha an opinion deeming the eruv as valid, while the latter's posek says it's invalid. Will they both be judged based on their faithful observance of what they thought was the right view, or will they be judged based on the correctness of only one of these views?
theology reward-punishment
Upfront: this is a metaphysical/theological question
In many (almost all?) areas of Jewish practice, there are a number of different and at times diametrically opposed opinions as to what the practice should be. Even if say that all opinions are true (eilu veilu) in some sense, we can only do one thing in practice, and hence one of the opinions is chosen to be halacha lemaase [of course different individuals/groups may choose different opinions as their halacha lemaase, as decided by the posek they ask].
My question is - after 120, does G-d care that we followed the halacha lemaase, and as long as we did that in good faith, we're ok as far as judgement and reward/punishment goes? Or perhaps He cares that we follow the right opinion (the correct truth, if such even exists), and so those who followed the wrong practical opinion would be in trouble?
As an example, one person carries outside on Shabbos while his neighbor does not, because the former takes as his practical halacha an opinion deeming the eruv as valid, while the latter's posek says it's invalid. Will they both be judged based on their faithful observance of what they thought was the right view, or will they be judged based on the correctness of only one of these views?
theology reward-punishment
theology reward-punishment
edited May 27 at 12:32
Al Berko
7,5732631
7,5732631
asked May 27 at 1:47
user9806user9806
38819
38819
1
I'm pretty sure you're asking the unknowable. Great question nonetheless.
– Josh K
May 27 at 1:50
I don’t see how you could have this question based on the Gemara from chulin I quoted in my last answer
– Dr. Shmuel
May 27 at 1:56
@Dr.Shmuel : I don't see how that Gemara in chulin answers the question I just asked. (Which is really a theological question about the relationship of halacha lemaase to actual reward and punishment). Please elaborate?
– user9806
May 27 at 2:09
1
There are differing camps of opinions, and it is permissible for one to follow all of any camps opinions. Not only that, but there are no wrong opinions - each camp is right with all their opinions. (That’s what the maharsha seems to say)
– Dr. Shmuel
May 27 at 2:12
2
Isn't this exactly what Eilu V'Eilu is?
– Salmononius2
May 27 at 2:12
|
show 5 more comments
1
I'm pretty sure you're asking the unknowable. Great question nonetheless.
– Josh K
May 27 at 1:50
I don’t see how you could have this question based on the Gemara from chulin I quoted in my last answer
– Dr. Shmuel
May 27 at 1:56
@Dr.Shmuel : I don't see how that Gemara in chulin answers the question I just asked. (Which is really a theological question about the relationship of halacha lemaase to actual reward and punishment). Please elaborate?
– user9806
May 27 at 2:09
1
There are differing camps of opinions, and it is permissible for one to follow all of any camps opinions. Not only that, but there are no wrong opinions - each camp is right with all their opinions. (That’s what the maharsha seems to say)
– Dr. Shmuel
May 27 at 2:12
2
Isn't this exactly what Eilu V'Eilu is?
– Salmononius2
May 27 at 2:12
1
1
I'm pretty sure you're asking the unknowable. Great question nonetheless.
– Josh K
May 27 at 1:50
I'm pretty sure you're asking the unknowable. Great question nonetheless.
– Josh K
May 27 at 1:50
I don’t see how you could have this question based on the Gemara from chulin I quoted in my last answer
– Dr. Shmuel
May 27 at 1:56
I don’t see how you could have this question based on the Gemara from chulin I quoted in my last answer
– Dr. Shmuel
May 27 at 1:56
@Dr.Shmuel : I don't see how that Gemara in chulin answers the question I just asked. (Which is really a theological question about the relationship of halacha lemaase to actual reward and punishment). Please elaborate?
– user9806
May 27 at 2:09
@Dr.Shmuel : I don't see how that Gemara in chulin answers the question I just asked. (Which is really a theological question about the relationship of halacha lemaase to actual reward and punishment). Please elaborate?
– user9806
May 27 at 2:09
1
1
There are differing camps of opinions, and it is permissible for one to follow all of any camps opinions. Not only that, but there are no wrong opinions - each camp is right with all their opinions. (That’s what the maharsha seems to say)
– Dr. Shmuel
May 27 at 2:12
There are differing camps of opinions, and it is permissible for one to follow all of any camps opinions. Not only that, but there are no wrong opinions - each camp is right with all their opinions. (That’s what the maharsha seems to say)
– Dr. Shmuel
May 27 at 2:12
2
2
Isn't this exactly what Eilu V'Eilu is?
– Salmononius2
May 27 at 2:12
Isn't this exactly what Eilu V'Eilu is?
– Salmononius2
May 27 at 2:12
|
show 5 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
Shabbat 130a
ת"ר במקומו של ר"א היו כורתין עצים לעשות פחמין לעשות ברזל בשבת במקומו של ר' יוסי הגלילי היו אוכלין בשר עוף בחלב לוי איקלע לבי יוסף רישבא קריבו ליה רישא דטוותא בחלבא לא אכל כי אתא לקמיה דרבי א"ל אמאי לא תשמתינהו א"ל אתריה דר' יהודה בן בתירה הוה ואמינא דילמא דרש להו כר' יוסי הגלילי דתנן ר' יוסי הגלילי אומר נאמר לא תאכלו כל נבלה ונאמר לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו את שאסור משום נבלה אסור לבשל בחלב עוף שאסור משום נבלה יכול יהא אסור לבשל בחלב ת"ל בחלב אמו יצא עוף שאין לו חלב אם א"ר יצחק עיר אחת היתה בא"י שהיו עושין כר"א והיו מתים בזמנן ולא עוד אלא שפעם אחת גזרה מלכות הרשעה גזרה על ישראל על המילה ועל אותה העיר לא גזרה
Our Rabbis taught: In R. Eliezer's locality they used to cut timber to make charcoal for making iron on the Sabbath. In the locality of R. Jose the Galilean they used to eat flesh of fowl with milk. Levi visited the home of Joseph the fowler [and] was offered the head of a peacock in milk, [which] he did not eat. When he came before Rabbi he asked him, Why did you not place them under the ban? It was the locality of R. Judah b. Bathyra, replied he, and I thought, Perhaps he has lectured to them in accordance with R. Jose the Galilean. For we learnt: R. Jose the Galilean said: It is said, Ye shall not eat any nebelah, and it is said, Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk: [this teaches,] that which is forbidden on the score of nebelah may not be seethed in milk. Now since a fowl is prohibited when nebelah, you might think that one must not seethe it in milk; therefore it is stated, 'in its mother's milk', hence a fowl is excluded, since it has no mother's milk.
R. Isaac said: There was one town in Palestine where they followed R. Eliezer, and they died there at the [proper] time, Moreover, the wicked State once promulgated a decree against Israel concerning circumcision, yet did not decree [it] against that town.
(Soncino translation)
It seems from this passage that the people of R. Eliezer's town were judged favorably, even rewarded, for following his ruling even though his ruling was rejected from the accepted corpus of halacha.
add a comment |
In my approach, G-d follows the Gemmorah in Berochos 17aת i.g. follows one's heart:
אחד המרבה ואחד הממעיט ובלבד שיכוין לבו לשמים
Once G-d declared "נצחוני בניי" in R' Eliezer and the Rabbis' argument (see B"M 59b), He allowed the Rabbis to develop the Halachah anyway they like.
If we still assume that G-d does care for the fulfilment of the Torah commandments, we should remember that all Rabbinical decrees, Halochos, rulings, Minhagim, etc, all stem from one Mitzvah of following the rulings of the Supreme Sanhedrin "ועשית ככל אשר יורוך" (Rambam Mamrim 1) which was further modified into "following Rabbis", in general.
So as long as a person follows a Rabbi's rulings it appears he'll be fine with the Heavenly court as he could claim "who said Rabbi X is better than Rabbi Y?". Or if he truly believes he's a Tzadik (acts solely for the G-d's sake), he can follow "וְצַדִּיק בֶּאֱמוּנָתוֹ יִחְיֶה׃" and follow his own conclusions (that's what Rabbis themselves do).
"So as long as a person follows a Rabbi's rulings it appears he'll be fine with the Heavenly court " I could agree with this if a person follows his own rabbi's rulings, in good faith
– shmu
May 27 at 14:09
@shmu what? do you mean?
– Al Berko
May 27 at 14:10
"Or if he truly believes he's a Tzadik (acts solely for the G-d's sake), he can follow "וְצַדִּיק בֶּאֱמוּנָתוֹ יִחְיֶה׃" and follow his own conclusions" I think that Torah erudition is required as well, not just tzidkus.
– shmu
May 27 at 14:12
@AlBerko "So as long as a person follows a Rabbi's rulings it appears he'll be fine with the Heavenly court as he could claim "who said Rabbi X is better than Rabbi Y?"." - If so, then why is there a tendency and so many instances of people trying to satisfy ALL opinions (cover all the bases). Is that a recent trend?
– user9806
May 28 at 0:55
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Shabbat 130a
ת"ר במקומו של ר"א היו כורתין עצים לעשות פחמין לעשות ברזל בשבת במקומו של ר' יוסי הגלילי היו אוכלין בשר עוף בחלב לוי איקלע לבי יוסף רישבא קריבו ליה רישא דטוותא בחלבא לא אכל כי אתא לקמיה דרבי א"ל אמאי לא תשמתינהו א"ל אתריה דר' יהודה בן בתירה הוה ואמינא דילמא דרש להו כר' יוסי הגלילי דתנן ר' יוסי הגלילי אומר נאמר לא תאכלו כל נבלה ונאמר לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו את שאסור משום נבלה אסור לבשל בחלב עוף שאסור משום נבלה יכול יהא אסור לבשל בחלב ת"ל בחלב אמו יצא עוף שאין לו חלב אם א"ר יצחק עיר אחת היתה בא"י שהיו עושין כר"א והיו מתים בזמנן ולא עוד אלא שפעם אחת גזרה מלכות הרשעה גזרה על ישראל על המילה ועל אותה העיר לא גזרה
Our Rabbis taught: In R. Eliezer's locality they used to cut timber to make charcoal for making iron on the Sabbath. In the locality of R. Jose the Galilean they used to eat flesh of fowl with milk. Levi visited the home of Joseph the fowler [and] was offered the head of a peacock in milk, [which] he did not eat. When he came before Rabbi he asked him, Why did you not place them under the ban? It was the locality of R. Judah b. Bathyra, replied he, and I thought, Perhaps he has lectured to them in accordance with R. Jose the Galilean. For we learnt: R. Jose the Galilean said: It is said, Ye shall not eat any nebelah, and it is said, Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk: [this teaches,] that which is forbidden on the score of nebelah may not be seethed in milk. Now since a fowl is prohibited when nebelah, you might think that one must not seethe it in milk; therefore it is stated, 'in its mother's milk', hence a fowl is excluded, since it has no mother's milk.
R. Isaac said: There was one town in Palestine where they followed R. Eliezer, and they died there at the [proper] time, Moreover, the wicked State once promulgated a decree against Israel concerning circumcision, yet did not decree [it] against that town.
(Soncino translation)
It seems from this passage that the people of R. Eliezer's town were judged favorably, even rewarded, for following his ruling even though his ruling was rejected from the accepted corpus of halacha.
add a comment |
Shabbat 130a
ת"ר במקומו של ר"א היו כורתין עצים לעשות פחמין לעשות ברזל בשבת במקומו של ר' יוסי הגלילי היו אוכלין בשר עוף בחלב לוי איקלע לבי יוסף רישבא קריבו ליה רישא דטוותא בחלבא לא אכל כי אתא לקמיה דרבי א"ל אמאי לא תשמתינהו א"ל אתריה דר' יהודה בן בתירה הוה ואמינא דילמא דרש להו כר' יוסי הגלילי דתנן ר' יוסי הגלילי אומר נאמר לא תאכלו כל נבלה ונאמר לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו את שאסור משום נבלה אסור לבשל בחלב עוף שאסור משום נבלה יכול יהא אסור לבשל בחלב ת"ל בחלב אמו יצא עוף שאין לו חלב אם א"ר יצחק עיר אחת היתה בא"י שהיו עושין כר"א והיו מתים בזמנן ולא עוד אלא שפעם אחת גזרה מלכות הרשעה גזרה על ישראל על המילה ועל אותה העיר לא גזרה
Our Rabbis taught: In R. Eliezer's locality they used to cut timber to make charcoal for making iron on the Sabbath. In the locality of R. Jose the Galilean they used to eat flesh of fowl with milk. Levi visited the home of Joseph the fowler [and] was offered the head of a peacock in milk, [which] he did not eat. When he came before Rabbi he asked him, Why did you not place them under the ban? It was the locality of R. Judah b. Bathyra, replied he, and I thought, Perhaps he has lectured to them in accordance with R. Jose the Galilean. For we learnt: R. Jose the Galilean said: It is said, Ye shall not eat any nebelah, and it is said, Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk: [this teaches,] that which is forbidden on the score of nebelah may not be seethed in milk. Now since a fowl is prohibited when nebelah, you might think that one must not seethe it in milk; therefore it is stated, 'in its mother's milk', hence a fowl is excluded, since it has no mother's milk.
R. Isaac said: There was one town in Palestine where they followed R. Eliezer, and they died there at the [proper] time, Moreover, the wicked State once promulgated a decree against Israel concerning circumcision, yet did not decree [it] against that town.
(Soncino translation)
It seems from this passage that the people of R. Eliezer's town were judged favorably, even rewarded, for following his ruling even though his ruling was rejected from the accepted corpus of halacha.
add a comment |
Shabbat 130a
ת"ר במקומו של ר"א היו כורתין עצים לעשות פחמין לעשות ברזל בשבת במקומו של ר' יוסי הגלילי היו אוכלין בשר עוף בחלב לוי איקלע לבי יוסף רישבא קריבו ליה רישא דטוותא בחלבא לא אכל כי אתא לקמיה דרבי א"ל אמאי לא תשמתינהו א"ל אתריה דר' יהודה בן בתירה הוה ואמינא דילמא דרש להו כר' יוסי הגלילי דתנן ר' יוסי הגלילי אומר נאמר לא תאכלו כל נבלה ונאמר לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו את שאסור משום נבלה אסור לבשל בחלב עוף שאסור משום נבלה יכול יהא אסור לבשל בחלב ת"ל בחלב אמו יצא עוף שאין לו חלב אם א"ר יצחק עיר אחת היתה בא"י שהיו עושין כר"א והיו מתים בזמנן ולא עוד אלא שפעם אחת גזרה מלכות הרשעה גזרה על ישראל על המילה ועל אותה העיר לא גזרה
Our Rabbis taught: In R. Eliezer's locality they used to cut timber to make charcoal for making iron on the Sabbath. In the locality of R. Jose the Galilean they used to eat flesh of fowl with milk. Levi visited the home of Joseph the fowler [and] was offered the head of a peacock in milk, [which] he did not eat. When he came before Rabbi he asked him, Why did you not place them under the ban? It was the locality of R. Judah b. Bathyra, replied he, and I thought, Perhaps he has lectured to them in accordance with R. Jose the Galilean. For we learnt: R. Jose the Galilean said: It is said, Ye shall not eat any nebelah, and it is said, Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk: [this teaches,] that which is forbidden on the score of nebelah may not be seethed in milk. Now since a fowl is prohibited when nebelah, you might think that one must not seethe it in milk; therefore it is stated, 'in its mother's milk', hence a fowl is excluded, since it has no mother's milk.
R. Isaac said: There was one town in Palestine where they followed R. Eliezer, and they died there at the [proper] time, Moreover, the wicked State once promulgated a decree against Israel concerning circumcision, yet did not decree [it] against that town.
(Soncino translation)
It seems from this passage that the people of R. Eliezer's town were judged favorably, even rewarded, for following his ruling even though his ruling was rejected from the accepted corpus of halacha.
Shabbat 130a
ת"ר במקומו של ר"א היו כורתין עצים לעשות פחמין לעשות ברזל בשבת במקומו של ר' יוסי הגלילי היו אוכלין בשר עוף בחלב לוי איקלע לבי יוסף רישבא קריבו ליה רישא דטוותא בחלבא לא אכל כי אתא לקמיה דרבי א"ל אמאי לא תשמתינהו א"ל אתריה דר' יהודה בן בתירה הוה ואמינא דילמא דרש להו כר' יוסי הגלילי דתנן ר' יוסי הגלילי אומר נאמר לא תאכלו כל נבלה ונאמר לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו את שאסור משום נבלה אסור לבשל בחלב עוף שאסור משום נבלה יכול יהא אסור לבשל בחלב ת"ל בחלב אמו יצא עוף שאין לו חלב אם א"ר יצחק עיר אחת היתה בא"י שהיו עושין כר"א והיו מתים בזמנן ולא עוד אלא שפעם אחת גזרה מלכות הרשעה גזרה על ישראל על המילה ועל אותה העיר לא גזרה
Our Rabbis taught: In R. Eliezer's locality they used to cut timber to make charcoal for making iron on the Sabbath. In the locality of R. Jose the Galilean they used to eat flesh of fowl with milk. Levi visited the home of Joseph the fowler [and] was offered the head of a peacock in milk, [which] he did not eat. When he came before Rabbi he asked him, Why did you not place them under the ban? It was the locality of R. Judah b. Bathyra, replied he, and I thought, Perhaps he has lectured to them in accordance with R. Jose the Galilean. For we learnt: R. Jose the Galilean said: It is said, Ye shall not eat any nebelah, and it is said, Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk: [this teaches,] that which is forbidden on the score of nebelah may not be seethed in milk. Now since a fowl is prohibited when nebelah, you might think that one must not seethe it in milk; therefore it is stated, 'in its mother's milk', hence a fowl is excluded, since it has no mother's milk.
R. Isaac said: There was one town in Palestine where they followed R. Eliezer, and they died there at the [proper] time, Moreover, the wicked State once promulgated a decree against Israel concerning circumcision, yet did not decree [it] against that town.
(Soncino translation)
It seems from this passage that the people of R. Eliezer's town were judged favorably, even rewarded, for following his ruling even though his ruling was rejected from the accepted corpus of halacha.
answered May 27 at 2:49
AlexAlex
26.2k265143
26.2k265143
add a comment |
add a comment |
In my approach, G-d follows the Gemmorah in Berochos 17aת i.g. follows one's heart:
אחד המרבה ואחד הממעיט ובלבד שיכוין לבו לשמים
Once G-d declared "נצחוני בניי" in R' Eliezer and the Rabbis' argument (see B"M 59b), He allowed the Rabbis to develop the Halachah anyway they like.
If we still assume that G-d does care for the fulfilment of the Torah commandments, we should remember that all Rabbinical decrees, Halochos, rulings, Minhagim, etc, all stem from one Mitzvah of following the rulings of the Supreme Sanhedrin "ועשית ככל אשר יורוך" (Rambam Mamrim 1) which was further modified into "following Rabbis", in general.
So as long as a person follows a Rabbi's rulings it appears he'll be fine with the Heavenly court as he could claim "who said Rabbi X is better than Rabbi Y?". Or if he truly believes he's a Tzadik (acts solely for the G-d's sake), he can follow "וְצַדִּיק בֶּאֱמוּנָתוֹ יִחְיֶה׃" and follow his own conclusions (that's what Rabbis themselves do).
"So as long as a person follows a Rabbi's rulings it appears he'll be fine with the Heavenly court " I could agree with this if a person follows his own rabbi's rulings, in good faith
– shmu
May 27 at 14:09
@shmu what? do you mean?
– Al Berko
May 27 at 14:10
"Or if he truly believes he's a Tzadik (acts solely for the G-d's sake), he can follow "וְצַדִּיק בֶּאֱמוּנָתוֹ יִחְיֶה׃" and follow his own conclusions" I think that Torah erudition is required as well, not just tzidkus.
– shmu
May 27 at 14:12
@AlBerko "So as long as a person follows a Rabbi's rulings it appears he'll be fine with the Heavenly court as he could claim "who said Rabbi X is better than Rabbi Y?"." - If so, then why is there a tendency and so many instances of people trying to satisfy ALL opinions (cover all the bases). Is that a recent trend?
– user9806
May 28 at 0:55
add a comment |
In my approach, G-d follows the Gemmorah in Berochos 17aת i.g. follows one's heart:
אחד המרבה ואחד הממעיט ובלבד שיכוין לבו לשמים
Once G-d declared "נצחוני בניי" in R' Eliezer and the Rabbis' argument (see B"M 59b), He allowed the Rabbis to develop the Halachah anyway they like.
If we still assume that G-d does care for the fulfilment of the Torah commandments, we should remember that all Rabbinical decrees, Halochos, rulings, Minhagim, etc, all stem from one Mitzvah of following the rulings of the Supreme Sanhedrin "ועשית ככל אשר יורוך" (Rambam Mamrim 1) which was further modified into "following Rabbis", in general.
So as long as a person follows a Rabbi's rulings it appears he'll be fine with the Heavenly court as he could claim "who said Rabbi X is better than Rabbi Y?". Or if he truly believes he's a Tzadik (acts solely for the G-d's sake), he can follow "וְצַדִּיק בֶּאֱמוּנָתוֹ יִחְיֶה׃" and follow his own conclusions (that's what Rabbis themselves do).
"So as long as a person follows a Rabbi's rulings it appears he'll be fine with the Heavenly court " I could agree with this if a person follows his own rabbi's rulings, in good faith
– shmu
May 27 at 14:09
@shmu what? do you mean?
– Al Berko
May 27 at 14:10
"Or if he truly believes he's a Tzadik (acts solely for the G-d's sake), he can follow "וְצַדִּיק בֶּאֱמוּנָתוֹ יִחְיֶה׃" and follow his own conclusions" I think that Torah erudition is required as well, not just tzidkus.
– shmu
May 27 at 14:12
@AlBerko "So as long as a person follows a Rabbi's rulings it appears he'll be fine with the Heavenly court as he could claim "who said Rabbi X is better than Rabbi Y?"." - If so, then why is there a tendency and so many instances of people trying to satisfy ALL opinions (cover all the bases). Is that a recent trend?
– user9806
May 28 at 0:55
add a comment |
In my approach, G-d follows the Gemmorah in Berochos 17aת i.g. follows one's heart:
אחד המרבה ואחד הממעיט ובלבד שיכוין לבו לשמים
Once G-d declared "נצחוני בניי" in R' Eliezer and the Rabbis' argument (see B"M 59b), He allowed the Rabbis to develop the Halachah anyway they like.
If we still assume that G-d does care for the fulfilment of the Torah commandments, we should remember that all Rabbinical decrees, Halochos, rulings, Minhagim, etc, all stem from one Mitzvah of following the rulings of the Supreme Sanhedrin "ועשית ככל אשר יורוך" (Rambam Mamrim 1) which was further modified into "following Rabbis", in general.
So as long as a person follows a Rabbi's rulings it appears he'll be fine with the Heavenly court as he could claim "who said Rabbi X is better than Rabbi Y?". Or if he truly believes he's a Tzadik (acts solely for the G-d's sake), he can follow "וְצַדִּיק בֶּאֱמוּנָתוֹ יִחְיֶה׃" and follow his own conclusions (that's what Rabbis themselves do).
In my approach, G-d follows the Gemmorah in Berochos 17aת i.g. follows one's heart:
אחד המרבה ואחד הממעיט ובלבד שיכוין לבו לשמים
Once G-d declared "נצחוני בניי" in R' Eliezer and the Rabbis' argument (see B"M 59b), He allowed the Rabbis to develop the Halachah anyway they like.
If we still assume that G-d does care for the fulfilment of the Torah commandments, we should remember that all Rabbinical decrees, Halochos, rulings, Minhagim, etc, all stem from one Mitzvah of following the rulings of the Supreme Sanhedrin "ועשית ככל אשר יורוך" (Rambam Mamrim 1) which was further modified into "following Rabbis", in general.
So as long as a person follows a Rabbi's rulings it appears he'll be fine with the Heavenly court as he could claim "who said Rabbi X is better than Rabbi Y?". Or if he truly believes he's a Tzadik (acts solely for the G-d's sake), he can follow "וְצַדִּיק בֶּאֱמוּנָתוֹ יִחְיֶה׃" and follow his own conclusions (that's what Rabbis themselves do).
answered May 27 at 13:07
Al BerkoAl Berko
7,5732631
7,5732631
"So as long as a person follows a Rabbi's rulings it appears he'll be fine with the Heavenly court " I could agree with this if a person follows his own rabbi's rulings, in good faith
– shmu
May 27 at 14:09
@shmu what? do you mean?
– Al Berko
May 27 at 14:10
"Or if he truly believes he's a Tzadik (acts solely for the G-d's sake), he can follow "וְצַדִּיק בֶּאֱמוּנָתוֹ יִחְיֶה׃" and follow his own conclusions" I think that Torah erudition is required as well, not just tzidkus.
– shmu
May 27 at 14:12
@AlBerko "So as long as a person follows a Rabbi's rulings it appears he'll be fine with the Heavenly court as he could claim "who said Rabbi X is better than Rabbi Y?"." - If so, then why is there a tendency and so many instances of people trying to satisfy ALL opinions (cover all the bases). Is that a recent trend?
– user9806
May 28 at 0:55
add a comment |
"So as long as a person follows a Rabbi's rulings it appears he'll be fine with the Heavenly court " I could agree with this if a person follows his own rabbi's rulings, in good faith
– shmu
May 27 at 14:09
@shmu what? do you mean?
– Al Berko
May 27 at 14:10
"Or if he truly believes he's a Tzadik (acts solely for the G-d's sake), he can follow "וְצַדִּיק בֶּאֱמוּנָתוֹ יִחְיֶה׃" and follow his own conclusions" I think that Torah erudition is required as well, not just tzidkus.
– shmu
May 27 at 14:12
@AlBerko "So as long as a person follows a Rabbi's rulings it appears he'll be fine with the Heavenly court as he could claim "who said Rabbi X is better than Rabbi Y?"." - If so, then why is there a tendency and so many instances of people trying to satisfy ALL opinions (cover all the bases). Is that a recent trend?
– user9806
May 28 at 0:55
"So as long as a person follows a Rabbi's rulings it appears he'll be fine with the Heavenly court " I could agree with this if a person follows his own rabbi's rulings, in good faith
– shmu
May 27 at 14:09
"So as long as a person follows a Rabbi's rulings it appears he'll be fine with the Heavenly court " I could agree with this if a person follows his own rabbi's rulings, in good faith
– shmu
May 27 at 14:09
@shmu what? do you mean?
– Al Berko
May 27 at 14:10
@shmu what? do you mean?
– Al Berko
May 27 at 14:10
"Or if he truly believes he's a Tzadik (acts solely for the G-d's sake), he can follow "וְצַדִּיק בֶּאֱמוּנָתוֹ יִחְיֶה׃" and follow his own conclusions" I think that Torah erudition is required as well, not just tzidkus.
– shmu
May 27 at 14:12
"Or if he truly believes he's a Tzadik (acts solely for the G-d's sake), he can follow "וְצַדִּיק בֶּאֱמוּנָתוֹ יִחְיֶה׃" and follow his own conclusions" I think that Torah erudition is required as well, not just tzidkus.
– shmu
May 27 at 14:12
@AlBerko "So as long as a person follows a Rabbi's rulings it appears he'll be fine with the Heavenly court as he could claim "who said Rabbi X is better than Rabbi Y?"." - If so, then why is there a tendency and so many instances of people trying to satisfy ALL opinions (cover all the bases). Is that a recent trend?
– user9806
May 28 at 0:55
@AlBerko "So as long as a person follows a Rabbi's rulings it appears he'll be fine with the Heavenly court as he could claim "who said Rabbi X is better than Rabbi Y?"." - If so, then why is there a tendency and so many instances of people trying to satisfy ALL opinions (cover all the bases). Is that a recent trend?
– user9806
May 28 at 0:55
add a comment |
1
I'm pretty sure you're asking the unknowable. Great question nonetheless.
– Josh K
May 27 at 1:50
I don’t see how you could have this question based on the Gemara from chulin I quoted in my last answer
– Dr. Shmuel
May 27 at 1:56
@Dr.Shmuel : I don't see how that Gemara in chulin answers the question I just asked. (Which is really a theological question about the relationship of halacha lemaase to actual reward and punishment). Please elaborate?
– user9806
May 27 at 2:09
1
There are differing camps of opinions, and it is permissible for one to follow all of any camps opinions. Not only that, but there are no wrong opinions - each camp is right with all their opinions. (That’s what the maharsha seems to say)
– Dr. Shmuel
May 27 at 2:12
2
Isn't this exactly what Eilu V'Eilu is?
– Salmononius2
May 27 at 2:12