4,018 reputation
1131
bio website
location
age
visits member for 3 years, 2 months
seen Oct 20 at 0:50

Sep
17
comment How are pre-creation >4000 BCE human civilization and pre-flood >2300 BCE civilizations that continued reconciled with Judaism?
I can't really answer any of your questions because I don't hold of the answer I posted in the first place. That said...
Sep
17
revised How are pre-creation >4000 BCE human civilization and pre-flood >2300 BCE civilizations that continued reconciled with Judaism?
added 286 characters in body
Sep
17
comment How are pre-creation >4000 BCE human civilization and pre-flood >2300 BCE civilizations that continued reconciled with Judaism?
As an aside, this position has a big problem (in my opinion) in that the Arizal explicitly states that Sefer Temuna's shmita cycles were spiritual cycles and not physical.
Sep
17
answered How are pre-creation >4000 BCE human civilization and pre-flood >2300 BCE civilizations that continued reconciled with Judaism?
Sep
17
comment How are pre-creation >4000 BCE human civilization and pre-flood >2300 BCE civilizations that continued reconciled with Judaism?
Again, my answer is that the whole premise and structure of much of science is inherently flawed, but I understand and appreciate that that's not what you're going for here. I'll try to bring a useful answer that I am surprised to not see mentioned yet.
Sep
17
comment How are pre-creation >4000 BCE human civilization and pre-flood >2300 BCE civilizations that continued reconciled with Judaism?
As a clarification to the above, presumably you are also sure that Torah is right, but if Torah and science should prove to be in some area irreconcilable, which one do you throw out?
Sep
17
comment How are pre-creation >4000 BCE human civilization and pre-flood >2300 BCE civilizations that continued reconciled with Judaism?
@AL this is not really the place for this debate, but if you want to be sure science is right while I'm sure Torah is right, okay.
Sep
16
comment How are pre-creation >4000 BCE human civilization and pre-flood >2300 BCE civilizations that continued reconciled with Judaism?
Alternatively, some of us simply do not accept the axioms of science as absolute truth.
Sep
15
comment Is everything in the Talmud considered Jewish Law?
@DoubleAA in a machlokes rishonim they're both also true on one or more levels. :) At any rate my intention was to express to OP that there is nothing in Talmud that we "reject".
Sep
15
comment Is everything in the Talmud considered Jewish Law?
Aside from what Meir brings, the Talmud contains halachic rulings and opinions that are valid halacha but not the accepted halacha. Nobody today holds according to these opinions and it is not permitted to go back and decide to hold like them, but they are halacha nonetheless. Everything in the Talmud is true on one or more levels.
Sep
15
comment Is everything in the Talmud considered Jewish Law?
@Shalom or Tosfos say things that might have worked then don't work now.
Sep
12
comment origin of chassidish havarah(pronunciation)
Strongly related.
Sep
12
revised origin of chassidish havarah(pronunciation)
tags
Sep
10
accepted Why is the shtreimel worn balanced atop the head?
Sep
10
comment Inhaling prayers?
@ShmuelBrin I don't know that it's universal among Chasidim but it comes from the Ari.
Aug
27
awarded  Informed
Aug
5
awarded  Yearling
Jul
14
awarded  Popular Question
Jun
3
comment Why is Akaidas Yitzchak considered a good thing?
@DoubleAA I apologize for not being consistent - I would have thought it obvious that the Torah is G-d's statement of morality. And yes, without Torah it would not be intuitive that stealing or incest are wrong - and indeed, they are not regarded as immoral in all cultures.
Jun
2
comment Why is Akaidas Yitzchak considered a good thing?
@DoubleAA it was only the first thing that comes to mind - it seems obvious to me that Torah is the source of morality. WRT G-d wanting one to break His established morality, what is that but not G-d establishing an exception to the general standard of His morality? Wouldn't it be better to say "usually G-d says we should not do x, but in this instance He commanded the opposite - what gives?"