Questions about Jews, Judaism and so on.
- Thread starter civ2
- Start date
- Status
civ2
Emperor
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2004
- Messages
- 1,650
Very nicely. 
Actually, by being truly happy (not clown-happy, but truly happy with his.her life) - one shows to oneself, others and finally G-d, that he/she is thankful for what was done for him/her.
Being TRULY content with one's life is HARD, but it's the true way to accepting G-dliness.
And it has to come from within, even if not obviously shown outwardly, YET.
Again, we aren't talking about "clowns" that go around joking and laughing.
We're talking about CALM people, the calmness being a true reflection of their INNER joy.
And when meet such person - you FEEL it, even if you didn't pay attention beforehand.
Actually, by being truly happy (not clown-happy, but truly happy with his.her life) - one shows to oneself, others and finally G-d, that he/she is thankful for what was done for him/her.
Being TRULY content with one's life is HARD, but it's the true way to accepting G-dliness.
And it has to come from within, even if not obviously shown outwardly, YET.
Again, we aren't talking about "clowns" that go around joking and laughing.
We're talking about CALM people, the calmness being a true reflection of their INNER joy.
And when meet such person - you FEEL it, even if you didn't pay attention beforehand.
Hassidism was the reform movement of the 18th century CE 
Seriously, the Baal Shem Tov while today revered by many orthodox jews had some pretty crazy ideas for his time, regarding prayer as more important than studies of Talmud for example. The idea that Reform judaism is heretical is indeed a sign of struggle within the community (much like the vilna gaon's view that hassidism was heretical was a sign of such struggles in the 18th century) - but its also a sign that some orthodox quarters forget how judaism evolved throughout the centuries and that there are quite a few movements that today are thought mainstream that did not adhere to what halakha was telling them at the time.
Seriously, the Baal Shem Tov while today revered by many orthodox jews had some pretty crazy ideas for his time, regarding prayer as more important than studies of Talmud for example. The idea that Reform judaism is heretical is indeed a sign of struggle within the community (much like the vilna gaon's view that hassidism was heretical was a sign of such struggles in the 18th century) - but its also a sign that some orthodox quarters forget how judaism evolved throughout the centuries and that there are quite a few movements that today are thought mainstream that did not adhere to what halakha was telling them at the time.
civ2
Emperor
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2004
- Messages
- 1,650
ori
Sorry, but blah-blah.
Orthodox Judaism is the one based on Torah in its entirety.
This excludes anyone who doesn't adhere (officially, not on personal issue; you could be a transgressor and still belong to orthodoxy, as long as you KNOW you're transgressing) to it fully.
Reform (and similar ones) on the other hand, are trying to "reduce" or "obsolete" some Torah laws - which is contrary to "adhering to it entirely".
Chassidism did NOT "reduce" or "obsolete" ANY Torah laws.
This is a common misunderstanding ever since - and often use by "political" people to back up their anti-religious claim.
Generally, truly religious non-Chassidic Jews would never say such stupidity about Chassidic ones.
Not to say, there never were idiot from ANY camps.
But I'm talking about the GENERAL group, and as such, Chassidim (especially Chabad) is the most "Orthodox" Jewish group - all this independent of personal life stories that may vary from "born religious" to "former hippie turned orthodox".
Yet, ALL of them are as orthodox (aka truly Jewish) as you can think of.
To sum up:
Mainstream = 100% Torah-based life.
All other = fake.
(Doesn't make PEOPLE fake, just mislead and erring.)
Sorry, but blah-blah.
Orthodox Judaism is the one based on Torah in its entirety.
This excludes anyone who doesn't adhere (officially, not on personal issue; you could be a transgressor and still belong to orthodoxy, as long as you KNOW you're transgressing) to it fully.
Reform (and similar ones) on the other hand, are trying to "reduce" or "obsolete" some Torah laws - which is contrary to "adhering to it entirely".
Chassidism did NOT "reduce" or "obsolete" ANY Torah laws.
This is a common misunderstanding ever since - and often use by "political" people to back up their anti-religious claim.
Generally, truly religious non-Chassidic Jews would never say such stupidity about Chassidic ones.
Not to say, there never were idiot from ANY camps.
But I'm talking about the GENERAL group, and as such, Chassidim (especially Chabad) is the most "Orthodox" Jewish group - all this independent of personal life stories that may vary from "born religious" to "former hippie turned orthodox".
Yet, ALL of them are as orthodox (aka truly Jewish) as you can think of.
To sum up:
Mainstream = 100% Torah-based life.
All other = fake.
(Doesn't make PEOPLE fake, just mislead and erring.)
Jehoshua
Catholic
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2009
- Messages
- 7,284
@Ori
that is true (in regards to Hasidism being a relatively recent development_, the panentheistic tendencies particularly seem novel in regard to the theology of the misnagdim and perhaps medieval judaism (although I am hardly an expert on the history of jewish theology) and relatively unique to Hasidism compared to the other schools of orthodox jewish thought
Still though I would say that Reform Judaism is hardly a modern day equivalent of the Hasidic Judaism vs Misnagdim thing, rather than simply being a watering down of jewish law focussing on man instead of God (something that hasidism despite theological novelties compared to earlier schools did not do).
that is true (in regards to Hasidism being a relatively recent development_, the panentheistic tendencies particularly seem novel in regard to the theology of the misnagdim and perhaps medieval judaism (although I am hardly an expert on the history of jewish theology) and relatively unique to Hasidism compared to the other schools of orthodox jewish thought
Still though I would say that Reform Judaism is hardly a modern day equivalent of the Hasidic Judaism vs Misnagdim thing, rather than simply being a watering down of jewish law focussing on man instead of God (something that hasidism despite theological novelties compared to earlier schools did not do).
civ2
Emperor
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2004
- Messages
- 1,650
OK, once again:
1. Nothing what Chassidism brought into masses was really NEW to Torah scholars.
Except it made knowledge of a few into a knowledge of everyone.
2. It was, is and will be based on authentic Torah ideas, not diminishing any of them, nor replacing with man-made notions.
3. The reason "Misnagdim" attacked the new group was, cause they feared they were some new Shabtai Zvi, a false messiah that took place quite recently before Baal Shem Tov.
Also, they might have been against the idea of "bringing Kabbalistic-level teachings into the unlearned masses" out of fear of misguiding the said masses.
This proved to be wrong, as we can clearly see today.
4. The very NEXT generation after Vilna Gaon witnessed a FRIENDSHIP between the successors from BOTH sides.
They actually joined forced to fight the REAL threat - the Enlightment (the origin of Reform).
5. Only people that either know nothing about the issue, or pursue personal gains from it, still cling to this long-dead "fight".
Don't be one of them, please.
1. Nothing what Chassidism brought into masses was really NEW to Torah scholars.
Except it made knowledge of a few into a knowledge of everyone.
2. It was, is and will be based on authentic Torah ideas, not diminishing any of them, nor replacing with man-made notions.
3. The reason "Misnagdim" attacked the new group was, cause they feared they were some new Shabtai Zvi, a false messiah that took place quite recently before Baal Shem Tov.
Also, they might have been against the idea of "bringing Kabbalistic-level teachings into the unlearned masses" out of fear of misguiding the said masses.
This proved to be wrong, as we can clearly see today.
4. The very NEXT generation after Vilna Gaon witnessed a FRIENDSHIP between the successors from BOTH sides.
They actually joined forced to fight the REAL threat - the Enlightment (the origin of Reform).
5. Only people that either know nothing about the issue, or pursue personal gains from it, still cling to this long-dead "fight".
Don't be one of them, please.
Frankly, just because you don't want to hear it, its still not untrue.
Hassidism in the 18th century did surely abrogate established halakha to the point of there being rulings of cherem (excommunication) against a number of leading hassidists and the Lithunians most prominently among them the Vilna Gaon regarded them as extremely close if not non-distinguishable from heretic groups following their own messiahs, such as the Frankists.
as for Reform trying to abolish Torah law: well, it depends on what stream of reform movements you look at and chabbad and other hassidic groups already throw in some of the so called modern orthodox groups in the "reform" camp, but generally of course there are the conservative, reconstructionist and reform movements (and humanist judaism, who being non-theistic really have a rough time describing themselves as a religion) as organized factions and they do have all differing views, in some cases mostly throwing out traditional halakha as in rabbinic rulings well after the talmudic era, instead of all or parts of torah, in other cases going much further - though its a mistake by orthodox people to regard all of those not following their own views as heretics and won't do them nor the jewish community as a whole any good.
Now the thing is that within the orthodox groups anyone questioning centuries old rulings and traditions is regarded with suspicion while not doing much else than what others, such as the founders of hassidism have done in their time. Not everyone who wants to change things even majorly is throwing out torah.
Of course I understand that it is one of the major tennets of especially Chabbad to bring everyone back to "true" judaism so this is not a discussion that will yield much I fear.
I couldn't help myself
There are too many non-orthodox streams to really say that there is only the choice between traditional halakha (jewish law) and removal of god from the equation (though all extremes exist). However one thing that Hassidism of the 18th century and todays "heretic" groups (which have in combination well more than half of all people considering themselves jews as followers) - and that is that they are squarely at odds with contemporary (orthodox) halakha - but do show remarkable ability to relate to large numbers of people within the community.
civ2
Emperor
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2004
- Messages
- 1,650
still not every jew who disagrees with spedific teachings is a heretic - and frankly going with those teachings it is of course not debatable that the baal shem tov was a heretic. He squarely stated that talmud study was less important than prayer and put himself thus in opposition to then mainstream halakha.
civ2
Emperor
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2004
- Messages
- 1,650
ori
Why do I have a very strong feeling you are either non-Jewish or otherwise definitely NOT observant in the Orthodox meaning???
Cause no sane Orthodox Jew nowadays would say such a nonsense.
Therefore:
1. Sane?
2. Orthodox?
3. Jew?
Since I can assume 1 being false (hopefully)...
EDIT:
Not to mention, how learned Besht was himself.
Or his many students.
What you say, is nothing but a basic lie, originating from those times, and made up by idiots that had personal grunts against Chassdi(s)m.
I don't say, you lie on purpose, I just say, that you are sticking to an obsolete claim.
Obsolete for some 200 years, btw.
Why do I have a very strong feeling you are either non-Jewish or otherwise definitely NOT observant in the Orthodox meaning???
Cause no sane Orthodox Jew nowadays would say such a nonsense.
Therefore:
1. Sane?
2. Orthodox?
3. Jew?
Since I can assume 1 being false (hopefully)...
EDIT:
Not to mention, how learned Besht was himself.
Or his many students.
What you say, is nothing but a basic lie, originating from those times, and made up by idiots that had personal grunts against Chassdi(s)m.
I don't say, you lie on purpose, I just say, that you are sticking to an obsolete claim.
Obsolete for some 200 years, btw.
Whatever you feel about this - how does it relate to the arguments?
Its no use trying to discredit those that supply you with arguments by claiming their voice is to be disregarded for unrelated reasons. There are good arguments to be had about reform and other groups being heretical (from the orthodox point of view) - though in many cases they stand on shaky foundations. But its a historical fact that the Vilna Gaon regarded the teachings of the Baal Shem Tov and his followers as heretical and your posting of the Rambams words and accomapanied commentary by someone else are one of the foundations for this view - if you regard everyone who disagrees with any part of the traditional halakha (especially when argued by a well known sage) as a heretic then in the eyes of the mainstream jews of the early 18th century you have to conclude that the Baal Shem Tov is a heretic.
Of course that view has changed, precisely because halakha has changed and thus the mainstream view of what torah law means.
Its no use trying to discredit those that supply you with arguments by claiming their voice is to be disregarded for unrelated reasons. There are good arguments to be had about reform and other groups being heretical (from the orthodox point of view) - though in many cases they stand on shaky foundations. But its a historical fact that the Vilna Gaon regarded the teachings of the Baal Shem Tov and his followers as heretical and your posting of the Rambams words and accomapanied commentary by someone else are one of the foundations for this view - if you regard everyone who disagrees with any part of the traditional halakha (especially when argued by a well known sage) as a heretic then in the eyes of the mainstream jews of the early 18th century you have to conclude that the Baal Shem Tov is a heretic.
Of course that view has changed, precisely because halakha has changed and thus the mainstream view of what torah law means.
Again, whether or not I am familiar with joseph karo's work has little to do with my arguments: and it does not even answer your previous questions.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Has someone answered my "Have you ever tried bacon?" question yet? Maybe I made it in another thread, hmmm.
civ2, have you ever tried bacon?
civ2, have you ever tried bacon?
civ2
Emperor
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2004
- Messages
- 1,650
warpus
Wasn't BORN religious - though now it's irrelevant.
ori
OK, now tell me what EXACTLY (according to YOU) was "unhalakhic" about Besht or Chassidism.
Specific points ONLY.
What you say is a "general" saying, also wrong one.
Can you back it up with "this specific halakha says (source link) this, yet Besht says (source link)"?
Cause otherwise it's just empty talk.
(Not that you will persuade me to change my opinion - I'm just trying to search where YOUR mistake comes from.)
Or are you afraid of this task???
Wasn't BORN religious - though now it's irrelevant.
ori
OK, now tell me what EXACTLY (according to YOU) was "unhalakhic" about Besht or Chassidism.
Specific points ONLY.
What you say is a "general" saying, also wrong one.
Can you back it up with "this specific halakha says (source link) this, yet Besht says (source link)"?
Cause otherwise it's just empty talk.
(Not that you will persuade me to change my opinion - I'm just trying to search where YOUR mistake comes from.)
Or are you afraid of this task???
I actually gave you specifics, you countered with internet links or "tasks" which had nothing to do with the discussion at hand - in that its really you who should step up to the plate and argue your point if you actually want to. The Baal Shem Tov's declaration that talmudic study was less important than prayer flew smack in the face of the mainstream thought that talmudic study was the way for judaism to be conducted. As such it was agains halakhic thought of the time and if I take your links seriously already sufficient to call him a heretic. His panentheistic views were novel, but not quite as bad as the pietistic views above. Further I don't need to establish anything I can just hide behind the Vilna Gaon and repeat his view that the teachings of the Hassidim were heretical and that they are cherem (excommunicated) until they recant of their views. The Vilna Gaon being one of the most revered rabbinical sages of all time should suffice, I guess.
My point is exactly that since then Halakha has changed - but that is a problem for your point of view because if even the Vilna Gaon can be doubted then the view that anyone wanting to alter some aspects of halakha is a heretic is on extremely shaky foundations,
My point is exactly that since then Halakha has changed - but that is a problem for your point of view because if even the Vilna Gaon can be doubted then the view that anyone wanting to alter some aspects of halakha is a heretic is on extremely shaky foundations,
civ2
Emperor
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2004
- Messages
- 1,650
I don't need to, I just relate decisions by the Vilna Gaon which are well known to anyone having some grasp of the history of the Hassidic movements and its opponents. Further, I am not attacking hassidism as much as showing that the argument leveled at non-orthodox streams of judaism can easily be leveled back at very orthodox streams. Hassidism being the easiest because its so new, merely 250 years old. You just refuse to acknowledge that halakha has evolved tremendously over the last few hundred years and that hassidism has gone from a heretic sect to one of the mainstays of orthodox judaism in merely 200 years.
As for your claim the Vilna Gaon was misled: it does not matter whether he was or was not, the point is that you yourself posted a link that calls anyone a denier of god who claims that the sages are only human and can err, so by claiming he erred you are making yourself open to the charge of being a denier of god, don't you? This is what is so ridiculous about this reasoning: of course halakha has evolved since talmudic era and of course what is mainstream and what is not is changing all the time, but if you want to play the game of calling everyone who doubts halakhic sages a denier of god you cannot very well then go back an doubt one of the most revered sages yourself.
As for your claim the Vilna Gaon was misled: it does not matter whether he was or was not, the point is that you yourself posted a link that calls anyone a denier of god who claims that the sages are only human and can err, so by claiming he erred you are making yourself open to the charge of being a denier of god, don't you? This is what is so ridiculous about this reasoning: of course halakha has evolved since talmudic era and of course what is mainstream and what is not is changing all the time, but if you want to play the game of calling everyone who doubts halakhic sages a denier of god you cannot very well then go back an doubt one of the most revered sages yourself.
civ2
Emperor
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2004
- Messages
- 1,650
ori
Aha, and being a total ignoramus in the topic itself.
The difference between being heretic and then accepted - and being simply misunderstood, is it beyond you???
Wanna a good example of "ancient Reform"?
Karaites!
Do you or anyone consider them Jewish? No!
Yet, everyone (even misnagdim, the real religious ones) considers Chassidim to be a strong part of "mainstream".
But for you, yeah, it's worth nothing.
Moderator Action: Do not call another member a 'ignoramus'. Doing so is rude and uncivil.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Aha, and being a total ignoramus in the topic itself.
The difference between being heretic and then accepted - and being simply misunderstood, is it beyond you???
Wanna a good example of "ancient Reform"?
Karaites!
Do you or anyone consider them Jewish? No!
Yet, everyone (even misnagdim, the real religious ones) considers Chassidim to be a strong part of "mainstream".
But for you, yeah, it's worth nothing.
Moderator Action: Do not call another member a 'ignoramus'. Doing so is rude and uncivil.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
ori
Aha, and being a total ignoramus in the topic itself.
The difference between being heretic and then accepted - and being simply misunderstood, is it beyond you???
Wanna a good example of "ancient Reform"?
Karaites!
Do you or anyone consider them Jewish? No!
Yet, everyone (even misnagdim, the real religious ones) considers Chassidim to be a strong part of "mainstream".
But for you, yeah, it's worth nothing.
calling people names instead of engaging them in discussion and just dodging any reasonable arguments is not actually a good way to prevail in such discussion, it just shows that your arguments lack any substance, frankly.
Edit: further why stop at hassidism as being misunderstood (the cherem declarations not withstanding): are you certain that the conservative movement is not merely misunderstood, or the humanists for that matter? what makes you so certain that in 200 years they won't be mainstream judaism?
- Status
Similar threads
