Torah & Hashkafa Questions (PC Free For All)

[jj1000]

All I did is ask for your definition. If you don't want to answer that, fine.

Can you accept that there isn't a simple definition without a comprehensive understanding of the framework on torah and halacha? And that framework can take hundreds or thousands of hours of study.

Just to say faith and not understand what that faith entails is not defining emunah in context.

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1398519/jewish/Emunah.htm
https://www.ou.org/life/inspiration/difference-emunah-bitachon/

[eyj]

Is a strong desire to gain money and wealth; greed be a form of idolatry?

Reminds me of the oldie but goodie:

Two beggars are sitting side by side on a street in Rome.

One has a cross in front of him; the other one the Star of David. Many people go by and look at both beggars, but only put money into the hat of the beggar sitting behind the cross.

A priest comes by, stops and watches throngs of people giving money to the beggar behind the cross, but none give to the beggar behind the Star of David.

Finally, the priest goes over to the beggar behind the Star of David and says, "My poor fellow, don't you understand? This is a Catholic country; this city is the seat of Catholicism. People aren't going to give you money if you sit there with a Star of David in front of you, especially when you're sitting beside a beggar who has a cross. In fact, they would probably give to him just out of spite."

The beggar behind the Star of David listened to the priest, turned to the other beggar with the cross and said: "Moishe, look who's trying to teach the Goldstein brothers about marketing!

[shiframeir]

Even according to your definition emunah in torah doctrine wouldn't allow for the possibility of another god. Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one. One of our most famous verses would negate that possibility.

Reb JJ can you explain your point more? are you saying shmah is proof of the possibility for other gods (thus the need for us to affirm our allegiance) or otherwise?

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Can you accept that there isn't a simple definition without a comprehensive understanding of the framework on torah and halacha? And that framework can take hundreds or thousands of hours of study.

Just to say faith and not understand what that faith entails is not defining emunah in context.

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1398519/jewish/Emunah.htm
https://www.ou.org/life/inspiration/difference-emunah-bitachon/

I actually read the first link before. I guess you are saying in the content you used it faith is not what you meant. Emunah goes way past faith.

[jj1000]

Reb JJ can you explain your point more? are you saying shmah is proof of the possibility for other gods (thus the need for us to affirm our allegiance) or otherwise?

Emunah in shema shows Henotheism is not possible in Judaism.

[jj1000]

Emunah goes way past faith.

Yes, for sure. It's much deeper in a person and more encompassing in what is included in it than just faith.

[DTM]

Reminds me of the oldie but goodie:

Two beggars are sitting side by side on a street in Rome.

One has a cross in front of him; the other one the Star of David. Many people go by and look at both beggars, but only put money into the hat of the beggar sitting behind the cross.

A priest comes by, stops and watches throngs of people giving money to the beggar behind the cross, but none give to the beggar behind the Star of David.

Finally, the priest goes over to the beggar behind the Star of David and says, "My poor fellow, don't you understand? This is a Catholic country; this city is the seat of Catholicism. People aren't going to give you money if you sit there with a Star of David in front of you, especially when you're sitting beside a beggar who has a cross. In fact, they would probably give to him just out of spite."

The beggar behind the Star of David listened to the priest, turned to the other beggar with the cross and said: "Moishe, look who's trying to teach the Goldstein brothers about marketing!

😀👍

[skyguy918]

😀👍

For some reason I always group that one in my mind with this bit (relevant joke is 6:03-7:37):

[yzj]

My understanding is that most authorities from before Protestantism were of the opinion that it is not idolatry for gentiles but is for Jews but I cannot say that I really ever researched that extensively as it has few practical ramifications.

This is incorrect.

Those learning Daf Hayomi may want to take a look at an interesting tosfos on the bottom of 50a, today’s Daf, where tosfos discusses the various items the Christians used and their status vis a vi takroves; the censors, the chalice, the vestments, the candles from Candlemas, etc. It is clear that tosfos, and the many rishonim who categorize some of the above as Meshamshei Avodas Kochavim ( Rosh, Ran, Nimukei Yosef, Mordechai, and many others) hold that it is classified as idol worship. These halachos are brought down in Shulchan Aruch Y”D 139 and the Rama concurs with these halachos as well. This is one of many clear indications that the often quoted Rama that shituf is allowed for a non Jew is an error. The Rama simply allows business dealing that may cause a non Jew to take an oath in the name of J, since some rishonim hold that professing such belief in an of itself is allowed for a non Jew. However there is no source in the rishonim that allows actuall worship of shituf for a non Jew whatsoever. This is included in the prohibition of Avodah Zara for a Ben Noach. This is the opinion of the overwhelming majority of achronim (pri megadim 156, Chadian Sofer ibid, Noda Biyehuda, etc.) This is clear from the aforementioned halachos in Y”D 139....

[aygart]

This is incorrect.

Those learning Daf Hayomi may want to take a look at an interesting tosfos on the bottom of 50a, today’s Daf, where tosfos discusses the various items the Christians used and their status vis a vi takroves; the censors, the chalice, the vestments, the candles from Candlemas, etc. It is clear that tosfos, and the many rishonim who categorize some of the above as Meshamshei Avodas Kochavim ( Rosh, Ran, Nimukei Yosef, Mordechai, and many others) hold that it is classified as idol worship. These halachos are brought down in Shulchan Aruch Y”D 139 and the Rama concurs with these halachos as well. This is one of many clear indications that the often quoted Rama that shituf is allowed for a non Jew is an error. The Rama simply allows business dealing that may cause a non Jew to take an oath in the name of J, since some rishonim hold that professing such belief in an of itself is allowed for a non Jew. However there is no source in the rishonim that allows actuall worship of shituf for a non Jew whatsoever. This is included in the prohibition of Avodah Zara for a Ben Noach. This is the opinion of the overwhelming majority of achronim (pri megadim 156, Chadian Sofer ibid, Noda Biyehuda, etc.) This is clear from the aforementioned halachos in Y”D 139....

As I wrote, I never really researched extensively. Thank you for correcting me.

[aygart]

This is incorrect.

Those learning Daf Hayomi may want to take a look at an interesting tosfos on the bottom of 50a, today’s Daf, where tosfos discusses the various items the Christians used and their status vis a vi takroves; the censors, the chalice, the vestments, the candles from Candlemas, etc. It is clear that tosfos, and the many rishonim who categorize some of the above as Meshamshei Avodas Kochavim ( Rosh, Ran, Nimukei Yosef, Mordechai, and many others) hold that it is classified as idol worship. These halachos are brought down in Shulchan Aruch Y”D 139 and the Rama concurs with these halachos as well. This is one of many clear indications that the often quoted Rama that shituf is allowed for a non Jew is an error. The Rama simply allows business dealing that may cause a non Jew to take an oath in the name of J, since some rishonim hold that professing such belief in an of itself is allowed for a non Jew. However there is no source in the rishonim that allows actuall worship of shituf for a non Jew whatsoever. This is included in the prohibition of Avodah Zara for a Ben Noach. This is the opinion of the overwhelming majority of achronim (pri megadim 156, Chadian Sofer ibid, Noda Biyehuda, etc.) This is clear from the aforementioned halachos in Y”D 139....

You left out the way the RMA ends that they are not mitzuve all hashituf.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Are you allowed to eat cooked meat after it has been frozen?

[davidrotts63]

Are you allowed to eat cooked meat after it has been frozen?

That's Halacha, not Hashkofa, nor is it PC.
But the answer is yes.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

What's the difference between Halacha and Hashkofa?

[davidrotts63]

What's the difference between Halacha and Hashkofa?

That's a hard one. I believe you figured it out once somewhere. I'll let someone else answer tho.

[aygart]

What's the difference between Halacha and Hashkofa?

Halacha is the rules and regs. Hashkofa is the theology. This is a very general and rough answer.

[davidrotts63]

Halacha is the rules and regs. Hashkofa is the theology. This is a very general and rough answer.

Although I'll quote R' Yisroel Belsky "Hashkofa is Halacha"

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Halacha is the rules and regs. Hashkofa is the theology. This is a very general and rough answer.

Would Hashkofa be more of a worldwide view? It changes over time?

[ExGingi]

Halacha is the rules and regs. Hashkofa is the theology. This is a very general and rough answer.

I'm sure you could come up with a better (even rough) translation for Hashkofa. I don't think theology is correct.

[ExGingi]

Would Hashkofa be more of a worldwide view? It changes over time?

That might be a dictionary translation. We are talking Torah based Hashkofa.