Nignaz

Username: rhecht
Full Name: Rafi Hecht
Site Admin
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:34 am
Contact:

Mr. wrote:Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:03 am I never said everything in his letter is correct, but I think it's unfair to call someone biased just because he has a different opinion, right or wrong.

 
I can't see how such a mistranslation doesn't come with more than a little bit of bias, especially when Rashi spells it out in old french and the context the word is in clearly has nothing to do with snail being in the list of ingredients. He also writes at the end that "If P’til succeeds, they will have contaminated the halachic process. " That certainly sounds like he wants Ptil to fail!
User avatar
Username: Mr. Genugshoin
Full Name: Gimpel Genugshoin
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2022 8:27 pm
Location: Anshei Kartufel, Broom St.
Contact:

I think it was an honest mistake of his, the fact that he doesn't want Ptil to succeed is not bias, just like you are not biased for wanting Ptil to succeed.
"Not a vacation, eviction!"
Duss is derech eretz???!! Zug mir--
It's a BULLZODER!! A bullzoder!!
Username: Doorknob
Full Name: Yosef Levitansky
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2023 4:17 pm
Contact:

With regards to "shavlulita", the Rambam understands it to mean snail, as opposed to Rashi. So Rav Perr's "error" is choosing the Rambam's approach, without mentioning Rashi 
Username: Doorknob
Full Name: Yosef Levitansky
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2023 4:17 pm
Contact:

The argument that anybody with a stated opinion is biased, because that is their opinion, does seem a little unfair to me. Like, why is that his opinion in the first place?
either way, with that logic there is nobody who is not biased, so what's wrong with biased people arguing against each other?
 
Username: rhecht
Full Name: Rafi Hecht
Site Admin
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:34 am
Contact:

Mr. wrote:Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:03 am I think it was an honest mistake of his, the fact that he doesn't want Ptil to succeed is not bias, just like you are not biased for wanting Ptil to succeed.


 
Nothing to do with wanting or not wanting Ptil to succeed. Our objective is to try to do Mitzvos as best as we possibly can.

As an aside, I "get" his way of thinking. The full text of his final paragraph reads:

In note 11, Dr. Singer pronounces P’til Techelet’s efforts as “inspiring”. I find their efforts rather distressing. P’til is attempting to foist on an unexpert public a halachic practice through marketing methods and thereby establish the precedent of a Minhag. At the same time, their stand ignores the words of the Rishonim and exhibits a cavalier attitude towards the Gemara itself. The Gemara Menachot that gives the description of the chilazon is dismissed by P’til as “homiletic”. If P’til succeeds, they will have contaminated the halachic process. "

Notwithstanding the fact that different Rabbis have interpreted parts of Tanach and Shas literally and not literally with no uniform agreement, Lefi Aniyas Daasi the way we have always gone about it is, when there's science versus religion/mesorah, Mesorah comes first, and if science can help advance that Mesorah then great. We have this with Tefillin and Sifrei Torah, even though today's look very different from even 100 years ago, but at least there was a direct Mesorah. We don't have that luxury with Techeiles, and so the question is, what does someone do with that? Do we say that there's a) only a direct Mesorah that can be done, or can b) Mesorah be reconstructed based on scientific and archeological evidence and the bottom-line? Because any attempts to rediscover Techeiles will automatically fall under b) and R' Perr's "the halachic process" would fall under a). So I totally understand the gross amount of skepticism.

Personally I held off on wearing Techeiles until I saw that a number of mainstream Gedolim were wearing it, and only then took it on. I didn't want to be biased but was always a little biased to know if it was okay to put it on, because I wanted to try to fulfill the mitzva without any downside. But those Rabbonim were "out of the box" thinkers and Poskim that saw Halacha as a reality versus a Mesorah by many that in all honesty didn't see Techeiles. And there is a way to Pasken for that: 

Also, I think that the fact that Ptil's Techeiles has reached the support of a growing number of Rabbonim is testament to that success.
 
Username: rhecht
Full Name: Rafi Hecht
Site Admin
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:34 am
Contact:

Doorknob wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 7:40 pm With regards to "shavlulita", the Rambam understands it to mean snail, as opposed to Rashi. So Rav Perr's "error" is choosing the Rambam's approach, without mentioning Rashi 

 
Okay. What's the source of that Rambam? Where does he use that term?
 
Username: Doorknob
Full Name: Yosef Levitansky
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2023 4:17 pm
Contact:

הלכות ציצית פ"ב ה"ה that's how he understands שבלילתא that Rabbi Perr quotes
 
Username: rhecht
Full Name: Rafi Hecht
Site Admin
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:34 am
Contact:

Doorknob wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 8:07 pm הלכות ציצית פ"ב ה"ה that's how he understands שבלילתא that Rabbi Perr quotes
 

 
I see it now (https://www.chabad.org/library/article_ ... er-Two.htm). ומיא דשבלילתא could translate as וְרִיר שֶׁל שַׁבְּלוּל. Why Rabbi Perr didn't spell that translation out is curious because no Rishon explicitly states that Rashi was wrong.
Screenshot 2023-03-16 at 4.15.22 PM.png
 
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
User avatar
Username: Mr. Genugshoin
Full Name: Gimpel Genugshoin
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2022 8:27 pm
Location: Anshei Kartufel, Broom St.
Contact:

rhecht wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 7:54 pm
Mr. wrote:Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:03 am I think it was an honest mistake of his, the fact that he doesn't want Ptil to succeed is not bias, just like you are not biased for wanting Ptil to succeed.




 
Nothing to do with wanting or not wanting Ptil to succeed. Our objective is to try to do Mitzvos as best as we possibly can.

As an aside, I "get" his way of thinking. The full text of his final paragraph reads:

In note 11, Dr. Singer pronounces P’til Techelet’s efforts as “inspiring”. I find their efforts rather distressing. P’til is attempting to foist on an unexpert public a halachic practice through marketing methods and thereby establish the precedent of a Minhag. At the same time, their stand ignores the words of the Rishonim and exhibits a cavalier attitude towards the Gemara itself. The Gemara Menachot that gives the description of the chilazon is dismissed by P’til as “homiletic”. If P’til succeeds, they will have contaminated the halachic process. "

Notwithstanding the fact that different Rabbis have interpreted parts of Tanach and Shas literally and not literally with no uniform agreement, Lefi Aniyas Daasi the way we have always gone about it is, when there's science versus religion/mesorah, Mesorah comes first, and if science can help advance that Mesorah then great. We have this with Tefillin and Sifrei Torah, even though today's look very different from even 100 years ago, but at least there was a direct Mesorah. We don't have that luxury with Techeiles, and so the question is, what does someone do with that? Do we say that there's a) only a direct Mesorah that can be done, or can b) Mesorah be reconstructed based on scientific and archeological evidence and the bottom-line? Because any attempts to rediscover Techeiles will automatically fall under b) and R' Perr's "the halachic process" would fall under a). So I totally understand the gross amount of skepticism.

Personally I held off on wearing Techeiles until I saw that a number of mainstream Gedolim were wearing it, and only then took it on. I didn't want to be biased but was always a little biased to know if it was okay to put it on, because I wanted to try to fulfill the mitzva without any downside. But those Rabbonim were "out of the box" thinkers and Poskim that saw Halacha as a reality versus a Mesorah by many that in all honesty didn't see Techeiles. And there is a way to Pasken for that: 

Also, I think that the fact that Ptil's Techeiles has reached the support of a growing number of Rabbonim is testament to that success.
 


 
My point was that according to Rabbi Perr's legitimate opinion it makes sense to wish Ptil not to succeed- nothing to do with bias.

Rabbi Perr's claim, as an aside, is that even if we were to reconstruct the mesorah, the method Ptil is using i.e. misinterpreting Gemaras etc., is itself problematic.

(I'm just stating his viewpoint, you are free to feel otherwise) 
 
 
"Not a vacation, eviction!"
Duss is derech eretz???!! Zug mir--
It's a BULLZODER!! A bullzoder!!
User avatar
Username: Mr. Genugshoin
Full Name: Gimpel Genugshoin
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2022 8:27 pm
Location: Anshei Kartufel, Broom St.
Contact:

rhecht wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 8:24 pm
Doorknob wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 8:07 pm הלכות ציצית פ"ב ה"ה that's how he understands שבלילתא that Rabbi Perr quotes
 
 
I see it now (https://www.chabad.org/library/article_ ... er-Two.htm). ומיא דשבלילתא could translate as וְרִיר שֶׁל שַׁבְּלוּל. Why Rabbi Perr didn't spell that translation out is curious because no Rishon explicitly states that Rashi was wrong.Screenshot 2023-03-16 at 4.15.22 PM.png
 

 
It is questionable if the Rambam ever saw Rashi. I agree that Rabbi Perr could have been clearer.
 
"Not a vacation, eviction!"
Duss is derech eretz???!! Zug mir--
It's a BULLZODER!! A bullzoder!!
Post Reply