What did Rabbi Yosef Karo really say about those who wish to follow the Rambam regardless whether their fathers or Forefathers did?

The question is a very interesting one! This is especially interesting for those of us who are Talmidei HaRambam or as many call us "Rambamists." I find it amusing that some would seek to twist Jewish Law so much to fit their narrow minded view of who can follow what in Judaism and why. Recently, I had a very short discussion in PalTalk regarding whether or not a person can actually change the minhag that they are currently following to move to a different minhag. I was informed by others that making this change is questionable as it pertains to Halacha and a person should follow the Minhag of their community and of their Family. I was pondering this issue last night and thought that I would write this blog as a response.

The problem with changing a Minhag is that it is a very difficult process and is usually frowned upon. This is not a questionable item nor does it violate a Jewish Law. I informed these persons that a person my obsolve themselves of certain Minhagim by doing Hatarat Nedarim for a majority but some Minhagim, for example the waiting period between eating Meat and Milk, do not require hatarat nedarim to do this in all cases. This especially if the each spose comes from a different minhag. It is the superficial items like that are changed more often than not. But, what about a change in the Code of Jewish Law that a Jew follows? Can this be done Halachicly and without an issue with Chazal? The answer is.....Of Course! In Fact, Rabbi Yosef Karo even said specifically that it can be done regardless of whether the person has it from the community or from his/her ancestors. In Ovkat Rochel, blatantly misrepresented by this person,  says in translation:

"Who is he whose heart conspires to approach forcing congregations who practice according to the Rambam of blessed memory, to go by any one of the early or latter-day Torah authorities?! ...

Is it not a case of a fortiori, that regarding the School of Shammai that the halachah does not go according to them they [the Talmudic Sages] said if [one practices] like the School of Shammai [he may do so, but] according to their leniencies and their stringencies:

The Rambam, is the greatest of all the Torah authorities, and all the communities of the Land of Israel and the Arab-controlled lands and the West [North Africa] practice according to his word, and accepted him upon themselves as their Chief Rabbi.

Whoever practices according to him [the Rambam] with his leniencies and his stringencies, why coerce them to budge from him?  And all the more so if also their fathers and their fathers fathers practiced accordingly: for their children are not to turn right or left from the RaMBaM of blessed memory. And even if communities that practice according to the Rosh or other authorities like him became the majority, they cannot coerce the minority of congregations practicing according to the Rambam of blessed memory, to practice like they do.  And there is no issue here concerning the prohibition against having two courts in the same city [lo tithgodedu], since every congregation should practice according to its original custom.

(Avkat Rochel, She’elot U’Tshuvot  Siman 32.)

The full text can be found at http://www.hebrewbooks.org/636 I will transcribe the relevant portions when I am able at my home computer but the section is סימן לב 

Clearly from the writer of the Shulchan Aruch in Avkat Rochel, Rabbi Yosef Karo says plainly that "WHOEVER PRACTICES, NOT whoever has a family minhag or community minhag, according to the Rambam, may do so and they should not be coerced to do otherwise." He blosters this argument with a  valid Qal VaKomer argument by saying "All the Moreso if their fathers and their fathers fathers practiced accordingly:for their children should nto turn to the right or left of the Rambam of blessed memory."

So to say that I dont understand this or the context of what is being said, when the writing on the wall couldn't be any bigger, is just amazing and dumb! I would love to entertain this debate further and will at a later time discuss this matter in detail. There is basis in Jewish Law to allow this and to essentially misrepresent Rabbi Yosef Karo and basically call him a "liar" is unprecendented and not becoming of anyone who practices Orthodox Judaism.

Dead Sea Scrolls Online

As many know, Google has put out a website that lets you examine various Dead Sea Scrolls in a High resolution Digitized format. Only a select few of the DSS have been done to date but i think this would be a valuable resource for those who are curious and want to know what the DSS look like and say. The link is provided below. Enjoy!

http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/

Pesikta Rabbati link to the Hebrew Text for reference

There have been a few conversations in the PalTalk rooms regarding The Pesikta. Well I took it upon myself to find the Pesikta online for everyone viewing pleasure. the downside is that if you dont know Hebrew and Aramaic this probably wont help you much. But, for those who are looking for this important text and know what you are looking for....Here You Go! Enjoy!!

http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/vl/tohen.asp?id=374

Online Text of Milchmot HaShem by Rabbi Yichyah Qafich

This Text is almost a necessity to read for any Talmidei HaRambam (Student of Maimonides/Follower of Maimonides) who has strong feelings against Kabbalah and its teachings. This text written by Rabbi Yichyah Qafich (Teimani Rabbi) really rails hard against Kabbalah and its followers explaining how they are Idolaters for following Kabbalah, its associated texts, and that their Rabbis are not to be considered anyone of authority because this Mysticism as corrupted their judgment in matters of Halacha. I have a strong opinion about Kabbalah, The Zohar, and Sefer HaBahir. This text will explain, to a degree, why I am a Talmidei HaRambam.

The Hebrew text is linked below. Read and Enjoy!

http://www.chayas.com/milhamoth.htm

Moshe Shulman's claim that George Howard Retracted his claims on the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew

***Disclaimer: I am not a messianic or a christian! I do not hold this work as inspired of any sorts. I simply did a linguistic study on this work in College so this is purely professional in nature******


Not to long ago Moshe Shulman, Famous counter-missionary, made the claim that Professor George Howard, author of "The Hebrew Gospel of Matthew" had retracted many of his claims about the Shem Tov Hebrew Matthew because of an article by William L. Petersen that criticised Professor Howards claims on the Hebrew gospel of Matthew. I have read both articles and it is not hard to conclude that George Howard, in his response, conceded very few points made by Petersen. Howard criticises Petersen, and rightly so, for having remedial knowledge of Medieval Hebrew and his archaic renderings showing such knowledge. I find it amusing that such bold claims can be made by Moshe Shulman about George Howard and the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew when there is clear evidence in Howards response that he did not concede as many points as was alleged.

Petersens Critique: http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol03/Petersen1998a.html

Howards Response: http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/v04/Howard1999.html

Read and see for yourself if Howard really conceded anything. As far as I can tell he kept to his claims.

Shalom,

Yosef Menachem

Is Kitniyot permitted on Pesach?

Is Kitniyot permitted on Pesach?

This has been a very big debate in the Jewish community for many centuries. The Ashkenazim tend to say no and follow the Shulchan Arcuh HaRav which prohibits the consumption of Kitniyot. For the Sefardim and the Mizrachi Jews they follow the Shulchan Aruch, OC 453:1 and thus allow the consumption of kitniyot. There are those of us who do not follow either compositions of Jewish Law. Some of us follow the Mishneh Torah as laid out by the Rambam. Below is what The Rambam wrote in Sefer Chametz U’Matzah regarding the permission of Kitniyot.

Sefer Chametz U’Matzah 5:1

The prohibition against chametz applies only to the five species of grain. They include two species of wheat: wheat and rye; and three species of barley: barley, oats, and spelt. However, kitniyot - e.g., rice, millet, beans, lentils and the like - do not become leavened. Even if one kneads rice flour or the like with boiling water and covers it with fabric until it rises like dough that has become leavened, it is permitted to be eaten. This is not leavening, but rather the decay [of the flour].

א. אין אסור משום חמץ בפסח אלא חמשת מיני דגן בלבד. והם שני מיני חטים שהן החטה והכוסמת. ושלשה מיני השעורים שהן השעורה ושבולת שועל והשיפון. אבל הקטניות כגון אורז ודוחן ופולים ועדשים וכיוצא בהן אין בהן משום חמץ אלא אפילו לש קמח אורז וכיוצא בו ברותחין וכסהו בבגדים עד שנתפח כמו בצק שהחמיץ הרי זה מותר באכילה שאין זה חמוץ אלא סרחון:

The next issue that comes into play from the opposing side is that “you are obligated to follow the minhag of the community in which you reside!” For those of us who chose to become Talmidei HaRambam this becomes a problem to those who do not understand why we have chosen this path. You want to remind them that even the writer of the Shulchan Aruch said in Aovkat Rochel “that those who wish to follow the rulings of the Rambam, should continue following them, even if they are the minority in the congregation (i.e. the community) [text in Hebrew and citation to follow later].”

Conclusion:

Pay attention to the words of the Acharonim, but read carefully the words of the Rishonim! The words of an Acharon can not cancel or negate the words of a Rishon! So, my advice is to be very careful when disagreeing with your Rabbi on this point. You have to handle things very carefully if you take the route of a Rationalistic Talmidei HaRambam and still be an active member of the Kabalistic Jewish community.

Hold your Kitniyot up high, and chow down on Pesach!

Shalom,

Yosef Menachem

Uri's response to my blog post on the Aramaic Targumim and the word בר with my response to Uri!

Below is the response I received from UriYosef in regards to my blog post on the Aramaic Targumim and the meaning of the word בר in Aramaic. The below response tells me several things about where he is going with his line of reasoning.

1. That he is unwilling to take a serious look at the Aramaic Language as we have it. He is only willing to take a narrowed scope of the language and claim "This is it!" and no other views in the Aramaic are valid regardless of the implications contrary to his claims.

2. While I admit that he did not use "midrashic" in association with the Targumim in his article, this was claimed about Uri by the person conveying this blog to Uri. That is where I received the idea that Uri said that the Targumim conveyed midrashic interpretations.

3. That Uri does not want to discuss the natural progression of language as it is associated with word meaning over time. This is in spite of the fact that Uri, fluent in Modern Hebrew, assumes that this natural progression of the Hebrew language maintained the original meaning of Ancient Hebrew words and that he can read the Hebrew Bible based on this assumption. Double Standards are amazing!

4. The unmade claim on Uri's part is that only biblical Aramaic gets the term בר correct in its intent in meaning and others need not apply. The problem is that the textual vocabulary of the Aramaic portions of the hebrew bible are extremely limited and only literary. Uri builds a case from lack of contrary evidence to deduce that "Since the Bible doesnt use בר in the way of meaning "a son" then it must not mean that at all. This is a Fallacy of Silence and of Narrowing the field.

5. He did not address anything I said about the term בר in its usage in the Aramaic Language which shows contrary usage. Uri's only response was to return to his narrow playing field of limited Aramaic vocabulary in the Hebrew bible.

6. The best thing for Uri to do is save his ridicule for when honesty can come before pride. Uri must assume I spent "a lot" of time on my blog post.


Here is my message to Uri:

I did that post in 20 Minutes at 2:30AM. I got the exact response I expected from you! I dispelled the idea that בר is not a stand alone noun meaning "a son" by looking at the Aramaic language, for which you had no answer. I called out your narrowing of the field and argument from silence! Real, earnest, scholarship has to take into account all evidence for and against an argument.   I did this in 20 minutes at 2:30AM having to work the next day at 6:00AM. Imagine what a serious blog post would look like with time and devotion put into it.

You cited in your article all of these instances of the usage of בר in the text but can you show me a place in the Hebrew bible where your claimed root "בְּרָא" is used as simply "a son" in the Aramaic portions of the Hebrew bible? You neglected to cite that in your article and I am curious. Also, did it ever occur to you, Uri, that this term,בְּרָא , can be and usually is, the definite form of the word? In Aramaic the definite form takes an א suffix to denote the definite. Take Ezekiel 18:19 and look at the Targum Yonatan and its usage.

Ezekiel 18:19 (Targum Yonatan)

וַאֲמַרתֻון ותימרון מָדֵין לָא לָקֵי בְרָא בְחוֹבֵי אַבָא וֻברָא דִין דִקשוֹט וְזָכֻו עֲבַד יָת כָל קְיָמַי נְטַר וַעֲבַד יָתְהוֹן מֵיחָא יֵיחֵי׃

Both of these are used for corresponding nouns in the Hebrew. Both words have the definite article in the Hebrew text of Ezekiel 18:19 being הַבֵּן.

At this stage, I do not see even a remote response to these claims perhaps Uri would like to elaborate on some other issues I am taking with him.


At this stage of his article I see two issues with what he wrote:

1.  I never referred to the Targum as Midrashic in my article.  At the bottom of Page 8 I have the following:

The Targum Yonatan, an ancient interpretive translation into the Aramaic vernacular of the
Hebrew Bible, has קָ בִּ ילוּ אוּלְפָנָא (qaBIlu ulfaNA), accept the Law.

2.  The Aramaic of the Targumim came long after the Hebrew Bible was written, so it is a rather weak argument to support his claim by comparing the older Aramaic used in the Hebrew Bible with the more "modern" Aramaic employed in the Targumim.

If this is his idea of scholarship, then he is deluding himself.  We'll see what other sort of misrepresentations he uses when he finishes it.

Uri