I spent a lot of time on two chapters over Shabbos. Extremely disappointed. He rarely quotes Rishonim and Acharonim. His writings in pale in comparison to those of the Tzitz Eliezer and R. Shaul Yisraeli.
Gil, you do realize that going back to the “sources” is a very common thing in RZ circles? It may not be your thing, but especially when dealing with Tanach, it’s certainly legitimate.
(Find me hilchot Sanhedrin in the Shulchan Aruch, by the way.)
Ah, just checked the index. (It was the pocket multi-volume edition, but I think the pagination is the same.) Seven and a half pages of Rishonim and Acharonim. Far less than Tanach and Chazal, but that’s typical.
You might be able to pull it off if you say that this is how you read the sources. But if you say that this is the only way to read them and anyone who reads them differently is influenced by gentile thinking, you have to account for the Ran and the Rashbash, for example.
Well, then, Gil, why not deal with him without any other complaints? Is his way a valid one or not? Because if it is, a lot of haters have a lot of ‘splainin’ to do.
Rabbi Kahane does not need anybody to vouch for his “legitimacy”. The fact that some prefer to rely on an understanding of Rishonim or Acharonim that leads to more “palatable” results is irrelevant. Liberal sensibilities are not relevant here. Nor are the sensibilities of our goyishe neighbors.
Or Ha-Ra’ayon by R. Meir Kahane
Great! When can we expect a review and hell to break loose?
Unfortunately most Jews aren’t aware how Rabbi Kahane’s ideas are based upon the Torah.
I spent a lot of time on two chapters over Shabbos. Extremely disappointed. He rarely quotes Rishonim and Acharonim. His writings in pale in comparison to those of the Tzitz Eliezer and R. Shaul Yisraeli.
Gil, you do realize that going back to the “sources” is a very common thing in RZ circles? It may not be your thing, but especially when dealing with Tanach, it’s certainly legitimate.
(Find me hilchot Sanhedrin in the Shulchan Aruch, by the way.)
Ah, just checked the index. (It was the pocket multi-volume edition, but I think the pagination is the same.) Seven and a half pages of Rishonim and Acharonim. Far less than Tanach and Chazal, but that’s typical.
There was no Jewish State during the time of Rishonim and Acharonim. It is more relevant for Rav Kahane to go back to Hazal in what he quotes.
Rav Kahane backs his ideology up cogently with what he quotes from Hazal.
You might be able to pull it off if you say that this is how you read the sources. But if you say that this is the only way to read them and anyone who reads them differently is influenced by gentile thinking, you have to account for the Ran and the Rashbash, for example.
Well, then, Gil, why not deal with him without any other complaints? Is his way a valid one or not? Because if it is, a lot of haters have a lot of ‘splainin’ to do.
Rabbi Kahane does not need anybody to vouch for his “legitimacy”. The fact that some prefer to rely on an understanding of Rishonim or Acharonim that leads to more “palatable” results is irrelevant. Liberal sensibilities are not relevant here. Nor are the sensibilities of our goyishe neighbors.
Glad to hear it.