Talk:Dor Daim

message: why is the post below being deleted ? it is the most relevant post on the whole discussion board ! this is THE source of Dor Dai philosophy... what could be more clear than seeing what the founder of the movement had to say ? if the goal of our article is to objectively present the views of Dor Daim, then erasing this post just defeats the entire purpose(unless your not pleased with my translation, in which case we can look at the original and make the neccessary corrections)
 
thought this might be of interest. a few selections from Milhamoth Hashem :
... those who know the truth and know what is proper, who constantly study the written Torah and the oral Torah, are afraid to speak up and to bring the complete truth to their lips, from fear of the deceitfulness always found on the lips of the ‘hassidim’. They are afraid lest they be attacked with threats of excommunication ‘by force and with a strong hand’ all of which is not the will of God or of those that fear Him...
...For reason of these threats, they are afraid to give themselves over to Sanctify the Name, for the sake of the Mighty and Omnipotent God whose judgements are in all the land. Have they shut their eyes to the actions of our forefathers who gave over their bodies and souls to sanctify the name of God. Remember that Abraham was thrown into Nimrod’s furnace and Daniel was thrown into the lion’s den. Remember the many Tzadikim and pious men mentioned in the Talmud and Medrashim who were prepared to die for Kedushat Hashem. Some of them were even killed because of the sin of their generation...
... it is certain that one must refrain from all their minhagim( customs, usages, ceremonial rites developed after the closing of the Talmud ) whether a leniency or a stringency and from all their nusakhot ( their versions of the prayers and their siddurim ) which were created in accordance with the Zohar and the kabbalists...Therefore let it be said to every person to whom the fear of God shines in his heart, that he distance himself from all these minhagim and new dinim derived from the new kabbalah. They only come to uproot and demolish the corner stone of the Holy Torah and break its pillars, for in all their prayers and blessings, when they mention the glorious Name, they place their intention on Zeir Anpin in association to the higher Partzufim above it. 
Yet it is not only these new minhagim which must be avoided. One must be careful about everything which is performed or made by them concerning all the commandments explained to us by the Sages, of blessed memory. Here are a few examples: a Sefer Torah, Tefillin or a Mezuza that were written by any Jew who is devoted to the new kabbalah is not valid because the Names of God written in them were written for the sake of another god, Zeir Anpin. All the names written in them are profane and may be burned. This is the law of the Poskim concerning a Sefer Torah, Tefillin, and Mezuzot written by a ‘min'. One must not eat from their slaughtering since, at the moment of slaughter, when the kabbalist mentions the Name in the blessing for shechita, his intention is on Zeir Anpin. If a kabbalist is leading a congregation in prayer, one must not answer Amen either to Kedusha or to Baruch Hashem Hamevorach...
...almost all those who read or study in the Zohar or in the books of individuals or groups who have inherited the chaos, have not understood their true intentions and have erroneously believed that they are all part of one Torah and one Law. ‘Israel has not known, my nation has not meditated’ that their real purpose was to institute a completely new oral law to replace the Mishnah and Talmud. Praised is the name of God who bestows on man knowledge and understanding, to perceive the truth of true words, and to shatter the visions of the impudent who would lift themselves up to establish their doctrines, causing by subterfuge and false-flattery many from among our nation to believe that the Lord, our God is not the Unique and Absolute One." 
Lecha Dodi, meat, minyans,spreading the faith, ect... ???
T4H
after reading the above... what are we to make of the passage in our article which states:
"Many members of the small and slowly growing Dor Dai community claim a fear of persecution and therefore maintain an almost secret existence."
Omedyashar 18:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion question

message: I have heard of "Dardaim" and of "Dor Deah", but never (outside this article) of "Dor Daim". (But then I only know what I have read, and have no first hand contacts with the movement.)  Should we rename the article?
Also, do we think the article is now cleaned up enough for us to remove the marker at the head of the first page? --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 16:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that there is no consensus to move this article to Dardaim, so I'm removing the request from Wikipedia:Requested moves.  If I have read this discussion in error, please let me know, here or at my talk page. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  The request was mine, and I withdraw it. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 09:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move request 

message: I am going to do my best to restore the first paragraph of this article to how it was -- if someone has a more recent form of the first paragraph to be restored, please go ahead.  I am going to try to restore it because someone, clearly not a person who is trying to inform accurately on what Dor Daim hold to or believe, wrote a very inaccurate addition to [and/or simi-replacement of] the first paragraph.  I, a person who affiliates with people who are often termed "Dor Daim," know for a fact that none of what this person added accurately portrays any information [even regarding the Zohar] except for that they oppose the influence of Kabbalistic texts [this requires clarification, being that, for example, possibly all (certainly the great majority) of Dor Dai synagogues sing "Lekha Dodi," and do other things as well] and possibly that "Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky has asserted Dor Daim's view on Kaballah to be heresy."  However, I'm not sure how true or exact this statement is either, being that a large number of those who are called "Dor Daim" do not hold to one particular view or statement as to what Kabbalah is or is not.  The very fact that the individual who made this addition to the article is unaware of such is as well indicative of his unfamiliarity to the subject, except for maybe what he has over heard from others who, apparently as well, are not so familiar.  Apparently he didn't even take the time to read the article as it is in its current state, for otherwise he would have known some of the mistakes he made.
One of the main outcomes I hope(d) would come of this article is that people would be informed more objectively about the individuals who are often labled "Dor Daim," WHETHER OR NOT one may agree with "Dor Dai" ideas -- that at least one will learn more objective about what they really think and do, instead of continuing to spread falsehoods and mere speculations as though they are true, all of which are contrary to Torah (and contrary to generally agreed upon ethics world wide).
===ABSOLUTE ERROR #1:===
The individual wrote "After the near 2000 years of isolation and seclusion from the rest of the Jewish Diaspora;"  Though a common mistake, it is simply not true.  Yemenite Jews had continual communication with various other Jewish communities of the world for practically all of this time.  They had contact with the Gaonim and generally following their teachings up unto the time of Rambam.  It is thoroughly documented, [links are provided in the article] that they had continual contact with Rambam during his lifetime, and that the entire community accepted his codification of Jewish law upon themselves with the exception of about 10 specified halakhot -- at least as of the time of Maharitz.  Various commentators outside of Yemen mention the Yemenite Jews and some of them wrote of how they keep halakha according to the Mishneh Torah, among them Nachmonidies.  How would Nachmonidies know about Yemenite Jews if there was no contact between them? I could go on.
===ABSOLUTE ERROR #2:===
"the introduction of Midrashaic texts including the Zohar, Bahir and Sefer Yetzirah sparked an agnostic response lead by Rabbi Yosef Kapach..."
Question -- do you mean antagonistic or agnostic?  For some reason I don't think the write meant agnostic... because agnostic, from the greek words meaning "without knowledge" means that one is neutral on an issue... and claims lack of knowledge -- the opposite of the "Generation of Knowledge" (Dor Deah) ;)  
In any case, there were Midrashic texts in Yemen long before this last century, some of which are unique to the Yemenite Jews (Midrash haJadhol, Menoret haMeor).  Zohar, Bahir, and Sefer Yetzirah are widely known to have been brought to Yemen long before Rabbi Yosef Kapach [do you mean Mori Yihhyeh Gafehh?], but the above quote seems to indicate that these texts were introduced to Yemen this past century.  I don't know any Dor Daim who reject Sefer Yetzirah -- Rabbi Yosef Gafehh even provided a new edition of it with a fresh translation of Rav Sa'adyah Gaon's commentary to the book.  Many of them study the text -- and by study I do not mean in a way of "textual criticism."  About Zohar -- I think the article already covered this.  In short, among "Dor Daim" there isn't any one 'official' view of the Zohar.  The views range from a total disregard even as being any value of midrash (the minority view) to a view that it contains historical midrash with many interpolations (the majority view).  The latter view is also that of Rav [[Jacob Emden] -- as is clear from his book "Mitpahhat haSofrim."
*** It is a mistake to lump as one the Zohar, Sefer HaBahir, and Sefer haYetzirah. 
The view that the Zohar has value as a Midrash is a view put forward by kabbalists and others in order to IRON OUT its contradictions with Torah teachings. Sefer haYetzirah is a Mishna of the Tannayim and Rav Saadia cared to write the correct text of it because already in his own time, it was greatly tampered with and would have been lost (see Introduction in Rav Yossef Qafih's edition). E.B.
===ABSOLUTE ERROR #3:===
"..lead by Rabbi Yosef Kapach who founded a view that the Kabbalah and the various other Jewish texts contradicted Rambam's Halacha as relayed in the Mishneh Torah."
Rabbi Yosef Kapach??  Although the new paragraph in general contains many expressions of misunderstanding and false-assumptions (part of the reason why some call them heritical -- due to ignorance mainly) the apparent confusion between Rabbi Yosef Qafehh and his grandfather Mori Yihhyeh el-Gafehh only confirm the writers unfamiliarity with the subject.  Additionally, as the writer should have known had he simply read the article before making his addition, or had he researched the issue outside the article more than just picking up baseless rumors, besides the fact that there is no controversy that the founder of the "Dor Deah" school program in Yemen, after which "Dor Daim" became labled, was not Rabbi Yosef Kapach, NEITHER Rabbi Yosef Kapach nor his grandfather Mori Yihhyeh el-Gafeeh set the precedent that within the text of Zohar and other similar texts there are some teachings which are contrary to Talmudic Judaism.  WHETHER OR NOT ONE AGREES WITH SUCH PERSPECTIVES, it is thoroughly documented that several well known Jewish leaders, some who are widely accepted, cast doubt on certain kabbalistic teachings (this does NOT MEAN they or Dor Daim rejected all mystical Jewish texts) some of the more prominent of whom are mentioned in this article. 
*** I do not think you read Rav Yehie Qafih's Milchamot HaShem. It is ALL about the CONTRADICTIONS between Kabbalah and Talmudic Judaism!
===ABSOLUTE ERROR #3:===
"...Rabbi Yosef Kapach's view regarding these issues are rejected by the Yemenite Jewish community as a whole and all other mainstream Jewish denominations so much so that Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky has asserted Dor Daim's view on Kaballah to be heresy."
Besides, again, that I think the author is confused between Rabbi Yosef Kapach and his grandfather (author of Milhhamoth HaShem), I'ld like to pose the question -- being that THE MAIN ORIGINAL ISSUE among Dor Daim concerned idolatry, does this mean that Dati Leumi and Modern Orthodox are not mainstream... being that a large number of them include Rabbi Yosef Kapach's commentary to the Laws of Idolatry (Hilkhoth Avodah Zarah) their yeshiva and synagogue libraries -- such as the library of Machon Meir in Jersualem or the library in the synagogue of IDT or the library at Midrash Sefaradi in the Old City, the list goes on...   And while it is true that the majority of Haredim [black-hat] orthodox Jews more or less unquestionably accept the Zohar, even so, large portions of the Haredi Litvish community understand the teachings of the Zohar in a manner that is in agreement with the the Dor Dai perspective on idolatry and the oneness of HaShem.  This is usually done by taking the sections under question in a much more metaphorical manner.  With such Litivish Haredim disagreement remains concerning the importance and/or origin of the Zohar -- but harmony exists as to the essentials of Oneness of HaShem and the laws of Idolatry. Omedyashar 20:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Dor Daim are adherents of the Dor Deah movement in Judaism.  That movement was founded in nineteenth century Yemen by Yihhyah Qafehh, and had its own network of synagogues and schools.  Its objects were were 1. to combat the influence of the Zohar and subsequent developments in Kabbalah, which were then pervasive in Yemenite Jewish life, and which the Dor Daim believed to be irrational and idolatrous; 2. to restore a rational approach to Judaism rooted in authentic sources, including the Talmud, Saadia Gaon and especially Maimonides 3. to safeguard the older (Baladi) tradition of Yemenite Jewish observance, which they believed to be based on this approach.  Today there is no official Dor Dai movement, but the term is used for individuals and synagogues within the Yemenite community who share the original movement's perspectives.  There are also some groups, both within and outside the Yemenite community, holding a somewhat similar stance, who describe themselves as "Talmide ha-Rambam" (disciples of Maimonides) rather than "Dor Daim"."
I think this is reasonably uncontroversial, as it deals with the historical movement rather than the impossible question of "who (now) is a Dor Dai", and summarizes what is said in the rest of the article.  Agreed? --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 10:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits to first paragraph

message: "...Rabbi Yosef Kapach's view regarding these issues are rejected by the Yemenite Jewish community as a whole and all other mainstream Jewish denominations so much so that Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky has asserted Dor Daim's view on Kaballah to be heresy."
Besides, again, that I think the author is confused between Rabbi Yosef Kapach and his grandfather (author of Milhhamoth HaShem), I'ld like to pose the question -- being that THE MAIN ORIGINAL ISSUE among Dor Daim concerned idolatry, does this mean that Dati Leumi and Modern Orthodox are not mainstream... being that a large number of them include Rabbi Yosef Kapach's commentary to the Laws of Idolatry (Hilkhoth Avodah Zarah) their yeshiva and synagogue libraries -- such as the library of Machon Meir in Jersualem or the library in the synagogue of IDT or the library at Midrash Sefaradi in the Old City, the list goes on...   And while it is true that the majority of Haredim [black-hat] orthodox Jews more or less unquestionably accept the Zohar, even so, large portions of the Haredi Litvish community understand the teachings of the Zohar in a manner that is in agreement with the the Dor Dai perspective on idolatry and the oneness of HaShem.  This is usually done by taking the sections under question in a much more metaphorical manner.  With such Litivish Haredim disagreement remains concerning the importance and/or origin of the Zohar -- but harmony exists as to the essentials of Oneness of HaShem and the laws of Idolatry. Omedyashar 20:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ABSOLUTE ERROR #3:

message: I forgot to mention something else regarding the comments added to the article [which have now been deleted] which were as follows, "...who founded a view that the Kabbalah and the various other Jewish texts contradicted Rambam's Halacha as relayed in the Mishneh Torah."
This implies that the original problem which set "Dor Daim" apart concerned conflict between halakha according to the Mishneh Torah and teachings in Kabbalah and "THE various other Jewish texts."  1) By simply writing "kabbalah" it seems to imply that Dor Daim originally took issue with all types of mystical texts -- which, as already explained, was and is not the case.  2) by using the word "THE" followed by "various other Jewish texts," the writer implies that Dor Daim promoted a complete disdain and rejection of every Jewish text except for the Mishneh Torah.  Would this also have included the Torah, Mishna, and the Talmudic texts??  Anyway, such a statement is absurd.  Anyone who has read Mori Yihhyeh (NOT to be confused with Rabbi Yosef) Qafehh's book Milhhamoth HaShem would see that he referred to many Jewish writings apart from the Mishneh Torah - texts which both predated the Mishneh Torah as well as texts which came after Rambam's lifetime.  All of this is far from truth.  It is also not true that a basic adherence to the Mishneh Torah as a codification of halakha was/is unique to Dor Daim.  Baladim in general more or less keep halakha according to the Mishneh Torah, though there are a number of issues concerning the details of certain halakhot where they may differ.  Even Shami Yemenite Jews from Sa'ana traditionally did certain things according to the Mishneh Torah even when it was contrary to the Shulhhan Arukh - noteably during Pesahh.  Also, Dor Daim themselves, both originally and today -- do not as a general rule do everything according to the Mishneh Torah.  Many of them are no different from regular Baladi Yemenite Jews regarding practical application of Jewish law, except for their disdain for certain customs which were more recent to Yemen and were based on non-halakhic texts.  Indeed, this is one of the main issues [regardless of whether or not one holds according to the Mishneh Torah] that talmidhei haRambam and Dor Daim have in common -- that authoritive Jewish law should be sourced in Talmudic texts alone.  There is much precedent for this among many Rishonim, but that's another discussion.  To put things in short, I find the above referenced statement particularly odd being that 
1)practically all Dor Daim send their children to yeshivot or talmud torahs where they will learn under non-Dor Dai teachers, and their parents promote understanding and knowledge of the various opinions and perspectives among the Jewish people. 
2)Rabbi Yosef Qafehh ["Kapach"] was appointed a member of the beit din under Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef. (In Hilkhot Shoftim one finds that if a heretical Jew sits on in a Jewish court with non-heretical Jews, the non-heretical Jews together with the heretical Jew are all deemed invalid for making up a valid Jewish court... so I don't know how Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef would react to calling Rabbi Yosef Qafehh a heretic.  Those who say that Rabbi Ovadyah Yosef only later learned of Rabbi Yosef Qafehh's perspectives after already having appointed him as a member to the court have to ask themselves why they didn't then kick him out?.. and why does Rabbi Ovadyah Yosef continually, even to this very year, make positive remarks about Rabbi Yosef Qafehh at the aniversery of Rabbi Qafehh's death?  Seems Rabbi Ovadyah Yosef is still in the dark on Rabbi Yosef Qafehh's heresy.)
and 3)Whether or not Rabbi Ratzon Arusi would call himself Dor Dai... [and how many Dor Daim go around calling themselves this?], certainly most of his students are referred to as Dor Daim by others -- and in Rabbi Ratzon Arusi's Kollel they study various Jewish texts, mainly Shulhhan Arukh, in preparation to be dayanim.  They only learn Rambam?  And as already mentioned in the Article, for those who didn't read it, Rabbi Ratzon Arusi is the offical "chief rabbi of Qriat Ono" in Israel, and head of the department of marrage under the government recognized Orthodox Religious Authority [rabbanut] here in Israel.
...I apologize if this wasn't as "in short" as you may have expected, but I prefer to be as thorough as time allows rather than knowlingly make uneducated statements.  Kol tuv.  Omedyashar 20:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Dor Daim are adherents of the Dor Deah movement in Judaism.  That movement was founded in nineteenth century Yemen by Yihhyah Qafehh, and had its own network of synagogues and schools.  Its objects were were 1. to combat the influence of the Zohar and subsequent developments in Kabbalah, which were then pervasive in Yemenite Jewish life, and which the Dor Daim believed to be irrational and idolatrous; 2. to restore a rational approach to Judaism rooted in authentic sources, including the Talmud, Saadia Gaon and especially Maimonides 3. to safeguard the older (Baladi) tradition of Yemenite Jewish observance, which they believed to be based on this approach.  Today there is no official Dor Dai movement, but the term is used for individuals and synagogues within the Yemenite community who share the original movement's perspectives.  There are also some groups, both within and outside the Yemenite community, holding a somewhat similar stance, who describe themselves as "Talmide ha-Rambam" (disciples of Maimonides) rather than "Dor Daim"."
I think this is reasonably uncontroversial, as it deals with the historical movement rather than the impossible question of "who (now) is a Dor Dai", and summarizes what is said in the rest of the article.  Agreed? --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 10:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ADDITION TO THE ABOVE

message: I don't have a lot of time today, but for starters, certainly on the issue of kneeling and prostration as a practice among talmidhei haRambam and Dor Daim, there are many references which I listed on the discussion board for Tahhanun which seem to have simply gone ignored for a long time.  I know we can not list all that I posted there as references, it would simply be too much, but if you or someone else has the time, I think it is worthwhile to go through what I listed there and select what you think is most useful and respectable as a reference.  Further, in connection to the statment that in the article that "...from this, coupled with Maimonides' indications that he had far more accurate and complete Talmudic texts available to him..." I can provide references, but I don't haven't them memorized... so I hope to provide them within the week.  Much thanks.  Purim Sameahh.
Omedyashar 10:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Prostration

message: ===References in Maimonides===
I wrote the above before logging in.  Earlier this week I said I would try to add references.  I now have references for the sentence in the article as follows "...from this, coupled with Maimonides' indications that he had far more accurate and complete Talmudic texts available to him..."   References that Rambam, codifier of Talmudic law and teaching into the Mishneh Torah, was conciously concerned about the accuracy of the source texts he used and that in his possesion were Talmudic and Biblical texts which he considered to be of superior quality / accuracy in comparison to the versions of those same texts generally used in his lifetime -- (how much more so in comparison to those used in our lifetime?): 
That he possessed what he considered superior Tanakh text of Rav Asher see Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Sefer Torah 8:4, p. 159 note #10 in Moznaim translation;
That he considered himself to have Talmudic texts which were superior to that of certain Geonim, see  Hilkhot Ishut 11:13, p. 140 note #27 in Moznaim translation;
That he had used Talmud texts which he believed to have been copied around 200 years after the originals, see Hilkhot Malveh v'Loveh 15:2;
I hope someone will help integrate these references into the article.  Much thanks.
Omedyashar 20:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Can you find the references in Sephardi and Ashkenazi posekim to DD not being heretics? --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 16:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotes

message: I wrote the above before logging in.  Earlier this week I said I would try to add references.  I now have references for the sentence in the article as follows "...from this, coupled with Maimonides' indications that he had far more accurate and complete Talmudic texts available to him..."   References that Rambam, codifier of Talmudic law and teaching into the Mishneh Torah, was conciously concerned about the accuracy of the source texts he used and that in his possesion were Talmudic and Biblical texts which he considered to be of superior quality / accuracy in comparison to the versions of those same texts generally used in his lifetime -- (how much more so in comparison to those used in our lifetime?): 
That he possessed what he considered superior Tanakh text of Rav Asher see Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Sefer Torah 8:4, p. 159 note #10 in Moznaim translation;
That he considered himself to have Talmudic texts which were superior to that of certain Geonim, see  Hilkhot Ishut 11:13, p. 140 note #27 in Moznaim translation;
That he had used Talmud texts which he believed to have been copied around 200 years after the originals, see Hilkhot Malveh v'Loveh 15:2;
I hope someone will help integrate these references into the article.  Much thanks.
Omedyashar 20:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References in Maimonides

message: :Done.  Can you find the references in Sephardi and Ashkenazi posekim to DD not being heretics? --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 16:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References on whether Dor Daim are heretical

message: I added a paragraph to the section on invocation of saints to clarify the issue, as the original paragraph seemed to confuse the issue of invoking saints with the issue of visiting graves - two completely distinct issues.  As a result of that confusion someone not so well informed of the views and basis of Dor Daim perspectives interjected a refereces to the Talmud.  I believe this interjection, clearly intended as a rebuttal against the Dor Dai view, should be moved to criticisms if it is to be included.  Without a doubt, it is only just that it should then also be given a short answer.  The references I referred to as being in the Talmud and in the Mishneh Torah against going out of one's way to visit graves -- UNLESS halakha states a particular occasion when one SHOULD go to a grave [there are a few such situations] are:
Visiting graves: [Talmudic references: Masekhet Sheqelim pereq Bet heh"heh / daf zayin; Masekhet Moed Qatan daf heh] and in the Mishneh Torah "..and the righteous [Sadiqim] - we do not build for them a memorial monument on their graves, for their words (teachings) are their memorial; and a person should not incline to visit graves*."  Mishneh Torah Hilkhoth Ahvel chapter 4 halakha 4;  Rabbi Shmuel Tanhhum Robinshteen explains in his commentary to this halakha (page Resh Tzade Tet) found in the Mishneh Torah published by Musad HaRav Kook - tav shin kaf bet - states, (Kaf Bet*) "to remember by this [by visiting their graves] their remembrance, for there is no need in this. [Because..] They are remembered by means of their words and their good deeds (RAIB"SH brought at Kaf Samekh" Mem)"  His commentary understands the part of the above halakha "and a person shoud not incline to visit graves" to be saying that it is specifically the graves of the righteous that one should not incline himself to visiting;
Prohibition of shrines / monuments:
Hilkhoth Avodah Zarah chapter 6 halakha [6] / 9  
 
"The monument (matzeva) that the Torah prohibited - it is a structure (binyan) that everyone gathers at (mitqab'tzeen etzlah), and even if only to serve HaShem; this is so because this was the way of the idolaters, as it states, 'and don't erect for yourself a monument (matzeva), that HaShem your Powerful-Authority hates.' (Deuteronomy 16:22)"
I wish to make a personal comment here -- just as there are many references in the Torah [Bible] itself that Abraham and others in the past erected monuments in the worship of the Almighty -- assumedly as righteous acts, it is not argued by anyone that this means we are permitted today to do the same way... just as they also made sacrifices to the Almighty in several places before the Torah [Law of Moses] was given, but after the Torah was given the people of Israel were then permitted to sacrifice only at a particular location.  LIKEWISE Meqoriim say that visiting graves at one's own free will and praying to the Almighty at the grave (without use of mediators) was permitted in the past, until the Sanhedrin prohibited it.  Just as we don't say that one is allowed erect monuments around which people gather just because we find that Abraham the righteous did so in the past, so also we are not allowed to visit graves whenever we want, even though in the past this was permitted.  Halakha specifies certain times when one should go to a cemetary: to bury the dead (even of non-Jews), or when rain has not fallen for a certain period of time -- so as to inspire us to repent and consiquently increase the likelihood of rain-fall.. in this manner -- by the fact that the graves of the dead inspired us to repent by our seeing them, can we say that in their merit did we get rain by visiting the cemetary.  THE END. :p  Omedyashar 16:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Saints and graves

message: Um, I don't want to just delete this outright but what is the source for such a statement on the article page? The Gaon zt"l knew the whole Zohar (along with kol hatorah kula) b'al peh and is famous for stating that there is not one contradiction between it and the Talmud. !!!!
-MH  —Preceding unsigned comment added by MosheEmes (talk • contribs) 19:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No the article doesn't say this.  It says he may have had some respectful disagreement with SOME ASPECTS of LURIANIC Kabbalah.  It also says that some of the talmidim don't accept that Lurianic Kabbalah is BINDING DOGMA, denial of which makes you a heretic; even though they may accept Lurianic Kabbalah as true.  Do you disagree with either of these statements? --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 09:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

text: "Well, first of all, it is the Kabbalists and some "students of the Gaon" who made this statement famous." This is quite an ignorant statement. The Gaon's primary student, R' Chaim of Volozhyn, wrote that as eyewitness testimony from the Gaon, in the introduction to the Gaon's commentary on Safra deTzniusa. No one until Ms. Barre has ever called this into question. I don't understand your second statement but if you meant Rabbi Qafih knew as much as the Gaon that is a laughable statement. The Gaon said that anyone who thinks there are contradictions are either not reading the Talmud right or not reading the Zohar right. I'm sure milchamot hashem fits into both of these categories eloquently. MosheEmes (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is some misunderstanding here.  There are three separate points.  1.  Qafih and the Dor Daim had an attitude of rejection to Kabbalah and Zohar as a whole.  2.  Some modern "talmide ha-Rambam" also disapprove of mainstream Lurianic Kabbalah as practised today, without however objecting to Zohar or Kabbalah as such.  3.  The Vilna Gaon accepted the Zohar as authoritative and respected Lurianic Kabbalah, but sometimes interpreted the Zohar differently.  The analogy drawn by the article only is between the Vilna Gaon and the pro-Zohar talmide ha-Rambam, and then only on the question of whether Lurianic Kabbalah is binding dogma.  There is no question of comparing the Vilna Gaon to Qafih. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 09:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talmidim of Vilna Gaon reject Zohar? 

message: Need a ref for following:
* The Dardaim (דרדעים), sometimes known as Dordaim ref The pronunciation "Dardaim" is usually used in hostile contexts, being a play on the Hebrew dardarim, degenerate. ref
Under the circumstances normal WP:RS could be bent a little to accomodate either a Hebrew-language printed source or even a blog. Any source is better than none. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Still 2:1 in WP:RS English language sources for Dardaim rather than Dor Daim. Other WP:RS welcomed.  In ictu oculi (talk) 08:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Of the English language sources you cite, one (Sutton) is definitely hostile.  And surely how the community names itself should have some weight.  It may be that in the totality of printed sources (especially the older ones), references to "Mohammedans" outnumber references to "Muslims"; but Muslims object to being called Mohammedans and should not be so called in an encyclopedia.  The same should apply here. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the author Sutton is hostile, he's just reporting that R Yacob was - and that has no bearing on the English spelling. We need a modern reliable English WP:RS on the English spelling. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Dordaim/Dardaim

message: The first line needs some work.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 14:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: See reference 4.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 10:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Work 

message: Please forgive me if this is your pattern for plural students/talmidim. I thought when I saw "talmide" it was an error for "talmid" singular and went to correct it only to find all were "talmide". Now I am wondering if this is some language other than English transliteration of התלמידים. Please let me know if "talmide" were correct. -Thanks Ayeletshacar (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know who you're addressing this comment to, but anyways, talmide is the construct form (students of), as opposed to talmidim (students). I didn't read through all the dozens of changes in your last edit, but there's no such thing as "talmidim ha-Rambam" (English: "students the Rambam"). This is basic Hebrew. Contributor613 (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

text: And talmid ha-Rambam means student of the Rambam (singular) as opposed to the plural talmide ha-Rambam (students of the Rambam). Contributor613 (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

text: I just read through that whole list of changes and they're all incorrect. Sorry, but someone's got to revert the edit. Please don't take it personally, it's nothing personal at all. Contributor613 (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That's how I thought the edits were made, but I couldn't go ahead and change someone else's edit based on assumptions and without actually reading the complete edit. Thank you. Contributor613 (talk) 02:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  You say "Talmide" I say "Talmidim"  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Dor Daim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.seforimonline.org/seforim/emunas_hashem.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140809170606/http://www.net-sah.org/en/about/ to http://www.net-sah.org/en/about/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061111112437/http://sagavyah.tripod.com/id8.html to http://sagavyah.tripod.com/id8.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: While the timing of the movement's development certainly post-dates the emergence of Orthodoxy by ~100 years, I don't know if I've encountered label use in this context. While I haven't read the entirety of Qafih's body of work, nor the entirety of his successors, I don't have much evidence that European sectarian labels were as meaningful as among Ashkenazim.
Are there any sources which confirm that Dor Daim self identify as Orthodox in any real way? If not, I think I would prefer to change the introductory text to just be "Judaism". Any objections? yonkeltron (talk) 01:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do Dor Deah actually tend to identify with Orthodox Judaism?