Talk:Dor Daim

Haham Jose Faur
Haham Jose Faur is a an Argentine born Damascan Syrian from Argentina. He has nothing to do with 'neo-Spanish-portuguese' Jews. Other than perhaps many of them are familiar with his writings.

^ This is somewhat mistaken. He descends from Spanish Jews, and many of them kept their identity as such even after the expulsion.

Deleting
I deleted the story regarding the alleged persecution of one of the leaders of the Dor Daim because no source was given. - YM

-- from Jerusalem
 * Knowledge of this information (unjustified imprisonment of Rav Gafahh/Kapach and various other incidents of persecution, both past and present) is well known among the Dor Daim just as many things written about various other Jewish communities and issues written about on Wikipedia are assumed to be known and to which no sources are given. How specific of a source would you like?  I'll try to get it to you.  The issues surrounding the Dor Daim and their history can be learned from people who know it first hand - its members, including a number of the immediate students of Mori Yosef Gafahh [Kapach], the main student and grandson of Mori Yihhyeh El-Gafahh [Kapach].  Additionally you can find information from books published by Mechon Mishnat haRambam founded by Rav Rasson Arusi, chief Rabbi of Qriat Ono in Israel.  I myself am aware of modern persecution from 1st hand experience - from stores owned by sympathizers of Dor Daim being threatened to be destroyed, to rejection of the children of parents who hold to perspectives either similar or exactly the same as Dor Daim being prevented from attending yeshivot on no other grounds apart from their perspective on reincarnation, Zohar, or some other aspect of innovations to Judaism.

Please do not delete the updated version of this article simply because of 'lack of references,' without first informing us as to what type of references you want. This article has been in great need of clarification and elaboration for a long time. I, the individual who updated the article to a large extent, am aware first hand of the two communities discussed in the article... both of which are almost impossible to discuss at all without discussing the other. I can provide almost any type of reference that one may request... I only hope that I get around to checking and replying to the discussion place before deletion takes place. Any minor editing or further clarification of this is fine so long as it is accurate, if there is anything important which one feels I have left out. I am merely tired of seeing important and sometimes essential information I've added to articles on topics of which I am well versed in deleted or removed without any explanation as to why. Thanks a lot. -- from Jerusalem

P.S. I now see something posted on the top of the article requesting clean up. If anyone wants to take a shot at better organizing the article go ahead. I don't know when I'll have time to put care into doing so... but I'll try to get around to it eventually if no one else does. Also, if anyone has the time, please check for spelling and grammer errors. I did not get around to doing this upon completing the article. There are still a few things I'ld like to see added to the article, but I ran out of time last night/this morning. Gotta jet.

If you want references as to the persecution of Rav Kapach just see 'Emunat Hashem' which was endorsed by the major Halachic scholars of the time and not only attacks the ideas and sysytem of the Dor Daim but also attempts to discredit and damage the character of their leader, Rav Yichie Kapach. the polemic against Rav Kapach goes on for many pages attacking ecery aspect of his life on a personal level. i think this readily available book is sufficient to show the persecution. as for the pesecution of his grandson who was not openly Dor Dea, but was assumed to be, information regarding his persecution is available in Hebrew at Yemenite books stores in Jerusalem and at chayas.com - T4H

o.k. if were gonna do this, let's do it properly. let's see the WHOLE story, or try to figure it out...for starters, i would like to discuss some of the halachot/customs discussed. there are in fact common practices that Dor Daim/Rambamists would view as being contrary to Talmudic rulings. HOWEVER, many are based on interpretation. unfortunately there are certain individuals who often assume (usually based on 'their' understanding of the Mishna Torah or 'hearsay'), that certain practices which have spread throughout Isreal are forbidden. in fact, after a closer look, and a deep, time consuming analysis, we see that in fact the customs often stem from a very 'intellectual', very liberal interpretation of the gemara and the commentators, which may or may not be valid. Machon Mamre for example, deems the manner of bowing used today as perfectly acceptable according to the rambam. since Machon Mamre is, for the time being, the top authority on Mishna Torah (in my humble opinion), it seems illogical to list bowing as something worth noting in our differences. furthermore, i have NEVER seen a Yemenite (Dor Dai or other)bow in the manner mentioned, and i have been praying with Dor Daim for nearly 3 years now. they may, in fact, prostrate themselves at home, but in shul they do like everyone else. so, they can't possibly see the standard bow as so terrible. i think that, perhaps, seperate categories should be given for Rambamists and Dor Daim despite their communal bonds (eating, learning, and praying together) in my opinion, the only difference between a Dor Dai and the average Orthodox Jew (apart from the Kabbalah) is how often their 'traditions' go against Halacha (truth is, common Dor Dai practices rarely go contrary to the halacha in the MT compared to other, more popular, denominations)... as we see, the Dor Daim may follow Rambam in theory, but when a Yemenite custom differs from what is codified in the MT, they normaly choose the Yemeite tradition, which is worth noting. in fact it is interesting that although Dor Dai teachings would classify a majority of Orthodox Jews as idolaters, they almost always live in exclusivly haredi neighbourhoods, and pray with those they consider heretic all week. this is a great topic, but a lot of work must be done in order to keep this objective and informative. T4H


 * Who can disagree that work must be done to keep this [and all things] objective and informative. I largely increased the size of the article, mainly like a rought draft since I didn't have time to carefully edit it, because what was there previously was almost nothing.  As for the fact that many things (not all things) which Dor Daim/talmedei haRambam consider to be against the Talmudic rulings may in reality not necessarily be against the Talmud, but merely very (sometimes VERY very) liberal interpretations, the things which I have added to this article so far was most importantly to show the perspective of most Dor Daim/talmedei haRambam, regardless of the truth of that perspective, or the fallecy of it.  Clearly, every political group, religious group, and just about any other type of group, may or may not have totally valid perspectives -- but the articles about those groups are first of all to try to present what the perspectives of those groups are, regardless of the validity of their perspective.  There are students of the Rambam, like myself and apparently the previous poster as well, who realize that some of the things many Dor Daim/Talmedei haRambam believe vast portions of Jews are doing are forbidden are in fact possible interpretations of the Talmudic texts, though in my opinion often very liberal possible interpretations; but even with this said, this doesn't negate what large portions of Dor Daim and students of the Rambam believe concerning such practices as being totally forbidden -- even if Dor Daim/talmedei haRambam are wrong in their views.  And even with this said, there are certain things, though fewer things, which truly do not have any source in the Talmud(s) -- and some of these things (i would imagine) the average orthodox rabbi would admit.  It could also be that those who consider certain things that most jews today do as being forbidden would still believe that those things are forbidden even if they were to realize that such practices are possible (often liberal) interpretations of the Talmud(s) -- their approach to the Talmudic interprtation may be that liberal interpretation of the Talmud(s) is itself totally forbidden, and therefore anything derived from such interpretation is thus forbidden.            About BOWING, I don't why how you haven't seen at least a few people bow after 3 years of praying with them, but then again I've spoken to a Yemenite Jew who grew up in Israel and told me that he has never seen a Jewish woman covering her face in modesty -- when I have seen such a thing in Jerusalem alone at least about 20 times in the past few years -- and the woman was clearly Jewish (saw her either in a synagogue with other Jewish women, at a brit milah of yemenites, or walking with her husband -- clearly a jewish man, or with a child who had peyot and a kipah).  Being that this particular Yemenite Jew who I spoke to grew up here and somehow never saw such a Jewish woman, it is certainly possible that someone might not have noticed or been at the right place at the right time to have seen a Dor Dai or a Rambamist bow during a time of only 3 years.  I touched on what you said about how they may be bowing at home but you've never seen such a thing at shul (synagogue/beth kneseth).  I wrote in the article, "It is hard to know the percentage of those who hold by the latter view being that most who accept such a view usually only do so in private or when praying among likeminded people. It is interesting to note that traditionally and even today Ashkenazi Jews bow similarly, though only during Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur."    IF you want to see people bowing in such a way while praying with a minyan, you are sure to see such a thing if you pray with at Beth Midrash Ohal Mosha in Bet Shemesh.  I myself have bowed in this way in many different synagogues, both in minyanim of haredi ashkenazim, sefaradim, and teimonim (yemenites)... though sometimes I do not do so either because of lack of room or because for some reason or another I find my heart beating too fast (b/c of anxiety) to the point that it worries me to do so.  I can also say that I've spoken with Dor Daim who completely agree that one should prostrate in Tahhanun and bow to the knees on the floor in the Shemone Esra but who themselves (for whatever reason) seemingly never do so.  Maybe it hurts their joints or something, in which case according to halakha in the Mishneh Torah they would not be required to bow.  I also pointed out in the article, just as you brought up, that not all dor daim and Talmedei haRambam ("rambamists") agree on how to bow in the Shemoneh Esreh -- that they even sometimes have extreme opposite views.  Concerning how to prostrate during Tahhanun (the time of supplication after the Shemoneh Esreh), practically all Dor Daim and talmidei haRambam agree that according to the plain halakha in the Talmud and as brought in the Mishneh Torah that prostration during Tahhanun is to be done starting off in some type of sitting position on the floor after which one "falls" (places) his face on the ground while making supplication.  The only substantial disputes over prostration during Tahhanun concern whether one can place his face on the ground in any position after sitting, or whether one should always strive to do it with his hands and feet stretched out, or while laying slightly on his side and whether one sits on his knees or in some other way.  The only issue at hand is that although they practically all agree that the above is the historical way the halakha was understand and also the halakha's plain meaning, there is disagreement whether one can get away with [bedi'eved] only placing his face on a table, knee, bench, or just leaning over close to the ground.  All types of Yemenites (baladi, shami, etc..) traditionally bowed as described above, on the floor with the face to the ground, up until around 50 years ago.  Only upon entering Israel and feeling the social pressures of being the only minority within Rabbninic Judaism which had preserved this tradition in daily prayer did the issue arise as to whether one can get away with just lowering the head down to something other than the floor after the fact (bedi'eved).  The same principle holds true with the dramatic decrease in the observance of many other practices long perserved by Yemenite Jews for thousands of years.

One thing I would like to have elaborated on the article are some examples of some of the things many many Jews do which Dor Daim and many Talmedei haRambam consider not only to be not required practices, but even consider to be forbidden practices, such as kapparot, unnecessarily mispronuncation of Hebrew letters in Qriat Shma and Qriat Torah (for those who ARE able to pronounce the letters properly), etc...

About many Dor Daim praying with people who they believe to be apekorsim (apostates), the reason they do so is probably because, as it teaches in the Mishneh Torah, although a person may have heretical ideas, beliefs, or practices, this does not necessarily mean that they should be treated as a heretic when it comes to all things. In the Mishneh Torah it is written about the Karaites as an example, that although they reject the Oral Law and therefore from a Talmudic perspective have a heretical belief, we are to be kind to them and draw them close to us -- not to push them away and kill them off. The reasoning is that it was their ancestors who were the ones who conciously rebelled against oral law while knowing the truth of it at the same time; but their descendents, the karaites of today, although they inherited the heretical belief, they did not do so out of a rebellious spirit. I imagine that Dor Daim's fellowship with Jews who may have heretical beliefs is due to a related idea. It is not case, however, that all Dor Daim are Hareidi. Many are also kippot serugot (knitted kippa). - in Jerusalem

point taken, about this concerning their general beliefs and not what is actually right or wrong, within their beliefs. what should perhaps, also, be mentioned is that the term Dor Dai was originally derogatory. other Jews saw these non-kabbalistic, 'progressive' individuals going their own way and laughed at them saying, "you guys know something we don't ?", hence the term Dor Daim.this may explain why they do not wish to be reffered to as Dor daim. [can somebody confirm or deny this story pls...] another intersting factor would be to see who the leader/leaders of the movement are today. No one alive is willing to associate themselves publicly with the term or beliefs. hence, one could argue that the whole movement [as Rav Yichiye Kapach had intended it] is but a dying memory. even Rav Yosef Kapach and the current Rav Arusi never, ever, accepted to be labeled Dor Daim. furthermore, if Rav Kapach was truly a Dor Dai, wouldn't he have been a terrible hypocrite for adding numerous Kabbalistic texts to his siddur, which would in turn influence many generations of Yemenites. the arguements will be that otherwise his works would have never been published, constituting a great loss, ect... this is hardly an excuse, since it is clear that Rav Yichiye K would have never accepted these things. in fact, i think he would have been furious had he seen the siddurim the 'Dor Daim' daven from today, along with many other things they do. if reaching the masses was his excuse for adding kabbalah and intemediaries to his Siddur, why is it not acceptable for other Orthodox groups to let others believe what they belive, in the interest of the 'greater good'? i am certain, as his Siddur and his numerous references to the Zohar prove, that Rav Yosef Kapach was not the admant Dor Dai that many people today would like to believe. on the otherhand, his views were contoversial enough to land him in jail, but in the narrowminded Orthodox world of Yemen (just as Israel today), one would not have to go so far as the Dor Daim in order to be excommunicated. since Dor Daim are in fact a break off of the Baladi movement (their siddurs are labeled baladi, their bentching, ect...), then why not ask the chief Baladi Rabbis what the deal is ? the Rabbi most often associated to the movement is Rav Arusi, although i never heard him associate himself in any which way to Dor Daim. he classifies himself, quite simply, as a Baladi Jew. anyhow, since others seem to claim he is the Dor Dai 'leader'(this is due to the fact that Rav Yoseph Kapach, the previous assumed leader, appointed him to take his place), a serious individual would attempt to get a statement from him. otherwise, without a leader, without even a member who will openly classify himself, the movement is either so weak it is barely worth mentioning, or it may just be dream for some, to recreate what once existed in Yemen. my point is that what exists today is nothing like it was in Yemen, nor is it what the movement had intended to be at all. all we are left with is Baladim who believe in Zohar, those who don't and those in between (Maharitz), but there is no system or school in place to teach the Halachot Rav Yihiye Kapach spoke about, the system of learning he instituted, his philosophy and so on. in the meanwhile, at least the issue of Rambamists is supported openly by certain experts in Jewish Law (even if only a handfull) and the followers generally are more open about their beliefs, despite the huge amount of slack groups like Machon Mamre recieve for their open refusal to accept the norms of today. either way, you will not find a Dor Dai proudly exclaim publicly that he is a Dor Dai, or that he belives Orthodox Jews regualrly commit acts of idolatry (as one would be obligated to do, according to Positive Commandment #9, and the laws of rebuke mentioned by the Rambam in Hilchot Deot, if he were to truly believe what Dor daim belive. not to mention, logic neccesitating basic mercy for their fellow Jews who will not have a place in Olam Haba, according to them). originally Dor Daim burnt the Zohar and fought for what they believe in. now they have become apologists for the masses, and are generally more concerned about their communal and financial well being than spreading the truth as obligated (as noted in Milhamoth Hashem). otherwise, they would spread the word, therby certainly saving many Jews according to them. are Dor Daim more scared of other Jews than God ? or are they simply indifferent ? perhaps they just gave up ? it should be fundamental to see how such a 'force' emerged barely 100 years ago, and has already collapsed so quickly. why were they not capable of 'surviving' in Israel ? i would even go further and ask, "have true Dor Daim existed at all since Rav Yichyie Kapach and Yemen ?" a few families still strive to live by Rav Yihiye's system, but R.Yihiye had also intended for them to be zealous about it, and have schools - which would entail to stop hiding. the opponents of Rav Yihiye Kapach in Yemen posed a much greater threat than the Hasidim of today, yet Rav Kapach wrote his works, opened his schools, and taught his way of life, fearlessly. if we speak of current reality and not a theoretical set of beliefs, we see that Dor Daim only exist as 'ghosts' nowadays, at least in the public eye. furthermore, you liken the case of the Karaites to the case of davening with heretics. NOWHERE did the Rambam ever say that you could join a minyan of Karaites over by the 'shtiebelach'. it seems as though Dor Daim have succumbed to pressure from living in mainstream Orthodox communities and their actions tend to contradict their beliefs (even if it is a matter of 'survival', which in my opinion would be a silly claim -  especially considering that there have never been any related cases of violence in Israel.  if there were a case of violence it would dfinately get the word out, God forbid. yet, are there not plenty of missionaries and so on, who do their work in Jerusalem without being bothered by the Orthodox community ? so again, until there is a precedent, any fear seems to be nothing more than paranoia). T4H

i would like to know what the difference is between Dor Daim and other Baladi Jew s aside from Zohar/Milhamoth Hashem ? is there a different code of Law for Dor Daim ? what does the Dor Dai tradition consist of apart from Rav Yihye Kapach and his Milhamoth Hashem, as opposed to normal Baladi Jews ?

since this is the discusion page i will feel free to discuss ;-) the article speaks about the view of other Orthodox Jews towards Dor Daim and Rambamists (can't stand that term. is it an official label, or can the name still be changed ?) as heretics. this is true, however if rambamists don't 'reject' the Zohar - that is sufficient for many Orthodox Jews. point is, the Orthodox view on the weight of Zohar, and especially of the practical application of Lurianic Kabbalah varies greatly - as can be seen from the discussions of the Achronim. what often bothers people as much, if not more, is the Rambamist refusal to go by any particular Mesora. of course the mishna Torah is in of tself THE Mesora. almost any Orthodox rabbi, if confronted with the dilema, would rather his ashkenazi pupil hold by a temani mesora than strictly by the Rambam. and that says a lot, lol. i wonder what is worse for them - a Rambamist, without a 'mesora', who doesn't deny the Zohar but doesn't hold it as binding, or a Dor Dai who has a 'Baladi' mesora but denies the Zohar ??? let me ask you... if Dor Daim is a movement/denomination that is alive and well (and growing), we should be clear as to how they hold regarding Halachot. there should be standard Halachot and minhagim across the board. otherwise, forget the term Dor Dai and just say people who don't believe in the Zohar ;-) even if they are not readily available in texts, there should be a Mesora, or someone you can go to who says 'the practical halacha for Dor Daim is such and such...'. for example what is the Dor Dai view on folding a Tallith on Shabbat ? are there not different understandings of the Rambam amongst Dor Daim ? this does not really constitute a 'mesora'. it is especially problematic seeing as Dor Daim do not always follow the Rambam [see :R. Qafah Intro. to a book: rMb"M vs. Old Temeni Minhogim @chayas.com click on 'Article: life & works of Mori Qafahh zs"l / ou.org']. what defines a Dor dai today ? is anyone who holds by Baladi customs but doesn't accept the Zohar as binding a Dor Dai ? if one wanted to become a Dor Dai, where would he go ? what should he do ? supposing he can find someone to teach him proper understandings of the RMBM, which may or may not parallel Dor Dai beliefs, what does he do about customs ? how does he know what's acceptable and what's not according to Dor Daim ? is he safe if he just follows what's written in the RavKapach siddur ? we know the dangers of trying to follow the practical halacha according to ones own understanding of the MT, not that Rav Yihiye Kapach ever intended for anyone to learn MT without guidance. we also know that the MT is an inclusive system. like any other code of Law, one Law is dependant on another somewhere else. if we hold by the RMBM but make exceptions here and there, based on Baladi mesora, how do we know that the system still holds together (according to the RMBM) ? my final issue is the stance of the Dor Daim towards other Jews. you bring the example of Karaites stating that the goal of Dor Daim is to bring Jews 'back'. how do Dor Daim do this ? what is it about praying with minyans that one considers mostly 'heretic' that brings Jews back ? was this not forbidden according to the leaders of the movement ? is Dor Daim about burning Zohars (as was clearly the case in Yemen) or extremely passive resistance (as is the case today) ? who can tell us what the official stance is ? T4H

just saw the new updates. Kol HaKavod ! much better. need an editing job now. i'll look it over again, but i think the 'entry' is relatively accurate at this point. good job ! T4H

1. If one wants to "better organize this article", some order has to be put to it. These are two main issues: 1a) Following the Code of Rambam, 1b) WHY the students of Rabbi Yossef Qafih will sometimes give preference to their own customs where they differ from what Rambam brings as Halacha, 1c) Understanding the Rambam (ex: prostration full face for Tachanun is reserved for the one who knows himself to be as great a Tzaddik as Yoshua Ben Nun, so Yemenites prostrated on the side).
 * I just dropped by and being a "dardai" myself, I will add a grain of salt.

2. The issue of rejecting the Zohar and Kabbalah, which is a separate discussion. 2a) Giving proof of the authority of the Zohar from our sources (as thing no Kabbalist has done, as that is why they call those who reject its authenticity "heretics"), 2b) Rejection of those customs adopted from Kabbalah, in spite of the fact all Kabbalists agree "we do not posken according to the Zohar. 2c) When Rabbi Qafih quotes the Zohar in ONE place in his Siddur, he does not ipso facto accept Kabbala, but does so because here it corroborates the message, to say that he KNOWS this literature and what is correct in it is CORROBORATED by Halacha, but it does not MAKE Halacha.

3. The authenticity of the tradition preserved by those Yemenites who preserved it (for instance: the writing of the Torah scroll or the recognition of birds and hoppers. See Rabbi Qafih extent commentary on the Mishne Torah) 3a) The status of Halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai, 3b) taking into account modern ways of life and fashions which have changed but the change has no bearing on Halacha (lest we turn tradition into folklore).

4. Somewhere along the dicussion, it is written "Rav Yihiye Kapach never intended for anyone to learn MT without guidance". That cannot be, since the Rambam himself wrote the MT with the intention that every Jew is to learn it! Guidance is needed only because in the course of time, foreign concepts and interpretations NOT according to Rambam's intention and meaning have been mixed into Rambam's language.

5. Rav Qafih made for himself a golden rule never to discuss the Zohar and Kabbalah and that is why the information about the attacks on his father and grandfather are not well known to the genral public. Rav Ratson Arussi is now stretching his hand to Kabbalistic Rabbis asking them to stop their attacks on the Dardayim, and he is willing to make compromises for the sake of peace. But no one has yet accepted a learned debate in order to clarify whether Kabbalah is, or isn't, a Jewish doctrine. And with good reason: Rav Yehieh Qafih's arguments in Milchamot HaShem are unbeatable! E.B.

Deletion question
'''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)

I was a "darda'i" for several years in Israel. I can verify, from first hand experience, that the "dor-da'im" (darda'im) are, indeed, a persecuted/excluded group among observant Jews in Israel. Secular Jews are much more tolerant. The statement "Many members... and therefor maintain an almost secret existence" is quite accurate. My experiences are from the years 1985-1992.

Move request
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)

Some opponents of Dor Daim and/or similar perspectives call them Dardarim making a play on words by using a Hebrew word which implies degeneration, in order to turn the term Dor Dai into something derogatory - they have more or less succeeded.. consequently some have mixed the two in other ways making the term Dardaim. The way that the differences in these terms come about is more clear with knowledge of Hebrew -- and how some people pronounce Ayin distinctly from Alef -- where as others (most people in Israel) no longer make this distinction. I really do not think the article should be renamed. Those people who are Dor Daim say Dor Daim -- I know this first hand from many many encounters. I pray with them weekly. You should also know that they don't use this term all the time to discribe themselves -- and prefer not to use any particular term because they do not perceive themselves as a new movement or such, but rather more like guardians of pure Torah-Judaism (whether or not one agrees with their perspective, this is still how they view themselves). Omedyashar 23:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know who did it, but someone did an amazing cleanup/organization job. Awesome. HaShem yevorekh otkha/otakh. I don't see why the marker should remain now. Omedyashar 00:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I own the soft impeachment! Thanks for the elucidation, and for those kind words.

I'm not sure that I understand the bit about "such a view would make Jewish law un-objective". If you mean that Qafahh's view does this (for example, by creating too much uncertainty about what meat is kasher), the paragraph should read "because" rather than "though". If on the other hand it is the modern practice (e.g. of accepting such meat) that is un-objective (because Qafahh's view is logically right), we need to elucidate this.--Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 11:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It appears that there is no consensus to move this article to Dardaim, so I'm removing the request from 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)


 * Agreed. The request was mine, and I withdraw it. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 09:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Relations with other groups
We probably need separate articles on Yihhyah Qafahh (I have already started this as a stub), Maharitz and the Gaonists. I don't have the knowledge for any of these: can you have a go? --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 11:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I added a little bit of information about Gaonists. I don't know enough about them to write a lot... and however small Dor Daim are in relation to Jews as a whole, I think Gaonists are even more so -- though I may be wrong.  I only say so since I can count on one hand the amount of Gaonists I know personally -- I'm certain that there are more... but I don't know exactly how many.  I may be speaking about them how the few mainstream American Reform or even Orthodox Jews who have met at least one Dor Dai may say regarding Dor Daim -- if he is the only person in his American community who is aware of Dor Daim, and he himself has only met one or two... then he may think there are only one or two in the world, lol.  There are tons of Jews who are totally unaware of Dor Daim or any similar type of group.  Since I'm actually affilated with such groups (plural) I know without doubt that the number is not so drastically small.  Unfortunately I'm not so aquainted with Gaonists.. Hopefully next time I meet one of the few who I am aware of I'll ask him his estimation.


 * I am aware of a small bet knesset that meets in Givat Shaul in Jerusalem that more or less follows Talmud Yerushalmi over Talmud Bavli -- and who also make great use of the writings of the Geonim -- but I don't think the term Gaonist accurately applies to them... I do think, however, that these Talmud Yerushalmi followers would be included among what some call Meqoriim. I wonder if any Romaniote Jews are aware of this bet knesset... I am pretty sure that its members are not Romaniote.


 * Thanks again for the information. I hadn't heard of "Gaonists" before, and thought they were another name for followers of the Vilna Gaon ... how wrong one can be.  Having read your explanation, I've tried to clarify the article.


 * As I understand, Romaniotes happen to incorporate some Eretz Yisrael usages in their prayer book, in the same way as the Italians; just as a few such usages have crept into the Ashkenazi rite, and a few others into the Sephardi rite. I don't think they give higher authority to Yerushalmi in principle, in the way the Kairouan community did before Pirkoi ben Bavoi and Hananel ben Hushiel.  In general law they have pretty much adopted the views of the Greek Sephardim.


 * I would like your views on another question, which is certainly controversial, and I thought long and hard before mentioning it at all: I don't want to offend anyone. I have noticed that occasionally views heard in Kahanist quarters rely on "Rambamist"-sounding arguments (for example, when they advocate the possibility of restoring the Temple and the full theocratic state without waiting for geulah).  Do Dor Daim and talmide ha-Rambam go along with any of this, or is this confined to a few hilltop settlers calling themselves by this name and with little connection with the real thing?  Or are they found all over the political spectrum, like the followers of the Vilna Gaon? Is it worth mentioning in the article, or would it be an invitation to vandalism? --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 19:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I only recently learned of Romaniotes, and from just two sources: first from the JPost, and 2nd from the Wikipedia article on them. As for the possibility of restoring the Temple and the full theocratic state without waiting for the geulah, ... it's hard to answer this question because the Temple being rebuilt and the reestablishment of a theocratic Torah/halakhic state is a major part of the geulah... it would vary well indicate that the geulah is actually happening or is very much just 'around the corner.' At least according to to the Mishneh Torah, there is no absolute necessity for Moshiahh to have come in order for us to rebuilt the Temple and reestablish the Sanhedrin -- there are particular laws that must be properly fulfilled, of course. As far as I'm aware these laws are only fully codified in the Mishneh Torah -- and the Shulhhan Arukh and Mishna Brurah completely exclude them. To answer your question in short -- not only is this opinion shared with Dor Daim and talmide haRambam, but -- as far as I know -- it is shared with practically every community/group and rabbi who take the perspective that midrash cannot outweigh or nullify halakha. This doesn't mean all (or even most) Dor Daim and talmide haRambam are Kahanists... as you seemed careful not to imply. Certainly some fall into that category -- but I'm convinced that it is certainly not most. I think a large difference between the two groups is over the matter of the limits of military or violent force that is permitted in the current situation... Dor Daim and talmide haRambam tend to take a much more strict approach regarding this than Kahanists appear to. It appears in the Mishneh Torah that any military activities --unless it is an absolute necessity to protect life-- are only permitted under the government of a Sanhedrin, together with a few other qualifications specified in hilkhot Melakhim u'Milhhamotheham in the Mishneh Torah. Omedyashar 22:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Funny. Just after I had written that about Romaniotes, there was an article about them in the Jewish Chronicle!  This does seem to imply that they remained independent of the Babylonian academies for much longer than most other groups: what I said about their following the Sephardim related to the period from the sixteenth century on, when the single Romaniote synagogue in Salonica came under the authority of the Sephardic Chief Rabbi there (together with the Ashkenazi synagogue and the twenty-odd regional Sephardi ones).  I think the point is that it is one thing to inherit some Eretz Yisrael customs in your traditional observances, and another to adopt Talmud Yerushalmi in preference to Bavli on ideological grounds.


 * There is a lot to say about the issue of the Temple and theocratic state, either in relation to Mishneh Torah or generally; but that would turn this page into a discussion forum instead of an encyclopedic article. Do we need one line in the article on the question of Kahanism? --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 10:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't think there needs to be -- but someone else may disagree. From my observation I don't think there is any predominant portion of Dor Daim who are Kahanist... though there are many Dor Daim who are just as much in favor of offically reestablishing the Sanhedrin as the governing authority in the Land... but this isn't anything particular to Kahanists. There are a large portion of Dor Daim who very much affiliate with Haredim in general, as well as a large portion of Dor Daim who are kipot serugot... To me this is very interesting, and nice. One of the things I most love about praying in synagogues affiliated with Dor Daim is that there is often a good (and usually fairly equal) mix of black kippot and knitted kipot with the two "groups" praying and discussing as one. Omedyashar 16:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is that this article is trying to be the primary source on talmide ha-Rambam as well as on Dor Daim. So yes, Dor Daim are a type of talmide ha-Rambam.  Yes also, some Kahanists would also describe themselves as talmide ha-Rambam (Binyamin K's article on the mosques on Temple Mount; Baruch Goldstein's "I recognise only two authorities: Maimonides and Kahane!").  So probably there is no point in mentioning Kahanists in an article on Dor Daim (it is a sfek safeka, Anglice "a link too far"); but if the primary subject of the article were talmide ha-Rambam in general it might need to be mentioned.  (There also seems to be a Kahanist/Vilna Gaon crossover, e.g. (perhaps) the Aderet Eliyahu yeshivah in the Old City, but that too is a link too far for this article.)  I think we are agreed. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 17:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I see your point and just as you think, I do agree. [I'm also curious how you are related to these small almost unknown communities (apart from the not so unknown kahana crowd).] I think that one of the main things all of these groups have in common in distinction to practically all other groups within 'Orthodoxy' is that these groups all agree, each in their own way but still with some points in common, that even 'Orthodox' Judaism more or less in general is off focus and mislead to a certain degree or in regard to particular points; Each of these groups also tend to emphasize the authority of historically accepted Talmudic texts and writings of the Geonim (in contrast to later texts that were previously 'hidden' and eventually 'revealed' around the Middle Ages). This is even the case with Aderet Eliyahu, even though they are completely for learning Ramchal -- But they tend to try to apply the Talmudic method of learning such things more so than most other communities... as well as they seem to behave as though they are less bound to long held practices among their ancestors if such practices are discovered to have been by mistake or in contradiction to Talmudic teaching -- according to their own understandings, of course. They also tend to be less rejecting than others towards talmide haRambam -- I know this personally from the experience of more than one individual. I personally don't know how we could include a proper amount of info on all of these groups in one article... Maybe we could at least get info on Dor Daim, Talmide haRambam in general, and how some Kahanists are related to one or both of the previous to all under one article titled something like Maimonideans or something. I dunno. Certainly there are others on Wikipedia who have much more experience than I in this field. Best wishes. 88.155.48.153 16:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no personal relations with any of these groups, except for the Spanish and Portuguese: I just read a lot. None of the other groups exist here in London: the only Yemenite community I know here is Adeni (Shami).  (And as you will gather, I hadn't even heard of Gaonists etc. until you told me about them.)  I have basically been working from what was already on the page or the talk page, plus the www.chayas website, plus my knowledge of general Judaism.  Still, I think between us we have done a pretty good job!


 * If you have a friend who can do a separate article on Gaonists and meqoriim, fine. I think we leave Kahanists out of this, unless we want to insert a reference in the Kahanism article. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 21:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The issue of Ramchal is pretty complicated. I see him as one-third Kabbalist, one-third Italian Neoplatonist and one-third Paduan Averroist, and it is this last facet that is relevant to his works on Talmudic logic.  There is therefore nothing to stop Talmudic purists of any shade from using these works, however dubious they may be about his Kabbalistic and Messianic pretensions.  I only know of Aderet Eliyahu by hearsay from the odd blog, and would be interested to have more reliable information. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 10:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Now that the article is active again, can I ask you something else? The two indented paragraphs about Yosef Kapach and Mechon Mamre contain valuable information about the workings of talmide ha-Rambam and their relationship with Yemenites generally. But I cannot see how they illustrate links between talmide ha-Rambam and Dor Daim, given that Kapach was only questionably Dor Dai and Mechon Mamre is not Dor Dai at all. I don't want this information lost, but it should probably be removed from this article and used in a new article about "Rambamists" (say). --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 10:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

These issues are not as simple as they may appear to one who isn't directly involved with these groups. The distinction between Dor Daim and non-Dor Daim Talmide ha-Rambam is very often blurred [in reality]... and when there is a distinction the distinction isn't so great. Many people consider practically anyone who mainly goes according to the Mishneh Torah and who is against using Midrash [or Zohar, etc..] to be Dor Daim. According to this perspective there is no saying whether Mori Yosef Qaffeh or Machon Mamre are "dor Daim." Again -- people who are usually called this term rarely refer to themselves as such, and many of them even dislike being called this. Whether Mori Yosef Qafehh fully and absolutely rejected the Zohar to the point of denying that anything in it at all may represent some traditional teaching of Hazal, or whether he simply rejected the Zohar as an influence in psak halakha and doubted it as reflecting a 100% pure traditional teaching of Hazal, but that maybe it contains some (but not only) teachings passed down from Hazal -- are two different things. There is absolutely NO DOUBT that at the least Mori Yosef Qafehh held to the latter opinion - no doubt at all. This is also the opinion of Machon-Mamre -- without a doubt. The question is to what extent must one "reject" (or disregard) the Zohar(ic) kabbalah in order to be considered 'Dor Dai." I don't think that this extent has been clarified -- or that it must be or can be.  All "talmedi haRambam" (those who fairly strictly keep halakha according to the Mishneh Torah) deny the Zohar as an authoritative influence in halakhic practice.  Some things simply can't be known for sure unless one is actively involved in the particular community.  For example, if something can only be posted in a wikipedia article if there is a published source for it -- but the issue is on a matter that hasn't yet been written in a published work, then what to do?  In any case, I don't know what advise to give about your last post...  I can say that among non-Dor Dai yemenite Jews in the Jerusalem area - the Beit Knesset where Mori Yosef Qafeeh prayed and taught is called a "Dor Dai" beit knesset. Omedyashar 18:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this explanation. I was not trying to correct anybody's facts, but only to improve the consistency of the article.  The paragraph in question says, in effect, that talmide ha-Rambam are a wider group than Dor Daim, but that Dor Daim still in a sense drive the talmide ha-R enterprise.  It then gives, as evidence of this, the works of Yosef Qafihh and the Mechon Mamre site, which the article itself (not I) describes as "completely non-Dor Dai"; while the talk page shows the Dor Dai-ness of Qafihh to be controversial (I am not qualified to form an opinion and deliberately left it open in the article).  This is confusing for a reader coming to it for the first time, regardless of the true state of the facts.


 * I think it could be clarified by changing the focus. The message would be "Talmide ha-Rambam, unlike historic Dor Daim, are not confined to the Yemenite community.  However, Yemenite scholarship and practice remains an important driver for them.  Examples are R Qafihh ... and Mechon Mamre ...".  This has the advantage of being totally uncontroversial and totally verifiable (from the Machon Mamre website), and of avoiding the meaningless question "who is a Dor Dai".  If you have no objection, I shall tweak the article accordingly.  --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 11:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I'm for it. Omedyashar 10:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Done! --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 15:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Edits to first paragraph
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."

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.
 * It is a mistake to lump as one the Zohar, Sefer HaBahir, and Sefer haYetzirah.

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)

ADDITION TO THE ABOVE
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)

1. On the substance, as I recall from an article in Haaretz when I was looking into this about a year ago (though I couldn't find it on the internet more recently, as it must have been archived), when Yosef Qafehh was appointed a dayan he was required to undertake that he would rule in accordance with mainstream Jewish law as accepted by other dayanim (Caro, Isserles etc) and not with the specifically Dor Dai interpretation (with its greater emphasis on Mishneh Torah). While I don't know specifically about Arusi, I imagine he is in a similar position: that he rules according to Mishneh Torah for affairs internal to Dor Daim or Baladim, and according to Sephardi or Ashkenazi custom (depending on the identity of the parties) for matters to do with his official position. None of this helps decide whether to call either of them "Dor Dai" or not, and the question is best avoided.

2. On the editing, I think the opening paragraph should be altered to read something like:


 * "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)

Looks well written to me. Too bad there don't appear to be many other individuals connected to this community to give advice. Thanks for the work you put into forming this paragraph. Omedyashar 19:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and you're right on target with number 1. This is definately the case with Rav Arusi as well (and I assure you he doesn't go around calling himself Dor Dai either; then again, most dor daim don't do so). What you brought up about Rav Qafehh and what I know also to be the case with Rav Arusi further goes to prove the point, contrary to the inaccurate addition to the artical that I deleted earlier, that neither Dor Daim nor their respected leaders reject all value to things outside the Mishneh Torah... otherwise they wouldn't spend so much time learning Shulhhan Arukh. Professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz rejected the authenticity and authority of Zohar and Luranic kabbalah much more loudly and unapologetically than any well known 'dor daim' of our generation, and at the same time he continuiously proclaimed that he keeps halakha strictly according to the Shulhhan Arukh -- He wasn't even a 'Talmid haRambam' when it came to halakha l'maaseh (practical application of Jewish law). Omedyashar 19:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Pr. Yeshayahu Leibowitz and other scholars who study texts from a historical point of view certainly make the point that the Zohar is not authentic, but their argument is rejected by those Rabbis who disdain scholars and generally speaking "secular" studies! However, interestingly, Kabbalah has become a subject of academic studies, so great is the fascination for "esoterism" "mysticism" and "secrets" even among those who are not "religious"! So now, we are back at square one... E.B. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElishevaBarre (talk • contribs) 15:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Bias
Dear FrummerThanThou

I do not understand the accusation of bias. Most of the article says, in effect, "there is a group called Dor Daim founded in Yemen, and their beliefs are ABCDE", and I have been labouring to ensure that the article does not go into the merits and demerits of those beliefs but simply states that they exist. For example, it would be entirely wrong for this article to discuss the merits of the arguments on the dating of the Zohar (and when the article says things like "the problem comes in with the Zohar", this obviously means "the problem, on their view", and I have now clarified this). On the other hand, to say (as fact, and in the main narrative portion of the article) "this is a wacky fringe group, condemned by all mainstream Jewish denominations", as you seem to want to, would be bias.

If you think the article portrays them too sympathetically, the place to correct this would be the "criticisms" section. I have already inserted a paragraph clarifying that the problem for most people is not simply that Dor Daim don't like Kabbalah (there are plenty of others who don't either) but that they seem to disenfranchise all who do like it (cf. the issue of Takfir in Islam). If there are other, documented, criticisms, then please insert them there; once more, so as to show that the criticisms exist rather than whether they are justified. And if you have a source for Rabbi Kanievsky calling them heretics, please insert that (say as a footnote to the first paragraph under "Criticisms"). [Now done: M na gC]

Perhaps the problem is who we are talking about. People like Yosef Kapach, who succeeded the original Dor Daim, were widely respected, including by secular Israelis. If (as I have seen in articles in Haaretz) there are hilltop settlers who call themselves "Dor Daim" and talk about expelling all the Arabs (or worse) and blowing up the mosques on the Temple Mount, this does not necessarily reflect on the whole movement; and there are plenty of other nutters out there with similar views who have nothing to do with Dor Daim.

I am not trying to discourage you from editing: but please clarify where you think the bias shows. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 10:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As there has been no action on this post for a considerable time, I propose to remove the "bias" marker from the top of the article. I could also shorten the third paragraph under "Criticisms", so that space allotted to answers to criticism is not disproportionate to that allotted to the criticism itself.  Any objections? --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 14:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for it. :) Omedyashar 16:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we can add the names (together with references, of course) of some mainstream Ashkenazi / Sefaradi (non- Meqori) rabbis who, although not being Dor Dai, are on the record for having stated that Dor Daim are NOT heretical -- not that Talmidhe haRambam or Dor Daim think that such statements are necessary for their own validity. Omedyashar 16:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I see that the paragraph about replies to criticisms has actually been lengthened! It now includes a counter-attack that is not strictly relevant to the defence.  It is one thing to say "We can ignore your attacks -- just as you ignore ours".  It is not then necessary to explain in detail what "our" attacks are.  I'll think of a way of summarizing this paragraph in a more neutral and non-partisan way.  (I also marginally prefer the original formulation of the paragraph on shehitah and scrolls, as it may be more comprehensible to general readers, but I am not going to make a big deal out of it.)


 * If you have references to the different stances on whether the Dor Daim are heretical or not, do please add them. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 13:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Now fixed. We should ask Frummerthanthou whether this meets his concerns and whether we can now remove the bias marker.  --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 10:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

just wanted to say that you guys made an amazingly accurate, objective, and well written article... kol hakavod!T4H

There are many more references that I could provide for things stated in this article, but I don't know how to add them to the list below, together with my limited access to the internet. If I would provide the references on this discussion page, would someone please incorporate them into the article? Omedyashar 09:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 09:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I have added some more criticisms, with possible answers, and accordingly removed the bias marker. OK? --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 14:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Prostration
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)

shalom shalom... concerning the section on Laws(in particular, prostration/bowing) - the article says that 2 opinions exist... "one requires only a slight bow of the head, the other requires going to the ground...". in reality this is not accurate. according to the Rambam, it is necessary to bow until the vertebrae portrudes. in other words, a nod of the head is not sufficient and going to the ground is not necessary. i suppose that a nod might be enough for a crippled old man straining to bend forward like a 'bow'. anyhow, felt this should be clarified. T4H

Rabbi Yosef Gafehh is quoted among a number of "Dor Daim" who consider his teaching among their greatest resources as having taught that when the Mishneh Torah says the vertebrae must portrude, that this can be understood as referring to the vertebrae of the neck. Indeed, it is also said that Rabbi Yosef Gafehh bowed in this manner when praying the Shemoneh Esreh. In reality even someone who holds by this view may at the same time hold by the latter to some extent. One could theoretically kneel to the ground and then nod / slightly bow the head. [Having studied in Catholic school for 5 years, this would be the same exact method of bowing that Catholics do muliple times during their "Mass"]. As for kneeling unto the ground being unnecessary - whether or not it is required [at least at the outset] is exactly part of the debate. Some hold that it is l'khathhilah [at the outset] required, but b'dieved [after the fact] not necessary. The issue of kneeling to the ground during the 5 "kneelings" k'reyoth of the Shemoneh Esreh is based on a statement in the Talmud which Rambam brings in Mishneh Torah Hilkhoth Tefilah 5:13 - K'reyah ha'amura b'kol maqom al birkaiyim "the 'kneeling' mentioned in every place [is] on the knees." In my personal experience, of the some 25 or so non-Yemenite talmidhei haRambam I know, the VAST majority hold the perspective that this statement, especially in light of its context and proof in the Gemara, means that on the outset a person should kneel until he is on his knees on the ground. The Gemara quotes explicit Biblical verses in support of this. Both the Gemara and the Mishneh Torah make no distinction between the way a regular person kneels and the way a King or High Priest kneels -- they only make a distinction in the amount of times each is required to kneel. In addition to this the Rambam's son's teachings in his book HaMaspik l'ovdei HaShem are often referred to. I finally have the majority of this book in my possession (including the about 100 page section on prostration) and it is aboundantly clear how he understood his father's teaching in this halakha. THE COUNTER ARGUMENT that I've heard on the understanding of this halakha is that when Rambam writes "the kneeling mentioned in every place is on the knees" - that the intention is in every place IN THE Hebrew Bible. Those who say this AGREE with the meaning of "on the knees" but disagree with the meaning of "in every place." This is not the place to elaborate on counter arguments. This entire discussion is more fitting for the Tachanun article, but for some reason any time I tried to add information there, regardless of how many resources I provided, the information was rejected - without any clear explanation. Oh yeah, I forgot to say that the opinion that one is NOT required to kneel to the ground during the 5 "bows" of the Shemoneh Esreh, seems to be the main opinion among Yemenite Dor Daim from my interaction among them the past 4 years, although I personally know more than one exception. All the best. 88.154.64.49 20:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

References on whether Dor Daim are heretical

 * 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)

I know only such references by word of mouth or from personal experience. I did meet one man who has on a cassette he bought a particular well known Ashkenazi poseq saying that they are not heretics. Most people don't really talk about this stuff -- at all, practically. They just want it to die out. The most easy reference I can get, which doesn't say exactly this, are positive statements from R' Ovadyah Yosef and R' Shlomo Omar about R' Yosef Qafihh, including the fact that every year they participate and speak at anniversery of R' Yosef Qafihh's death. Anyone just a bit familiar with Jewish law and / or traditional Jewish practice should know that this indicates that at least these two greats of modern Sefaradic leards do not consider the main leader of "Dor Daim" to have been a heretic... otherwise they would be forbidden to do what they do annually. The unfortunate thing is that this can only be seen by putting 2 and 2 together. Maybe I can get my hands on some recordings of their speaches at R' Qafihh's memorial and see if they make some explicit statements on the issue. I've never attended, but for the past 'bout 4 years of my being in Israel, every year I see advertisments about them speaking at R' Qafihh's old synagogue during a memorial. Ma na'aseh?

Yosef P.S. Just to reaffirm, the vast majority of those who are labled "dor daim" today by their opponents... are not the same as the original dor daim in the outwardness of their beliefs or in offensive actions. They barely even make a defense. Omedyashar 12:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I added info. about a quote by R' Yosef Qaro. Rabbi Yosef Qaro (author of the Shulhhan Arukh) wrote in Avqat-Rochel #32 "...Now the Rambam, is the greatest of all the legal authorities, and all the communities of Erets Yisrael and the Arab-controlled lands and the West practice according to his word, and accepted him upon themselves as their Chief Rabbi; why pressure them to budge from him?" For better context go to: http://ronware.org/wiki/Torah:Why_Rambam

I didn't learn of this from the link I post here. I have seen this quote with my own eye from the book in its traditional physical form (non-electronic, lol). Omedyashar 12:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a few references now which show that there is great basis among some of the most respected of Jewish leaders in history -- that one is not obligated to accepted the opinion of any specific rabbi aggada:

Even concerning the metaphorical parts of the Talmud, which hopefully we ALL accept, Rabbi Shmuel haNagid (993-1056) wrote, as included in the 'Aiding Talmud Study' by Aryeh Carmell, from Feldheim Publishers:

Aggada [Aramaic: agadata]: everything mentioned in the Gemara [Talmud], which is not directly connected with the halakhic aspect of the commandment. One should learn from such statements ONLY those things which our minds can grasp. It is important to know that ALL MATTERS which our Sages established as LAW, in connection with the commandment transmitted by Moshe Rabbenu [Moses our teacher] who received it from the Almighty [**this is real Kabbalah, which means 'reception/to receive'--webmaster**], CANNOT be augmented or diminished in any way. [This last statement refers to Deuteronomy 17:11-13] HOWEVER, the [aggadic] explanations they rendered of biblical verses were in accordance with their INDIVIDUAL VIEWS and the ideas WHICH OCCURRED to them. We should learn from them insofar as our minds can grasp them; but otherwise we SHOULD NOT build upon them. (Since we have not succeeded in understanding the deeper meaning of their words, we should NOT attempt to use them as the BASIS of our thinking.) <explanation in s from 'Aiding Talmud Study.

If this is true for the Talmud, how much more so is it true for Midrashim outside of the Talmud, and even much more true would this be for midrash which was supposedly lost for a thousand or so years, that was outside of Jewish hands during all that time, in addition to being outside of the Talmud, much less mentioned in the Talmud. Certainly, if certain things in the Talmud itself should not be the 'basis for our thinking,' which of course means that such things should not be made into a foundation of our faith, then without doubt this can be applied to texts outside of the Talmud.

Rambam writes in his Commentary to the Mishna to Seder Nashim in Sanhedrin chapter 10 (pereq Hheleq) on page qof-mem-heh of Rabbi Yosef Qafehh's translation from the Arabic original:

[gimal] We have already mentioned to you a number of times that all disagreements that are between Sages [hhakhamim] and that aren't (things) that depend on actions (but) rather establish an opinion alone, there is no place to arrive at a legal conclusion / decision [leefsoq] in practical Jewish law [halakha] according to (any) one of them...

INTRODUCTION TO THE AGADA by Abraham, son of Moses Maimonides elaborates on the position of Agada and Midrash as it relates to practical Jewish law and its overal purpose and proper understanding. Among the many things he wrote in his Intro. to Agada, the following can be found, as translated in and included in the beginning of "EN JACOB" (Eheyn Ya'aqov) AGADA OF THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD, by Rabbi Jacob Ibn Chabib, revised and translated into English by Rabbi. S. H. Glick, volume I:

"...And think not like those who do not grasp the real truth that every simple Derash or so-called allegorical explanation of the passage uttered by the sages, was handed over by tradition, like the principle parts of the Torah, because the fact is otherwise; that the explanation of such passages which do not involve either a dogma of a religious principle or any law of the Torah, has no traditional bearing, but was explained by the authors, merely according to their own knowledge and feeling. And many of them are used merely as figures of speech in a poetical style, or are explained in that poetical form.  Thus I have no doubt that when R. Joshua said (Zebachim fol. 116.) regarding the sentence (Ex. 18,1.) And Jethro heard.  What did he hear?  R. Joshua said, "the war of Amalek." 6) This is merely an opinion, not a tradition and is bringing of evidence to support his opinion proves that it is so, for in a tradition we need no evidence; furthermore, the fact that all other sages differ with him on this explanation proves this also. The same can be said regarding the explanation of....." ..etc.. etc..

The above is quoted from my website, so I guess I have persmission to post without worries of copyright violation ;-) All the quotes have personally been verified and checked.  There are similar quotes from other greats, such as the Ramban.. but I'll add those later. http://sagavyah.tripod.com/id82.html

And I found something written by a rabbi who is not D.D. and not a talmid shel haRambam, though he seems to have some similar perspectives [maybe cause he's a religious Jew who uses his brain]... anyway, he says something on his site which clearly indicates that, at least from his perspective, D.D. are not heretics. I'm pretty sure he is a major student of a well known rosh yeshiva in New York. I'll try to get you more info about that in the future.. in the meantime, here's the quote from an article on his website on the topic:

The following is from http://www.mesora.org/zohar.html

Mesora Reaction:

You would not be considered a heretic if you listen to your mind, telling you that there is a question on the Zohar's authenticity. If this is a fact, it is a fact regardless of your reaction.

1) You cannot compare historical evidence against a ruling. These are not commensurate. If history tells you there is questionable authenticity, then there is a question, and you cannot ignore this question. It would be dishonest to ignore such evidence, as it is dishonest to close your eyes to any othe truth. Titling findings "Zohar" is not carte blanch validation.

2) Ibn Ezra taught that even a command of the Torah is not followed if it is irrational. If in the written Torah we abandon that which is irrational, so much more so in other areas.

3) Even in areas of Jewish law, one has the halachik right to investigate and follow his own mind, even in opposition to great rabbis. He cannot teach others, but he may follow for himself. This decision is no more stringent. At most, it is the same, and you have the right to decide.

4) You do not have to follow a rabbi' s ruling unless you ask specifically for a ruling "for yourself". But if asked in theoretical terms, you are not obligated to follow his response.

5) Authorship of the Zohar is not a halachik ruling. I don't see how someone can oblige you in this acceptance, it is outside the scope of "al pi haTorah asher yorucha". The Rabbi's have a limited scope of jurisdiction. What is not addressed by Torah or Rabbinic laws is not something a rabbi may oblige you in.

The above is from http://www.mesora.org/zohar.html _______________________________________________

At the least, maybe we can give this as a reference for those outside the D.D. and talmide haRambam camp who have similar perspectives on common popular [mis]conceptions of Qabbalah. _______________________________________________ Omedyashar 12:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Saints and graves
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)

Sufism
I removed the following addition to the article:

(In his view, and that of his followers today, the Sufi methods of meditation and interpretation were themselves derived from those current in ancient Israel.)

....as this is baseless. It looks to me like an elaboration on a phrase the I added to the article regarding the Dor Dai/Talmidhe haRambam admiration of Rabbi Avraham son of Rambam, who is sometimes accused of having been a type of "Jewish Sufi." I had explained that in the view of those observant Jews who respect Rabbi Avraham's work -- his work is NOT Sufi, but might be mistaken for such due to the fact that in their perspective, and in Rabbi Avraham's perspective (see his book "Wars of the L-RD"), Islam is established on the fundmental principles of the historical faith of Israel. ...The sentence I wrote which reflected this was deleted, and in its place an oversimplified and very misleading segment above was added. In addition to this further on in the article someone added that Dor Daim and Talmidhe haRambam are not even against Sufism!! This is another misleading oversimplification. This was a re-phrasing [in a degenerative sense] of something I had added to express the fact that Dor Daim and Talmidhe haRambam are not similar to Salafism in their stance on mysticism... by highlighting the fact that the only Jewish "giant" I'm aware of to have ever been accused of being a Sufi-mystic is one of the most respected leaders of the past in the perspective of Dor Daim and Talmidhe haRambam  --- this does NOT mean that he WAS in fact Sufi -- nor does it mean that Dor Daim and Talmidhe haRambam promote Sufism. Omedyashar 15:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I must plead guilty to this, I simply misunderstood what you were saying. The view that Sufi techniques had Israelite roots comes from R. Menachem Froman, and I thought you were saying that Avraham ben ha-Rambam had said something similar; many apologies.  Note, I only meant Sufi techniques, not the whole Sufi view of the world, which is clearly Gnostic and non-Jewish.


 * I think the problem lies in the article's use of the word "mysticism" (and again I plead guilty to having introduced the word). All that the imaginary critic was trying to say was "Look, Dor Dai opposition to (Zoharic/Lurianic) Kabbalah looks a bit like Salafi opposition to Sufism": to talk about the attitude of either group to "mysticism" as a whole is a bit of a red herring.  As you say, what Dor Daim object to in "Kabbalah" is not the idea of a mystical path but all the stuff about reincarnation, pantheism, emanations, mediators etc.; and that is exactly what Salafis object to in Sufism (whether rightly or wrongly is not our business).  So I see no harm in saying that, in this particular respect, the analogy holds good but that this need not be a bad thing.


 * In my edits, I was actually trying to say this. I have good Muslim friends, who could not be described as Salafi by any stretch of the imagination, and they have never expressed an opinion either for or against Sufism: so far as I can see this impinges on their lives only in the form of poetry, folklore, parables etc. and not as theology.  On the other hand, we have discussed Ismailism, and they do regard that as highly dangerous; so my point was that the Dor Dai objection to Kabbalah should perhaps be compared to the mainstream Muslim objection to Ismailism rather than to the specifically Salafi objection to Sufism, and that the issues at stake are basic to orthodox monotheism of any kind.  I was saying this to help you; but if you don't agree, we can drop it.


 * Another reason for my emphasis on Ismailism is that I believe that that was the vehicle on which most of the Gnostic and Neoplatonic ideas later incorporated in "Kabbalah" first arrived into the consciousness first of Muslim intellectuals and later of Jews living in the Islamic world. In particular, the Ismaili distinction between zahir and batin looks quite extraordinarily like the present-day Haredi use of nigleh and nistar.  The Islamic attitude is really quite a puzzle: how does it come about that exactly the same complex of ideas is utterly taboo when it forms part of Ismailism or extremist Shiism (Alawis, Nusairis et hoc genus omne) but perfectly acceptable in the form of Sufism or Twelver Shiite irfan? (And in Turkey there are dervish groups such as Bektashi and Alevi, where it is actually impossible for any outsider to decide whether they are extreme-Shia sects like the Syrian Alawis or Sufi orders internal to Sunnism.)


 * Fascinating as all this is, I think the whole section comparing Dor Daim with Salafis can be shortened, as the article is only trying to say what views exist and not to be a full Dor Dai manifesto. Subject to correction, I suggest that the Dor Dai answer, in essence, is reduceable to "Yes, there is common ground, in the purely negative sense that both groups want to get rid of certain superstitions that militate against basic monotheism, but there the resemblance ends.  The difference is that our views have a sound scholarly base, do not have the same flavour of fanaticism, and cannot be interpreted as requiring hostilities against people who disagree."  What do you think? --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 12:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if I wrote with an overly critical tone. I almost naturally react that way -- not to my joy -- because literally weekly I and other people similar to me (I know with certainty) are almost constantly confronted about something or the other and forced to explain ourselves.. usually with the person who asked not really caring whatsoever whether there is basis for whatever it was he asked about... together with often trying to clarify misconceptions presented by people -- who even upon asking often tend to feel more comfortable continuing in their misconception than believing what we say as respresentative of our real views. In short, it isn't so common that I run into someone who really puts thought into his comments.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to explain your reasoning. I understand now... and I agree on much of what you wrote. Certainly there are SOME things in common between Salafi Islam and "Meqori'im" [Dor Daim / talmidhe haRambam / Geonim]... but not to the extent that it is necessarily more so than other groups. There are a number of very important issues that we have in common with Shia Islam than with Salafi in particular -- such as understanding passages regarding the Creator's "Greatness" or 'His' "Face" "Hands" etc... as metaphorical. Regarding understanding such terms metaphorically we have much much more in common with Shia Muslims and are anti-thetical to Salafi Islam. Regarding this, having in mind what is written in the Guide for the Perplexed (that those who recognize the Unity of the Creator but still do idolatry are better than those who believe in a creator who has some sort of a body) -- I think that on the most important things Shia Muslims have more in common with us ~ so long as they are not of those Shia groups which espouse incarnation, panentheism, or pantheism.

I'm with you 100% that the section comparing Dor Daim with Salafism would do well to be shortened... and that this isn't to be a Dor Dai manifesto.. lol, -- it's an article, not a book. At the same time I think it is very important that major misconceptions be clarified, as they seem to be much more widespread (in my opinion) than misconceptions about other Jewish groups. I think this is so because the views held by us are usually a bit unheard of... and since most people do not know where to find information from a first hand source, hear-say and speculation just increases and becomes authenticized in their minds due to the large degree that the speculation has already spread. If they want a Dor Dai manifesto all they have to do is read books which have long been among the Jewish people.. such as the books listed above. Of course, though these books are said to be "accepted" by Orthodox Judaism, they are censored even today -- but not a printed censorship. For example, the standard "ultra-orthodox" approach to Duties of the Heart is that it should be read, so long as the first section is skipped. What is the first section about? Unity of the Creator.

Keeping this short. I like your proposal for shortening the reply on Salafism... but I think you should add, in a shortened form, that while there are things comparable between Salafism and Dor Daim, there are also more critical things (from a Dor Dai perspective) which they have in common with Shia Islam (such as absolute incorporality of the Creator and understanding references to Him ONLY metaphorically.) Salafi Islam is well known to be against such metaphorical understandings.. and strongely promotes (as an obligation) a literal understanding of passages that Allah has a "Face," etc.. though at the same time they add that Allah's literal "face" is incomparable to faces in creation. To us it does not matter (besides that we view this as a logical contradiction) -- to us their is nothing about the Creator's Existence which has something in common with creation, even if we say that it is incomparable to creation. Salafism rightly proclaims that the Creator has no partners. "Meqori'im" and Shia Muslims add to this that He also has no parts.


 * Thanks. I'm interested in your comparison with Shiism, but I think this simply means that Shiites inherit something from Mu'tazilism, as well as from the same kind of medieval Aristotelianism (Farabi, Avicenna etc.) that influenced Maimonides; whereas a lot of modern Salafism is about rejecting that kind of philosophy.  However, introducing a comparison with Shiism as a whole would introduce too many other issues; and at this moment Iranian Shiism is scarcely more popular with the Western Jewish world than Salafism!  On how to shorten this bit, I'll have to think a bit more and come back to it. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 08:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

At the end of the day the fact is that every group has something in common with other groups... and we can therefore find comparisons between Dor Daim and Christianity in some ways as well... or between the majority "ultra-orthodox" view of things and Christianity [with different comparisons; ei: the tendency to understand midrash and hagada literally, and their sometimes giving metaphorical interpretations to practical Talmudic law as to why it is no longer practiced -- when it is a law that they generally don't observe.]

I can agree that Shiism may have inherited this idea from Mu'tazilism, but this doesn't change the reality that this still represents their views. I'm not certain that they adopted the concepts of monotheism from Aristotelianism -- this I just don't accept. I don't buy that Maimonides took it from Aristotelianism either. Clearly some things they took, but regarding monotheism -- I do not see any reason to think this is among those things which they adopted... nor the idea that the Bible uses metaphor. The Bible itself says explicitly that it uses metaphor:

Hosea 12:10 “And I have spoken unto the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and by the hand of the prophets I use metaphor.” Omedyashar 16:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Talmidim of Vilna Gaon reject Zohar?
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)


 * 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)

Well, first of all, it is the Kabbalists and some "students of the Gaon" who made this statement famous. I would like to read that in the Gaon's own words! Secondly, the Gaon knows as much as Yehie Qafih who demonstrates quite brilliantly the contrary opinion, albeit it not so much "well known"! Of course, the Gaon of Vilna could not have said such a thing, because these contradictions are well catalogued in Milchamot HaShem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElishevaBarre (talk • contribs) 15:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You write "The Gaon of Vilna is famous for stating that there is not one contradiction between it and the Talmud".


 * "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)


 * 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)

Dordaim/Dardaim
Need a ref for following: 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)
 * 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
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

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

You say "Talmide" I say "Talmidim"
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Ok. I thought that tense was personal possessive (my) not someone else's. I have heard it used, but never put the two together. Anyways, "all those edits" are the same one done with something called "find and replace" function -- gee, just basic editing anybody should know. Ayeletshacar (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)

External links modified
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)

Do Dor Deah actually tend to identify with Orthodox Judaism?
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)