Anti-Isreal Goyim Yemach Shemom and Anti-Isreal Jews

Home Forums Decaffeinated Coffee Anti-Isreal Goyim Yemach Shemom and Anti-Isreal Jews

Viewing 29 posts - 1 through 29 (of 29 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #602903

    Despite the famous drasha “Yitamu Chatoim Min Haoretz” – Chatoim (sins) V’lo Chotiim (and not [the] sinners), most people who fall under the category where their actions we pray shall be vanquished from the earth are like those mentioned frequently in tehillim – Where Dovid Hamelech beseeches constantly that HASHEM utterly destroy eviscerate vanquish decimate demolish to utter ultimate extinction. The obvious kasha is asked by the meforshim why is Dovid Hamelech asking for their demise if we say we hope for their teshuva, and they answer that that is true when their is a chance they will do teshuva. Hence those who are steadfast in their venemous hatred of Isreal and the Jews should be among those mentioned in tehillim. Unfortunately there might be some Jews included in this. . .

    #1061679
    Patri
    Member

    No, the Jews are the biggest tzadikim.

    #1061680

    Amen.

    #1061681
    OneOfMany
    Participant

    mochoh timcheh: I see that you are new here. See HERE. (And keep in mind that some hold that you might be chayav malkos for this offense.)

    #1061682
    Sam2
    Participant

    MT: Saying that Chataim V’lo Chot’im means “sins and not sinners” is a mistranslation.

    #1061683
    Avi K
    Participant

    According to Rav Lior in the name of Rav Kuk any Jew who sides with our enemies is from the Erev Rav.

    #1061684

    “MT: Saying that Chataim V’lo Chot’im means “sins and not sinners” is a mistranslation.”

    Well, let’s see: Chatoim – pl chait, which means sin, so chatoim means sins; V’lo – i don’t think there’s any debate as to what that means (and not); Chot’im – pl chotei, which means sinner, so then chot’im means sinners. Now if we put this together, we get “sins and not sinners”. The drasha, by the way, is <i>precisely</i> that – that we should daven for the sinners to do teshuva and thus their sins will be wiped out and not that they should be exterminated like amalekites; see the gemara that tells us the heartwarming story of Mrs. R’ Meir, who dissuaded her husband from davening for his protagonists death and instead pray for his repentance.

    #1061685
    Sam2
    Participant

    MT: Nice try, but no. Here’s a tip, by the way: Next time you want to come across as pedantic, make sure that you are actually correct. The word Chata’im is not the plural of the word Cheit, meaning sin. That would be Chata’os. Chata’im is the plural of the word Chata (note the Dagesh in the Tes), which means someone who sins habitually. (In Hebrew, almost all jobs are a verb with a Patach under the first letter of the Shoresh and a Dagesh in the second letter with a Kamatz under that, as is the case here.) Thus, a Chata is someone who sins by profession-i.e. does it all the time. Thus, we prat for those who sin sometimes, but not those who sin habitually.

    #1061686

    Wrong. The plural of chait is chataim also. Furthermore, in the gemara, Beruriah translates it as meaning “sins” to make this drasha, this is a homiletical translation though, as b’feirush explained by the artscroll siddur in its commentary to barchi nafshi where this wonderful pasuk appears.

    #1061687

    and the metzudah siddur translates it as simply “sins” without commentary

    #1061688
    Sam2
    Participant

    MT: I can’t answer for how Artscroll or Metzudah translated, but I did give you the explanation as to how to properly translate the word. This should be obvious to anyone who knows Hebrew grammar. And the Gemara in Brachos still works. B’ruriah’s point was that this person was not one who sinned constantly, hence it was still possible to Daven for him to do T’shuvah.

    The plural of sins would be Chata’os, in the feminine, as any other similar noun that ends in an Alef (think Kisei). And even if this would be an irregular Chata’im (should such a word exist), for it to be the plural of the word Cheit it would need a Kamatz under the Ches, not a Patach under the Ches with a Dagesh in the Tes, which is how it appears.

    Thank you for bringing this up to me though. Artscroll is usually good about these sorts of things. I think I’ll write them a letter, or send them an email, or however one contacts Artscroll.

    #1061689

    Sam2: there is such a thing as irregularities. Sometimes you do find a word that should be make femake and v.v.

    #1061690
    Sam2
    Participant

    MT: And what’s your answer to the Dagesh? Also, I checked the Artscroll Siddur for Barchi Nafshi over Yom Tov. They translate it as sinners.

    #1061691

    I’m not anything remotely approaching expert level in dikduk. I was simply making a point based on the drasha as put forth by the gemara.

    #1061692
    Sam2
    Participant

    MT: I don’t claim to be an expert, but I do know Dikduk well. And I explained the Gemara according to the proper translation of the words. Do you have an issue with my approach to the Gemara there?

    #1061693
    mexipal
    Participant

    Nice try Sam but the word Chata’im is plural for chait. See Yom Kippur Davening “Ana Bashem Selach..La’chataim”. In that context it clearly refers to sins not habitual sinners.

    #1061694
    Sam2
    Participant

    Mexipal: I don’t have a Yom Kippur Machzor here with me. How is that Chata’im spelled? I’l be willing to guarantee that it has a Kamatz under the Ches and not a Patach under the Ches with a Dagesh in the Tes.

    #1061695

    Mexipal: I don’t have a Yom Kippur Machzor here with me. How is that Chata’im spelled? I’l be willing to guarantee that it has a Kamatz under the Ches and not a Patach under the Ches with a Dagesh in the Tes.

    Even if you’re right, it seems that there is an exception to the rule here.

    #1061696
    writersoul
    Member

    Whew, mochoh timcheh, are you trying to show off your new thesaurus?

    #1061697
    Sam2
    Participant

    MT: Exceptions exist in a lot of things in the Hebrew language, including pluralizing words. This is not such a case. Please, tell me, what was wrong with my P’shat in the Gemara?

    #1061698
    apushatayid
    Participant

    This thread should be closed down until someone learns how to spell Israel correctly.

    #1061699
    writersoul
    Member

    apushatayid: Amen!

    #1061700
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    I think everyone here is wrong (although feel free to disagree with me). First of all, there are two different hebrew words that are spelled ?????, depending on whether the nekuda under the ? is a patach (and the ? has a dagesh), or the nekuda under the ? is a chataf patach. When it’s just a patach, the word means sinners (as in selichos ???? ????? ??????). When it’s a chataf patach, it means the cause of sins. The word ?????? can only mean sinners. Pshat in the Gemara, is that since the pasuk wrote ????? instead of ??????, it must be coming to teach us that you should wipe out the cause of sins (i.e. the Yetzer Harah) and not the sinners themselves. It can’t mean to wipe out the sins because then Bruriah’s pshat doesn’t answer the question that she asked on R’ Meir – how would it be ?????? ??? ????? Once you say that it means the Yetzer Harah, it is clear how it would be ?????? ??? ????. See Rashi, the Maharsha, and the Yaavetz.

    Interestingly, the Tzlach seems to feel (or at least strongly entertain the notion) that we don’t pasken like Bruriah/R’ Meir as evidenced by the fact that in both the preceeding Gemara and the subsequent Gemara, tis pasuk is interpreted as referring to the downfall of the actual Reshaim.

    #1061701
    Avi K
    Participant

    Mochoh, cite your source for your contention that “most people who fall under the category where their actions we pray shall be vanquished from the earth” and your apparent interpretation (“vanquished” can mean that they will see the error of their ways). We see that Beruria’s way worked not Rabbi Meir’s. Here is what Rav Tzvi Pesacch Frank says

    (??”? ?? ??? ???? ???? ? ???? ???):

    ?. ??”? ??? ??? ????? ????? ??????? ????? ???”? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ??????. ?”? ???? ?????? ?? ??, ??? ?? ????? ??????? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ?”? ???? ???? ????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???.

    ??? ????? ??? ??? ??????????? ????? ?? ??, ??? ??? ????? ???? ???? ????. ????, ???? ????? ????? (?? ?? ?”?) ?????? ??? ???? – ??? ??? ???? ??? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?’ ?? ???? ????? ???? ????? ??????. ??? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?? ?????, ???”? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ????. ??? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?????. ????? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ????? ???? ????? ??? ??????, ???? ??? ?????? ?? ?????, ??? ?????? ??????. ??”? ???? ????? ???? ???? ?’, ??? ?”?, ????? ?? ?? ??? ???????: ???? ???, ??? ???? ?? ????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ????. ?????? ???? ????? ?? ?????, ???? ??”? ??????? ??? ?? ????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ???. ???? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ???, ??? ???? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???, ?????? ????.

    #1061702
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    I used bad phraseology. The Tzlach doesn’t say that we don’t pasken like Bruriah/R’ Meir; he says that we see from the preceding and subsequent Gemaros that the pasuk is not ???? ???? ????? (in that it refers to the downfall of the reshaim themselves).

    #1061703
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    It is taka a bissel shver (I’m practicing my Yiddish) because I pointed out that

    It can’t mean to wipe out the sins because then Bruriah’s pshat doesn’t answer the question that she asked on R’ Meir – how would it be ?????? ??? ?????

    yet Bruriah then told R’ Meir ??? ??? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? which would be subject to the same kashya – how will it be ?????? ??? ???? if these hooligans do teshuva? Unless you say that she was specifically referring to these people when she said ?????? ??? ????. But if that’s the case then her kashya on R’ Meir is removed because he can say that the pasuk is referring to the specific reshaim that get wiped out.

    #1061704
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    In Tachanun it says “????? ?? ?????? ???? ?????? ??????”

    ????? clearly is referring to to sinners, not sins.

    #1061705
    Joseph
    Participant

    What do you make of our thrice daily tefilos for Hashem to wipe out the wicked?:

    Let there be no hope for informers, and may all the heretics and all the wicked instantly perish; may all the enemies of Your people be speedily extirpated; and may You swiftly uproot, break, crush and subdue the reign of wickedness speedily in our days. Blessed are You L-rd, who crushes enemies and subdues the wicked.

    #1061706
    BuyPaint
    Participant

    Knuckle up and give the day advice. Were you really a trainwreck?

Viewing 29 posts - 1 through 29 (of 29 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.