Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I don’t think it’s Shlomo Hamelech who חכם עדיף מנביא. It’s a gemoro in Bava Basra 12a based on a passuk in Tehillim 90.
sechel to me: in your last post you agree moshiach can be from the dead, so I guess you agree with me that it’s not kefira?
It may not be direct kefira to say that Mashiach can be someone who has died, but it is extremely close to kefira to say that someone – even alive – is Mashiach because you want him to be, even though there is absolutely not one iota of proof. It is megaleh panim baTorah shelo kehalacha.
And I don’t see how the Yad Ramah, in his first explanation, is allowing you to say that anyone who has died other than Daniel can be Mashiach.
Furthermore, what were the great yissurim that the L rebbe had?
sechel: I quoted tosfos who quotes a navi in the time of rishonim
I must have missed where you quoted that Tosfos. Could you please recite the source?
Or are you perhaps referring to Gitting 68a where Tosfos quotes הר”ר עזרא הנביא? If that’s the case, then I believe you have it wrong as I don’t believe that Tosfos means that he was actually a navi. Rather, that that’s the way he was referred to.
Google עזרא הנביא ממונקנטור and in the Hebrew wikipedia you’ll find a number of explanations for his name, none of which say he was an actual navi.
To sechel and anyone else paying attention here who may think that the L rebbe is Mashiach.
I, and a number of others here, have two problems with that:
1. There is no source for it other than his own claims and twisted interpretations.
2. Even if we disregard the Rambam’s criteria – which unquestionably do not apply to the L rebbe (unless they are willingly mistranslated and misinterpreted, as is often the case) – there are many, many, many people both alive and dead who are more suitable candidates based on their tzidkus and actions alone.
sechel, I said that Rashi is the only one who explains that gemoro, and I then proceeded to clarify what Rashi meant. Sorry, but quoting a publication by your own people to say otherwise is useless, as I won’t accept an alternative explanation made by the person who claims he is Mashiach, especially when whatever it says there contradicts what Rashi says.
Rabbi Breitowitz is a great man, but I don’t know what he wrote about that kuntres, and I have no intention of messing up my mind by reading it. Furthermore, it is well-known – I, at least, know it for a fact – that Rabbi Breitowitz holds that the L rebbe is NOT Mashiach.
As to the Yerushalmi you quoted, it says Mashiach’s name is David, and the L rebbe’s name was not David. (I’m very surprised that you didn’t quote the next statement of the Yerushalmi, which says that his name is Menachem. Or were you just laying the bait for a trap by omitting it? At any rate, there it says his father’s name was Chizkiyah and that he came from the environs of Beis Lechem. Not that his father’s name was Levi Yitzchok and that he came from Yekatrinoslav.)
I’ll point out again, the ONLY sources that says that the L rebbe could be Mashiach are from the L rebbe himself, and if that isn’t plain self-aggrandizement and delusions of grandeur I don’t know what is.
Rashi, who is the only one who explains that piece, says that there are two possible ways of explaining the gemoro’s statement that “if Mashiach is from the dead, it’s Daniel”:
1. It was Daniel himself.
2. It will be someone (alive) who is like Daniel (who is no longer alive).sechel then countered by saying that the gemoro says כגון דניאל איש חמודות, and apprently sechel wants to say that since kegon means ‘similar to’, as it so often does, there’s nothing wrong with saying that any other dead person may be Mashiach.
Tell me, are you intentionally ignoring what Rashi himself writes explicitly?
“ואם היה מאותן שמתו כבר היה דניאל איש חמודות שנדון ביסורין בגוב אריות וחסיד גמור היה והאי כגון לאו דווקא”“If it is someone who died, it was already Daniel… and [the word] כגון is inexact“. So Rashi is clearly saying that כגון here does NOT mean ‘similar to’.
Please check sources before you quote blithely.
sechel, as I’ve pointed out a number of times in different threads, you have absolutely no right to say that if Mashiach comes from the dead then it is the L rebbe, as the gemoro says that if Mashiach comes from the dead, then it will be Daniel Ish Chamudos.
That is according to one pshat in Rashi. According to the other pshat, the gemoro is saying that if we want to find someone who is dead to whom a LIVE Mashiach will be similar, then it is Daniel.
There is thus NO room for someone to suggest another candidate who is dead. And, by the way, there is no other pshat given in the gemoro other than those two pshotim given by Rashi.
I have one question: can any Lubavich supporter bring sources that the L rebbe is Mashiach from anything other than what he himself or his supporters said?
As far as I recall, all the ‘proofs’ are ‘proofs’ that he brings based on his own interpretations. What about something other than his own claims to grandeur?
tunaisfish: Is it really so crazy to say that the rebbe who has brought tens of thousands of people back to yidishkeit (at least to some extent) taught hour long sichas each week explaining rashis and rambams with seeming contradictions and asking valid questions on almost all achronim on rashi, is bechezkas moshiach?
Truthfully, yes, it really is crazy!
Having just done a search I can point out that the only source for someone being chezkas Mashiach, is the Rambam in Hilchos Melachim, and he lays out certain criterie – NONE of which you cite in your post. The Rambam does not even say that Mashiach has to be “baki in Bavli, yershhalmi, shulchan oruch with the noisei keilim as well an abundance of kabbalah seforim” as you assume to be the case with the L rebbe.
It is so very woke, and so very Lubavich, for someone to say, “I think this person is great, therefore I’m allowed to declare that he is chezkas Mashiach.”
Boruch Hashem, the Rambam was not woke, and neither is the entire Torah. Unlike a vast number of the Lubavicher rebbe’s fan-base.
Dear ywn moderators
Please read the above post of tunaisafish well. If anything at all it is THE reason not to censor posts about the L rebbe, about whom (according to tunaisfish) it is perfectly valid to assume he is bechezkas Mashiach. The L rebbe, according to tunaisfisch, clearly knew the entire Torah, in fact, I suspect that he thinks the L rebbe wrote it!
Getting back to CS’s weird statements (and again, I apologize if this has already been dealt with): I estimate we have about 3 days before the True Moshiach is revealed and I want to reach as many Jews as possible before the time is up
(“True Moshiach” sounds so xian to me, but I’ll ignore that for the time being.) What on earth is this “3 days” about? You do realise that, like all Lubavich predictions in the past, your prediction fell flat on its face, as those 3 days elapsed over 150 days ago… or do you have some way of worming out of that one?
The secret Geula final ketz (which hasn’t happened yet and has also simultaneously passed) can be found in the Zohar
I try sometimes not to insult too much, but seriously, have you been taking your meds?
what’s unique about Chassidus CHABAD is that it brings G-dliness into human understanding and logic<\em>
Do you really believe everything you were taught in Beis Rivkah and in sem?!
Very likely techias hameisim is in 4 years
Does that mean that we may have to wait a full four years to ask you to answer that prediction?
On another related topic, Lubavich has always held that view – and don’t tell me it hasn’t because I daresy I’ve been around them a lot longer than nearly all of you others here – that the rebbe is the only one who can tell them what is right and wrong when it comes to innovations.
How then can they justify the almost-kishuf of opening the igros at random to get answers to their questions? As far as I am aware, there has never been anything like that in history, even by the most fanatical groups. And please don’t tell me stories about chassidim putting kvittlach into seforim written by their Rebbes. (In the past I have had a number of Lubavichers attempt that disingenuous and worthless explanation.) That is not the same thing at all, as they are not deriving any answers to questions from where they place the kvittel.
Yes, I know there’s the Goral Hagra, and other types of goralos, but this is something that was invented after the death of the L rebbe by common garden-type Lubavicher chassidim, not by any tzaddik or gadol Batorah.
I only noticed this thread quite late in the piece – I think it was up to page 14 at the time – and only yesterday I read the very first pages. So please forgive me if I’m rehashing stuff that was already mentioned.
First, is CS the same as Chabad Shlucha (and the same as Chabad Shluchah with an ‘h’ of old)?
Second, what is going on with that CS woman? She has her very own version of emunah, where she either has all the answers or she knows that her people have them, and she therefore feels sorry for those of us (and the vast vast majority of Yidden) who do not believe that the L rebbe was EVER a candidate for Mashiachship. Does she really not realize that the entire basis of her so-called belief is just like a house of cards, but in her case the bottom layer of cards are non-existent.
Not one of her beliefs in that area withstand the scrutiny of any non-Lubavicher – regardless of his opinion of Lubavich itself – who has the slightest understanding of limud Hatorah and real, reliable sources.
And she doesn’t learn much Tosfos because she has other priorities (thank the Good L-rd for that!), but she would if she had more time as her rebbe says she can. The same is true with Zohar!
Is this really what she and others consider Lubavich hashkofah?! Hashem yishmor!
sechel (sorry it’s from 3 days ago, but I’ve been busy): “Larger than life is not a good source. Look in the back where he gets the story from – one chasid -. Just a rumor.”
Yep, and thus far less reliable than all the garbage made up by the real chassidim.
It’s been a very long time since I read the book, but as far as I remember in the biography of the L rebbe, “Larger than Life” by Shaul Shimon Deutsch, it says explicitly that the L rebbe’s parents – I think it was davka his mother – knowing that Chaya Mushka could not bear children, only agreed to the shidduch on condition that their son would take over after the Rayatz.
I also once heard from a reiliable (but not impeccable) source, that the reason the L rebbe and CM left for Berlin so soon after their marriage was to seek treatment for her infertility.
How unfortunate that he did not have any children, as had he had a son it is very likely that we would not have the Mashiach meshigass that we have now.
qwerty: “I’d like to apologize for the things I said to you last year.”
No problem. But a request and a word of advice: please stop using invectives and name-calling (e.g. Menace Friedman). It waters down the strength of what you write because it makes it sound childish.
yankel berel: “the question , to sechel , should be , and that’s arso’s intention [hope to have gotten this right] was there a change in schar va ‘onesh , or not, not whether there was a change in circumstances”
Yes, exactly. The rules stay the same, and they apply equally to each individual. It’s just that each individual is judged on his abilities, his personality and his circumstances, all of which are orchestrated by Hashem. And it has always been that way.
sechel: “I think there is schar and onesh but I agree that hashem is understanding and merciful and takes into consideration what today’s generation is going thru.”
Sorry, but to me that seems a meaningless statement. When Hashem judges each individual he does so according to that individual’s personality, emotional makeup, his life experiences, and everything else that makes him the person he is, as those are the way Hashem made him. It has always been that way, and it always will.
Furthermore, who are we to say that this generation has it any harder than any other generation? We don’t have the same desire for avodah zarah and (surprisingly) for arayos as the generation of Anshei Knesses Hagedolah (see Sanhedrin 64a), and each generation has its own nisyonos.
Isn’t it just that we have been mollycoddled and feel that we deserve an easier life with fewer nisyonos? (And yes, that feeling of being deserving may itself indeed be one of this generation’s great nisyonos.)
sechel, we’ve been through all this before. There was at least one person who was killed by a scud in 91, so if that was he nevuah, he was a navi sheker!
And which poskim signed that he has a din navi. I believe the correct answer is ‘none’, unless you count Lubavichers.
wtsp: in fact I feel a deep love for every single member of Klal Yisroel
Are you serious? You have a DEEP LOVE for EVERY SINGLE Yid?! Unless you are a tzaddik yesod olam, that’s impossible. I think it was Rav Avigdor Miller who said that someone who claims to love all Yidden is stam a liar.
Chaim87, Rav Hutner’s statement about Brisk that the Torah was not given on Har Grizim – something btw I had not heard before – is more than just a statement of hashkafah, it’s also brilliant play on words. Perhaps you realized that but you didn’t explain it.
The Brisker Rav’s name was Rav Yitzchok Zev, and his writings are referred to as the chidushim of the Griz – the Gaon Rav Yitzchok Zev. Hence the statement that the Torah was not given on Har Grizim!
somejewiknow, no, I did not get it wrong.
It doesn’t matter what sources are quoted, those who are rabidly anti-Zionist – as opposed to those of us who are not Zionist but understand those who are – don’t accept any sources that disagree with their view.
Chaim87, don’t get so excited. All you have to do is realize where Hakatan is coming from, and that is that anyone who is or was pro-Zionism is by definition not a Gadol Beyisrael. So the minute you quote a Gadol as being pro-Zionist, in Hakatan’s eyes you have it wrong. Very simple.
Neville: If ARSo really is saying, as you seem to suggest, that we all just randomly came to the conclusion that Rashi is saying this on our own, then I would have to disagree with him.
No way! Chas Veshalom! What I said was that although we weren’t necessarily taught that piece of gemoro by melamdim, we were taught how to translate and understand Rashi, and therefore we know what Rashi means. That’s not random.
philosopher, you really are full of yourself, aren’t you? Do you think it makes any difference to anyone that you retracted your apology. It just continues to demonstrate your self-importance when citing ‘proofs’ that all on this thread who are regular gemoro learners, and who have been through the system, have no idea how to learn a Rashi as well as you do.
Give us a break!
philosopher: At that time I didn’t know this was taught in many chedarim and yeshivas.
I think a correction is needed. I was not taught in cheder that Gemoro or that Rashi, and I doubt that Neville or Shmei were either. We were, however, taught how to approach and learn a piece of Gemoro and Rashi, and based on that we came to the conclusion that Rashi holds that Yaakov is literally alive.
philosopher, I’m not going to reiterate for the who-knows-what-number time. So to make it really short, your arguments are wrong and you DO NOT know how to learn a Rashi.
Take it of (more likely) leave it. They way you interpret the way you want to, because of your wokish reasons – as I pointed out in my earlier post – are bordering on apikorsus and megaleh panim shelo kehalacha.
I don’t intend to reply to your posts about me/Neville being a bully, or any other repeat misinterpretations of yours (although I may not always be able to resist the temptation!), but I’m still here to discuss other areas of discussion on this thread.
philosopher: your ridiculous assumptions that i have to accept your arguments because you are men and I’m a woman. That is absolutely preposterous.
Nope. Not at all preposterous. A woman, as well as anyone who has not been through cheder and yeshivah, should not argue about gemoro, Rishonim and Acharonim, with me, Neville or anyone else who is a shomer Torah uMitzvos (which I assume you are too) and has been through cheder and yeshivah and who continues learning to some degree consistently.
You seem to continue taking it as an insult, but it’s not. Just as when the gemoro says that המלמד בתו תורה כאילו מלמדה תפלות is not an insult to women, and בינה יתירה ניתנה לאשה is not an insult to men. They are statements of Chazal who knew the depths of people’s psyches and knew that there are MAJOR intellectual and emotional differences between men and women.
philosopher to Neville: nor does anyone have a right to argue pshat differently than what he, Neville, was taught in cheder…unbelievable. He’s a total bully, which as I mentioned earlier, is a result of low self esteem.
You, philosopher, have no right to decide how to learn pshat in Rashi since you did not go through the cheder-yeshivah experience. And you certainly have no right to argue with the Or Hachayim or the Rif on the Ein Yaakov. But that’s ok, you and your unmentionable colleague – and he also did not have a cheder-yeshivah upbringing – know better because you have decided to misinterpret Rashi to suit your wokish understandings (e.g. Yaakov can’t be alive in a grave because then he would be suffering).
I reiterate, it’s not your of his fault that you/he didn’t go through the cheder-yeshivah experience, but it’s also not my fault that I’m not a brain surgeon, yet it would be totally ridiculous for me to attempt brain surgery because “it’s not my fault”. You and him (If qwerty is indeed merely a him. Who knows what he has decided to be? Perhaps he has decided to be His Holiness.) should not argue with those who have had years of experience learning from melamdim who knew how to learn and knew how to teach. It doesn’t make us better than you. It makes us more knowledgeable in this field.
And you calling Neville a bully reminds me once again about the pot and the kettle.
philosophere, unlike qwerty’s posts, which I do not even read, I do read yours, but I just don’t have the patience to keep on repeating where you go wrong and minunderstand. But I will point out a few things in short.
1. When I say that according to Rashi Yaakov Avinu is alive, I mean alive in a physical sense. You said – totally wrongly – that Rashi does not hold that. So you are definitely arguing that Yaakov Avinu is not alive.
2. Yes, you are a woman, and you should not be arguing with those of us who have been yeshivah-trained from a very very young age.philosopher: Neville, I feel bad for your family members… you enjoy squabling constantly with people who don’t agree with your opinions.
How does that saying about the pot calling the kettle go again?
yashardik, welcome to the fray. Just a word of warning, don’t ever say anything that could even be construed as agreeing to the most innocent statement made by a Lubavicher on this thread – even agreeing to the state of the weather – or you will cause vitriol to be poured on your head!
The question is: why equate the Lubavitcher Rebbe zt”l with these lofty individuals?
This is the essence of the matter.As I have written a number of times on other threads here, that is a minor part of the problem. It is not equating the LR to Yaakov Avinu and Moshe Rabbeinu, it is also twisting and deliberately distorting maamarei Chazal and Rishonim to suit their agenda. For example, in Sanhedrin 98b it says that Mashiach can be someone who died (which, again as I have illustrated numerous time, can ONLY be referring to Daniel Ish Chamudos) therefore it’s ok to say that the LR will be Mashiach.
Another example, the Rambam says that Mashiach יכוף – will coerce – all Yidden to keep the Torah, but that doesn’t actually mean coerce, it means convince/encourage, which is what the LR was doing.
to me, it is irrelevant whether Yaacov Ovenu was really alive or not
It’s true that it’s irrelevant to the original/main topic of this thread, but it is still important to weed out those who have the need to interpret meforshim to fit in with their own mindset, as that, in essence, is along the same lines as the aforementioned Lubavichers.
yankel berel: I expected a serious answer …
They only question in the post of yours that I addressed was whether there were two qwertys. As I have writting a number of time, I don’t read anything that qwerty writes, so I have no idea.
yankel berel: Is it true that there are 2 different Qwerty’s on this thread ?
I knew qwerty was out of his mind, but I didn’t realize he was schizophrenic!
Neville quoting someone – I can only guess who: “A bunch of crazy people,I hope all of you DIE right now,just DIE,.you see how Rebbe lubawitz will kill you.you dont have to stop,he will STOP you.”
How on earth does this type of stuff get through? Surely there are limits.
Lostspark: Who knew that QWERTY was at a higher level of kedusha than the Rebbe. He can drag the Rebbe lahavdil through the mud with his lashon hara but at soon as I have something to say it’s not posted.
I have no idea what you’re talking about as I haven’t read any of qwerty’s posts since, I think, before Rosh Hashono. I suggest you do the same, as my menuchas hanefesh has increased manifold since I have stopped having any connection with that looney.
NP, do you see yet how she has a crooked way of learning? Once again she says that Rashi can’t mean that Yaakov is alive because the passuk says that his sons saw he had died, and Rashi can’t be arguing with a passuk. But – as we have said so many times that it’s getting annoying – this is exactly what the Ramban addresses AND RESOLVES!
As I wrote, I don’t intend to argue with philosopher any more because it’s a waste of time. But you, NP, should at least see how her method of deciding what Rashi must be saying is twisted.
And to address your claim that there is no meforash who says that Yaakov is physically alive, there is the Or Hachayim and the Rif who both say that he was in a type of comatose state. And your terminology “in the sense that his body was still animated when he was buried” is so vague that I can’t agree or disagree with it!
If by animated you mean that he could move, the gemoro in Sotah says that he did when Esav was killed. True, he wasn’t yet buried, but Rav Nachman’s question on the statement that Yaakov Avinu lo meis was also on the fact that he was embalmed and mourned, not just on the fact that he was buried.
So what do you mean by that statement?
Btw – and I think this was mentioned before, but it was also before you joined the discussion – why did Rav Nachman only have a problem with the fact that Yaakov was embalmed, mourned and buried, when this is just a “physical” problem. Why didn’t he bring philosopher’s ‘proof’ that Rabi Yochanan was wrong because the passuk says clearly that Yaakov’s sons saw that he had died? Or is it only Rashi who can’t possibly be arguing on a passuk, but an Amora can?
coffee addict: Once death doesn’t disqualify Dovid Hamelech it shouldn’t disqualify anyone else
But that’s the excuse the Lubavichers use to say that their rebbe can be Mashiach! “Once the gemoro says that Daniel can be Mashiach, any dead person can be Mashiach.” And it doesn’t follow. The Yerushalmi could easily be saying that if it’s someone who died, it was Dovid Hamelech. Furthermore, the Yerushalmi (and the Bavli for that matter) mentions someone WHO HAS DIED. Not someone who will have died by the time we learn the gemoro! So it can’t be talking about anyone who has died over the last 1500 years.
coffee addict: And btw the Gemara in yerushalmi says that moshiach can come from the dead outright
Can you cite a source please? I know that in mesehcta Berachos 2:4 it tells the story of a child assumed to be Mashiach who was taken by the wind, but not that he died.
It also says that “if Mashiach if from the dead, then his name is David”, but that may mean that it is/was David Hamelech, not that it can be any random dead person who was named David.
I’m not saying there aren’t other sources in Yerushalmi, I’m just requesting citations if there are.
OK. I’m done with discussing this with philosopher. And I commend Neville for his ‘research’ on philosopher’s past posts where she shows how she deals with Rishonim.
I stand by what I said. Women should not be getting involved in these topics. Not because they are dumb or stupid, but because they don’t know how to discuss them.
You know what, philosopher, don’t respond to me anymore. I’m sick of your changing your views when you are stuck in a corner, and I reiterate, it’s not your fault that you are a woman, but you just don’t understand the derech halimud that men are taught.
Btw, just for the record. I may have made mistakes – although in this case I did not as you definitely changed your view – but I haven’t lied.
NP: I don’t think it’s fair to assume that Hashem does things he is not on record saying he does.
As far as I can tell, you are addressing my claim that Hashem would have ensured that Yaakov not suffer if he is buried alive. I think that is obviously the case, and that it does not need a source. At any rate, you can’t use an argument that Yaakov would be suffering to disprove a pashut pshat in Rashi.
You don’t have a single unambiguous source for the proposition that we should interpret Rashi / Chazal as saying that Yaacov is alive in the full physical sense of the word.
Rashi, Rashi according to the Ramban’s understanding, the Or Hachayim and the Rif on Ein Yaakov.
Sorry, philosopher, but you’re backtracking and also wrong.
1. You most definitely did say that Rashi can’t be saying that Yaakov Avinu was alive because the passuk later says that his sons saw that he had died. And when we repeatedly cited the Ramban’s resolution to that problem, you totally ignored it… and you then repeated your “proof”.
2. The Or Hachayim and the Rif on the Ein Yaakov both say that he was alive, but that he was immobile and in a faint-like situation. Not that there was some vague sort of connection between his body and his neshamah.
While you are not abusive like another poster whom I stopped reading quite a few weeks ago, you don’t argue fairly and you change your stance to suit whatever seems to you to be a winning view. I therefore find it very difficult, and frustrating, to continue this discussion with you.
NP, are you a close friend or related to philosopher? You explain her words to mean things that she does not say and did not mean. Why?
yankel berel: Not that they are modeh al ha’emet in their hearts.
They are too far gone for that.
But that their silence is proof that they do not have any good answers.I agree with the what you’re saying there, but that is not shtika kehoda’a. It’s shtika to cut your losses.
NP to me: You wrote: I don’t think it’s fair to assume that Hashem does things he is not on record saying he does. You don’t have a single unambiguous source for the proposition that we should interpret Rashi / Chazal as saying that Yaacov is alive in the full physical sense of the word. You have many sources that say clearly not like that.
??? I said nothing of the sort!
NP: I think her primary issue is that one cannot use that Ramban to justify the position that Rashi holds that Yaacov is alive in the full physical sense.
I don’t know why you are putting words in her mouth that she clearly is NOT saying. She refuses to accept that according to the Ramban the passuk saying the Shevatim saw that Yaakov had died does not contradict Rashi’s statement that Yaakov did not die, as she keeps quoting that passuk as “proof” that Rashi CANNOT mean that Yaakov did not die.
How can you defend her citing that passuk as proof when the Ramban says it is not a proof?
Non Political: So according to Rashi, as the Ramban understands him, the above psukim can’t be proof texts that he died. Of course, that does NOT mean that he understands Rashi as saying that he is literally alive or buried alive.
Your statement regarding the Ramban’s understanding of Rashi’s view is totally irrelevant to this part of the discussion, which centered on philosopher repeatedly quoting the passuk as proof that Rashi CANNOT mean that Yaakov Avinu is literally alive.
As I – and Neville in the past – have pointed out, philosopher has ignored our references to the Ramban, and that is why we find it extremely difficult and frustrating to deal with her arguments.
Non Political: If he is physically alive in the full sense of that concept then both of those conditions would still apply and he would be suffering.
You are assuming that he is suffering because you imagine yourself being buried alive. But as it would clearly be miraculous for Yaakov to be alive even after he has been buried for some time, I think it would be fair to assume that Hashem ensured that he was not suffering.
“And don’t forget that she keeps on insisting that Rashi can’t be saying that he is alive because a later passuk says he died, and Rashi can’t be arguing with a passuk. This is all despite the fact that the Ramban explains that according to Rashi the sons mistakenly thought that he died, which philosopher keeps intentionally ignoring.”
I am not sure why she used that as a proof. Maybe she made a mistake. It happens to the best of us.
Is that the best you can come up with?! She has reiterated that stance, and ignored Neville’s and my replies re the Ramban resolving the issue, MANY times, and all you can say is that “she made a mistake”?! It indeed happens to the best of us, but in this she is not the best as she has been referred to that Ramban, and ignored it, so many times!
In fact, I just saw that she does it again in the very post that immediately follows the post of yours that I just quoted! How are you going to justify that?
I don’t think she is worth arguing with because she bases her “Torah” understanding on her own prejudices and misunderstanding.
yb, the klal of shtika kehoda’s doesn’t apply in cases when the person who remains quiet does so because he knows that he won’t be able to convince others of his view. So if a Lubavicher is quiet in the fact of criticism, it doesn’t mean he agrees with it.