Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
yb, I doubt you’ll get them to ever acknowledge defeat.
Non Political, you came very late into the discussion. I’m not going to ask you to read everything we wrote before you came along, but you’re not knowing what philosopher said makes a big difference.
One of the things she said was that Yaakov Avinu can’t be alive because he would be suffering there, and why would Hashem make him suffer. She also argued that Rashi does not mean he is alive. There was lots of other stuff, but those two are what comes to mind at the moment. So we (and Neville) definitely argued.
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.
As to your claim that none of the mefarshim say that all conditions of being alive apply to Yaakov Avinu, look again at the Or Hachayim who writes:
חי הוא אלא דורמיטא קראתו כישן ונרדם, which to me seems clear that he’s saying that Yaakov was fully alive (and breathing!) and in a sort of comatose state.The Rif also seems to be saying the same thing: כי נתבטלו כחות התנועה ויאסוף רגליו אל המטה ויגוע כאיש שנתעלף ומוטל כאבן שאין לו הופכין
Non Political, please explain how the following does not indicate a cavalier attitude to Rishonim.
Rashi – a Rishon – says that Yaakov Avinu did not die. That would seem to contradict the passuk that says that the Shevatim saw that Yaakov had died. The Ramban – another Rishon – notes this problem and resolves the issue by saying (clearly according to Rashi) that they thought that he had died, but they were mistaken. This is all explicit in the Ramban.
philosopher has written numerous times that Rashi cannot mean that Yaakov literally did not die, because the passuk says that the Shevatim saw that he had died.
It has been pointed out to her that the Ramban resolves this problem, but philosopher continues to ignore that and claim – numerous times – that Rashi could not possibly be contradicting a passuk.
Google defines “cavalier attitude” as “having an unconcerned or disdainful attitude about important matters”. If philosopher continues to ignore the resolution provided by the Ramban, she is displaying a cavalier attitude to Rishonim.
Non Political, as I have written in the past, I have no idea what it means to be alive after being buried. Perhaps Yaakov could see, hear and talk; perhaps he couldn’t. The gemoro in Sotah 13a tells how Yaakov Avinu opened his eyes and laughed or smiled. But that may have been a once off.
At any rate, I don’t know whether option 1 or option 2 of yours is what is meant by Rashi et al.
philosopher, nice of you not to deign to answer questions that ignorami such as myself and Neville ask. Well done. You’ve said your point that certain points are ridiculous, and we have to just accept that because you clearly know what you are talking about. After all, you say so yourself, period.
Well I don’t know about Neville, but I see virtually no logic at all in any of the arguments that you “checkmate” (is that copyright?) us with.
And Non Political, I definitely see philosopher having a cavalier attitude to Rishonim, starting with her writing countless times that Rishonim can’t argue with a passuk, and thus ‘proving’ that Yaakov Avinu died, despite it being pointed out to her countless times that the Ramban explains that according to Rashi the Shevatim believed that Yaakov had died even though he hadn’t.
Non Political, sorry, but I don’t recall you paraphrasing the Rif in English. But regardless, here is exactly what he wrote in the original Lashon Hakodesh, and it clearly says that Yaakov Avinu was alive (I would highlight the relevant section, but I suspect that since it is in Hebrew the direction may be reversed, and thus messed up. So instead I’ll just say that the most relevant part starts with the words ומה שנקבר ונספד and ends with כי כל עוד נפשו בו.)
אמר הכי אמר רבי יוחנן יעקב אבינו לא מת דהא לא כתיב מיתה ויגוע וימת כדכתיב באברהם ויצחק אלא ויגוע ויאסף לומר שכח הנפש נשאר בגופו של יעקב ולא נפרדה הנפש מעל הגוף ואף על פי שהוא אמר אנכי מת ואלהים פקוד יפקוד וגו’ לא ידע מה שיהיה וחשב שגם הוא ימות ותפרד הנפש ממנו כדרך כל הארץ והקש’ לו א”כ בכדי חנטו חנטייא שכיון שהנפש היתה דבוקה בגופו אין לחוש מרמה ותולעה כי הנפש משמרתו כמו שנפש החי משמר את בשרו שלא ירחוש וכן למה נספד ונקבר דהא עיקר הקבורה היא כדי שיתעכל הבשר אבל בהיות הנפש אדוקה עם הגוף אין שם עיכול בשר א”ל מקרא אני דורש הנני מושיעך מרחוק ואי לאו הקישא הוה אמינא דאע”פ שמת יעקב אמר הנני מושיעך מרחוק לפי שכשיש צער לישראל האבות מצטערים בקבר ובעת גאולתם יהיה תשועה מוצאת ליעקב אבל מהקישא דמקיש הוא לזרעו ילפינן דאף הוא בחיים כי כל עוד נפשו בו קשורה בגופו ומה שנקבר ונספד הוא כי נתבטלו כחות התנועה ויאסוף רגליו אל המטה ויגוע כאיש שנתעלף ומוטל כאבן שאין לו הופכין והם לא ידעו כי כל עוד נפשו בו ולכך חנטוהו וספדוהו ויקברו אותו מכ”מ בשעת הגאולה קרינן ביה הנני מושיעך מרחוק באחרית הימים לך תשועה מוצאת בגאולת בניך שהרי אתה חי בנפש ומה זרעו בחיים אף הוא בחיים
philosopher, I don’t enjoy arguing with you at all. In fact, it frustrates me no end. You keep on interpreting my (and others’) statements incorrectly, it seems unintentionally although I can’t be sure, and you also keep on ignoring sources that don’t suit you.
First, in relation to Yaakov Avinu, you write once again in no way do we HAVE to INTERPRET that Rashi is saying that Yaacov is physically alive and the pasuk said he died and no one can contradict a posuk in the Torah.
The Ramban tells us how according to Rashi the passuk is NOT contradictory even though Rashi holds that Yaakov Avinu did not die! How many times are you going to argue that Rashi can’t mean that Yaakov is alive because it contradicts a passuk. Again, am I meant to take your word for the way to learn, or will you give me permission to rely on the Ramban.
Furthermore, all other meforshim I’ve gone through say that he is alive in a spiritual sense.
The Or Hachayim, in explaining Rashi, says that Yaakov was buried while alive PHYSICALLY. So does the Rif on the Ein Yaakov. And again again, do I have to take your word, or can I rely on my reading and translating of those mefarshim?
Now re the Raavad:
Hashem cannot have had a guf if He existed before matter was created, period.
This makes no sense. Perhaps Hashem had a guf (no, I don’t believe He does/did, but I am addressing your assertion) and then created other matter.
He cannot have a guf if He has no form, period.
How do you know FROM PESUIM IN THE TORAH that He has no form? All I remember is the passuk saying that Bnei Yisrael did not see a form. Does it say EXPLICITLY IN THE TORAH that he has no form? Perhaps it does, but I can’t think offhand where. So please provide a source.
He cannot have a guf and exist forever, period.
Why? Your assertion has no basis other than your assertion, period.
He cannot have a guf and be in the upper worlds and lower worlds simultaneously, period.
Why? Again, you are basing your assertion on your assertion, period.
The Ravaad is not saying that we cannot conclude from the Torah that Hashem has no guf and not that there were great people who thought Hashem has a guf. What the Ravaad is actually saying, according to the Piaseczner Rebbe, Rabbi Shapira zt”l, was that while God is unquestionably incorporeal, if someone has a need to visualize some sort of image…
From what you’re saying, the Piasecner Rebbe – I’d like to see a source, as this is interesting – is explaining why the Raavad says that someone who believes that Hashem has a guf is not a min. He is not saying, according to what you have written, that the Raavad agrees with your statement that it is obvious from the pesukim that Hashem has no guf.
As I said, I’d like to see a source for what the Piasecner wrote, and for two reasons. One, because it is interesting. Two, because I have already seen that I cannot rely on your interpretations.
Thanks for the defense and explanation Neville.
Once again, in case Non Political is not stam being negative and really doesn’t understand, if the Raavad says that there were great people who understood from the pesukim that Hashem has a guf, then how can anyone – including philosopher – say that it’s dumb to say that Hashem has a guf?
That’s the point I was making – I thought I made it pretty clearly – and the point that Neville was defending.
Just to correct a typo in my earlier post, it should say לפי מה שראו במקראות.
philosopher, do you deliberately misunderstand what some of us say?
1. No one on this thread has claimed to believe that Hashem has a guf. As far as I can tell, we ALL believe that he doesn’t.
2. The Raavad writes that someone who does believe he has a guf cannot be called a min, because people whom he terms “greater than the Rambam” believed that Hashem has a guf, and they based that belief “לפי מה שראו במקרות” – “from what they saw in the pesukim”.
3. It therefore follows that the Raavad holds that it is not 100% obvious from the pesukim that Hashem does not have a guf. If he held otherwise he could not have written that those people who were greater than the Rambam saw it from the pesukim.
4. You claim that it is 100% obvious from the Torah that Hashem has no guf.
5. You are thus arguing with the Raavad about what can be undrestood from the pesukim.
6. So it’s you against the Raavad. Who would you like me to believe?
Non Political: Actually showed in my posts above that not a single Mefaresh under discussion understands Rashi to be saying that Yaacov is physically / literally alive the way you, ARso, and Menachem Shemei seem to want to understand Rashi.
The Or Hachayim, although not a classical mefaresh of Rashi, clearly says that according to Rashi, Yaakov is physically alive. So does the Rif on Ein Yaakov. Others may not, but that doesn’t mean that there is “not a single” one who says that Rashi holds that.
Non Political, you said that my two points don’t shtime because on the one hand I wrote that according to Rashi, Yaakov Avinu is alive physically, and then I wrote that being a finite human being (without Ruach Hakodesh) I can’t understand how someone can be alive in that state.
I believe the two don’t contradict. According to Rashi, Yaakov Avinu is alive, but because he is buried, and without oxygen or food, I don’t understand how it works. Just because I don’t understand how it works it doesn’t mean that I can’t accept that it is true (according to Rashi).
I also believe that Hashem created the world ex nihilo, but being a finite human being I don’t understand how that works. I still believe it, however.
Hope that makes my stance clearer and non-contradictory.
philosopher: I said that being physically alive in a kever for 3,000 years is the worst punishment you can give someone… Can you imagine being physically alive in you kever forever?
You’re making the wild assumption that for Yaakov Avinu to be alive in his kever would be ‘unpleasant’. I, on the other hand, assume that if Yaakov Avinu is alive in his kever, he does not find it unpleasant at all. If Hashem wants him to be alive why would Hashem not make it pleasant for him? Yonah, on the other hand, as you wrote, was being punished, so Hashem indeed made it unpleasant for him.
philosopher to me: You are just arguing for the sake of arguing with me. Why are you doing that?
Because it annoys me the way someone who claims to fight for the purity of Torah keeps on rejecting Rishonim who don’t fit in with her desired belief.
The Ramban clearly says that Hashem does not have a guf. The Raavad does not argue with that, but he DOES say that there were people who he refers to as better and greater than the Ramban who (mis)understood pesukim to indicate that Hashem does have a guf.
So if you are interested in the purity of Torah – which includes the words of Rishonim kemal’achim – then you can’t say point blank that it’s obvious from the pesukim that Hashem has no guf, because the Raavad says that it is not obvious from the pesukim! I don’t care what supposed proofs you have – you just can’t say that something the Raavad claims is obviously incorrect.
And you do the same with the Rashi. You want to ‘believe’ that no Rishon says that Yaakov Avinu was buried alive, so you twist and turn to say that Rashi doesn’t say it based on an alleged contradiction of a passuk which the Ramban, and other meforshim, clearly explain in a way which does not contradict the Rashi.
Finally, in answer to why I am arguing with you about Torah sheb’al peh when I claim that women should not be dealing with Torah sheb’al peh: I’m not discussing Torah sheb’al peh with you as your claims are AGAINST Torah sheb’al peh as explained by the meforshim! Rather, I’m arguing with you about the way you misunderstand the concept of Torah sheb’al peh.
Philosopher to me (and sorry I missed it until now): The Raavad is talking about who is a min. I can’t answer for others why they believed what they believed.
The Raavad is saying that someone who believes Hashem has a guf is NOT a min because there were people who were “better and greater” than the Rambam (!) who believed that Hashem has a guf because they misinterpreted the pesukim. So clearly it cannot be 100% clear from the pesukim that Hashem does not have a guf.
For me it’s very clear from the Torah, that Hashem has no guf.
Yet the Raavad says that it isn’t. So who should I believe?
How can Hashem have a guf if He was in existence before He created the universe/matter was created?
I could give you two plausible answers (even though I don’t believe in either of them):
1. He had a guf even before all other matter was created.
2. He created himself a guf at some very early stage.How can Hashem have a guf and be in the heaven and on earth at the same time?
I don’t understand why that rules out a guf.
How can Hashem have a guf when a guf has form and it says in the pasuk that Hashem has no form?
Which passuk please? I’m not saying there isn’t such a passuk, but I just can’t recall it. So please supply a source.
The final line is that the Raavad says that great people believed Hashem has a guf based on a misunderstanding of the pesukim. So are you just going to disregard the Raavad and say that it is impossible to say so?!
Non Political, I didn’t reply to your multiple choice question for a very simple reason (aside from the fact that it wasn’t addressed to me).
As I, a physically-bound human, cannot understand what it means to be alive and buried, I don’t want to choose as to what is the exact explanation.
Btw in Bava Basra 58a, which we learned a few months ago in Daf Yomi, it is clear from the story there that the Avos are alive in Me’aras Hamachpelah. OK it’s aggadata, and there are various opinions about how literal one is to take aggadata, but it does say that there.
philosopher, your long post once again missed the point and I’m tired of explaining to you nicely where you are mistaken. So let this be the last time, unless you have something new to say.
To write that the Or Hachayim in this passuk is not continuing with his explanation of the previous passuk, shows an absolute lack of understanding of how meforshei haChumash work. He is dealing with the pesukim in light of the gemoro that Yaakov Avinu lo meis even though he was embalmed and buried. Sorry, but you should really keep out of Torah sheb’al peh discussions between men who, although they might not be absolute geonim, but they have had years and years of a yeshivah learning background.
As to the Ramban, everybody here (that of course does not include the looney, as he is definitely not totally all there or all here) agrees that the Ramban starts by explaining Rashi, which he understands literally as we men do. Then he offers an alternative pshat. The Maharsha, by the way, does exactly the same. He explains Rashi literally, then disagrees respectfully. Only you and your the rabbis and talmudei (sic) chachamim that you allegedly ask hold differently. And I declare without reservation, if they say that Rashi does not mean it literally, not only are they not talmidei chachamim but they are not even talmudei chachamim.
Neville: Wow, I guess qwerty is the only true Litvisher left on the CR
Yes, I am a card-carrying member of a known chassidic group (it would be a little too arrogant even for me to say simply, I am a chossid), and I do not have the most overwhelming love for Litvaks, but I must be mocheh on your insult to the Litvish oilem by asserting that that looney is a member!
philosopher to me: 1. The Ohr Hachayim’s commentary is not on the Gemorah, it is on the Torah. It has no shaychus to the Gemorah. (And you had laughed at me on the other thread for not learning in yeshiva…lol)
First, what you wrote is absolutely ridiculous! Do you think the Or Hachayim just made up his pirush based on his own understanding – like you, unfortunately, seem to? Both he and Rashi on Chumash quote the gemoro of Yaakov Avinu lo meis, and the Or Hachayim is explaining how that works in line with the pesukim?
Second, I didn’t laugh at you for not having learned in a yeshivah. Aderaba, had you learned in a yeshivah I would indeed have laughed at you because women are not meant to. In fact I didn’t laugh at you at all. On the contrary, I think it’s sad that someone who has no men’s-yeshivah background gets involved in these discussions and tells all of us who have had a men’s-yeshivah background, how to interpret Chazal. You really should desist, because you write things that just don’t make sense when taken in full context!
“It has no shaychus to the Gemorah.” How can anyone with any yeshivah background say that after looking up the Or Hachayim, who writes on the preceding passuk: “והוא מאמר רז”ל (תענית ה ב) יעקב אבינו לא מת “. Gee! Keep away from these discussions because you are just proudly showing off your ignorance. You may have noticed that there is not one man with a yeshivah background on this list – at least none that I can recall; correct me if I’m wrong – who agrees with you about the Or Hachayim or Rashi’s shitah. Doesn’t that say something, or are you too blindly arrogant – sorry, but that’s the only way I can understand it – to admit that you’re out of your depth?
2. I bought the entire text of the Ramban on the other thread. It says absolutely NOTHING about Yaacov lo mes meaning that Yaacov’s guf is alive. In fact, the Ramban gives another explanation for Yaacov lo mes entirely.
Oh come on! Not again! The Ramban concludes with what you have just written, but he starts with Rashi – which was, and is, the point of this discussion – and he understands Rashi, as we men with yeshivah backgrounds do, that according to Rashi Yaakov Avinu did NOT physically die. He was embalmed in some form, and buried while still alive. Leave us alone with quoting sources that may be Torah miSinai but are not relevant to what Rashi holds.
Check again and find one post of mine (or I believe of anyone else’s) where I say that it is universally accepted that Yaakov Avinu literally did not die. I, and all the others, have written explicitly that that is Rashi’s view, together with a number of Acharonim. So please, please, please stop quoting sources that don’t tell us what Rashi holds!
Sorry, but I still think it would be better if you stuck to whatever you are good at, and I’m sure there are a number of things. Discussing Torah sheb’al peh with men is NOT your forte!
Neville: However, in the Chassidishe world–whether it’s Chabad, whatever group of which ARSo is a “card-carrying member,” or even those marginally on the Chassidish spectrum–you’re very, very unlikely to hear us explicitly say that we disagree with Rashi.
US! And here I was under the assumption that you were a Litvak. What a terrible accusation, and I apologise profusely!
philosopher: Arso, lostspark, the Ohr Hachayim is not saying that Yaacov’s guf is alive forever. The Torah says that at the time he expired he was not a mes and the posuk 50:1 is what the Ohr Hachayimis commenting on; it is only later in the parshah where the Torah says that Yaacov mes.
1. You’re missing the point. The gemoro says that Yaakov Avinu was alive even after he was embalmed and buried. The Or Hachayim is just explaining what is meant by lo meis, and by extension, since he is taking the gemoro literally, the implication is that he holds that he was alive even after burial.
2. And once again, for the innumerable time, you are ignoring the Ramban who explains Rashi and the possuk which seems to say that Yaakov meis.
Menachem: Someone has been baselessly accusing Arso of terrible things for a while now, and this individual is starting to reveal his true colors, which are even darker than we initially thought.
I am increasingly surprised at the recent absolute lack of moderation on this platform, which has now descended from maniacal rhetoric to inyonim of hepech hatznius, r”l.I can only assume it’s qwerty you’re referring to, as I read all the posts other than his. The guy’s is completely out of his mind, and I don’t think it’s worth dealing with him. However, your point about the mods is very relevant. What’s happened to them?
philospher: No talmud chuchem and no yiras shomayim is laughing at what Rashi is saying c”v. They just find it amusing that there are people who interpret what Rashi is saying to mean that Yaacov’s guf is physically alive in his kever.
So they find the Or Hachayim amusing? As Lostspark quoted:
וישק לו. פירוש לו נשק אבל אין נכון לעשות כן למת אחר כי המת גדוש בטומאה וטומאתו בוקעת ועולה עד לרקיע ותפגם הנפש הנושקת אלא לו ליעקב כי חי הוא אלא דורמיטא קראתו כישן ונרדםNeville, once again you made a very valid point at the end of your last post, and you made me very jealous!
philosopher: We see clearly from the Torah, that Hashem has no guf.
I’m not disputing that Hashem has a guf c”v, just your statement that it is clear that that is the case from the Torah.
In Mishneh Torah Hilchos Teshuvah (3:7) the Rambam write that one who says that Hashem has a guf is a min. The Raavad argues that such a person should not be considered a min as, “a number [of people] greater and better than him [the Rambam] followed this view because of what they say in the pesukim… which confused the minds.”
ולמה קרא לזה מין וכמה גדולים וטובים ממנו הלכו בזו המחשבה לפי מה שראו במקראות ויותר ממה שראו בדברי האגדות המשבשות את הדעותSo it’s not so clear from the Torah itself.
philosopher, I apologize! It was not you who said/implied that Mashiach can be a woman. It was Happy New Year. My mistake totally, and, as I said, I apologize unreservedly.
Neville to philosopher: There’s no way I can think of to word this nicely, so I’m just going to be blunt: some of us don’t like asking our rabbis stupid questions.
Very well put! You make me jealous when you post things that I should have thought of posting myself.
Btw are you still reading the looney’s posts. It’s such a pleasure to completely ignore them, although I have to admit that while scrolling I see he has a wonderful title for you.
In the seforim it says that when someone insults you, he gets your aveiros and you get his zechuyos. It would be great if it applied here, but I wonder whether the looney has any zechuyos at all.
I have stopped reading qwerty altogether, as I’m scared I’ll laugh so hard I won’t be able to stop. As to philosopher, I currently glance at what she’s saying, but it seems I’ll soon stop that.
Kudos to Neville and Lostspark for their posts, and especially for their cutting retorts. Although I have to disagree with Neville on one thing he wrote. To say that philosopher is entiteld to her view is, I believe, untrue. A Yid is not entitled to misread a Rashi and to ignore Rishonim who explain it. That’s what she continues to do, and that, IMHO is unfortunately apikorsus.
In the meantime… כתיבה וחתימה טובה to all!
Neville, I think you should just ignore her. She twists and turns to justify her apikorsishe view (yes, unfortunately, “playing” with Rishonim and Chazal the way she does – not to mention where she implied that Mashiach can be a woman – is apikorsus) based on her own mind, and then she continues to ignore the fact that the Ramban (in explaining Rashi) and others says clearly that Yaakov’s guf was alive.
“6 or 7 people”?! She doesn’t care whether you have the entire Anshei Knesses Hagedolah against her. She knows better!
Btw I see I was right in assuming that once you take up the argument you will be branded by the looney.
כתיבה וחתימה טובה to all (without exception)
1. It’s a relief having come to the realization that ignoring qwerty is the best thing. Saves me time and energy, and frustration that there are such ingorant and apikorsishe looneys who consider themselves clever and knowledgable. The only thing I regret is not having thought of it earlier.
2. Philosopher, I’m coming to the conclusion that it’s not worth arguing with you. BH you are not on the level of the rabid qwerty, but you ignore misinterpret and conclude things that are illogical. Note: I am not the only one who has said that. (Of course, anyone who takes my side in anything at all is passeled by the looney.)
The Ramban was quoted to show how HE understood Rashi, when you and others said that Rashi could not be taken seriously. Clearly the Ramban takes Rashi seriously enough to resolve the issue that you brought up (and that you won’t let go of). That’s the point that Shmei made originally.
And I think you got yankel berel’s point wrong. I understood him to be saying that you quoting what the Ramban himself holds does not have any bearing on what Rashi holds, and that when dealing with Rashi the Ramban clearly says that Rashi holds that Yaakov Avinu is alive. In other words, you’re quoting of the latter part of the Ramban did nothing to support your view.
Maybe I’m wrong about yankel berel’s intention. yankel berel can you please tell us whether I am right or whether philosopher is?
yb: Daniel [and / or other worthy individuals who have died] NEVER claimed it and therefore NEVER failed any test.
Think this is pashut kebe’a bekutcha.It’s takke pashut, but it’s not pashut that the Ramban meant that at all. That’s where you’re drawing a long bow, and I believe, unnecessarily.
If you pay careful attention to what Rashi is saying there, he writes that if Mashiach WAS someone who died, then it WAS Daniel. Neither the gemoro nor Rashi give any room for a second coming. So what did the Ramban have to be worried about? That the xian would say that it was yoshke even though he has died? If he would try to back his naarishkeit from the gemoro, he has no source. And if he’s going to deliberately misinterpret the gemoro, or totally ignore it, why would he care that Daniel did not make a claim?
Sorry but I still think that you’re trying to prove a point that you thought of but that has not source or even implication.
philosopher, you are out of your depth by many many fathoms.
What I and Shmei said:
1. Rashi says that Yaakov Avinu did not die. (I don’t understand it, but there are lots of statements of Chazal and Rishonim that I don’t understand. That doesn’t change the fact.)
2. The Or Hachayim, the Rif on Ein Yaakov and others hold that Yaakov Avinu did not die. (You’re ranting and raving – have you been infected by a fellow conspiracy theorist? – that you have not seen that Rif is so immature. It’s there and everyone who has seen it acknowledges it. From what I understand you seem to be claiming that Shmei intentionally cited both the Rif (aka the Alfas) and the Rif on Ein Yaakov as two citations. I don’t recall him doing that. Maybe he did. I doubt it. But even if he did, it’s not relevant to what Rashi says.)
3. The Ramban was ALWAYS quoted in this thread to prove NOT WHAT HE HIMSELF HELD but what Rashi held. And he explains and resolves an apparent problem – the one you asked – in Rashi. So the Ramban agrees that Rashi holds that Yaakov Avinu did not die. That’s why Shmei quoted the Ramban. You then went and quoted what the Ramban himself holds, which is fine BUT NOT RELEVANT TO OUR DISCUSSION ABOUT RASHI’S VIEW. Yankel berel wrote that to you.You have accused me and I have accused you, as follows.
You have accused me of saying that I personally believe that Yaakov Avinu is alive. I have challenged you to show us where I said that, and you couldn’t be bothered combing through the posts again. Great way to avoid admitting a mistake. Something worthy of your cohort too.
I have accused you of not knowing how to learn gemoro and meforshim and of spouting apikorsus (possibly without realizing). Others have backed me up on both points. They have also backed me up on how ridiculous your statements are in light of the above-qouted meforshim.It’s time you took a break and realized that you are talking against Torah sheb’al peh, which, to put it mildly, is not very good!
Lostspark: I suggest the conversation continues in Hebrew/Yiddish in order to create a barrier of entry for the dentist that forgot to take his meds.
I don’t think that’s necessary because as far as I can tell he doesn’t understand simple English either.
philosopher, you keep lambasting Shmei because he is, in your words, trying to prove the authenticity of his Avoda Zara. Either he is or he isn’t, but you know very well that I am most definitely not trying to prove anything from Rashi in connection to Lubavich. So why on earth do you keep taking that tack, and not addressing the issue?
Rashi says something. You had a question on it. It must be a good question because the Ramban asks and answers the question that you asked. But if you keep on harping about that question you are clearly ignoring the Ramban. Why?
Not to mention that there is the Or Hachayim and the Rif on the Ein Yaakov. And, as I have mentioned, the Maharsha, while he definitely disagrees with Rashi, nonetheless says that Rashi says it and means it. You keep ignoring those gedolei olam, and then you take offence when I, and others, say you are spouting apikorsus!
And you have still not have not been able to cite one post of mine or of Shmei’s where we say that WE believe that Yaakov Avinu is alive. What I DO believe is that Rashi says it.
No, instead you resort to juvenile statements like, “I’m still waiting for you to tell me which Rabbi you asked.” How juvenile. I told you I wasn’t going to ask anyone as the above mentioned meforshim are good enough for me. Yet you REFUSE to deal with the Ramban.
yankel berel: So here the point comes. If a person failing the test [because of his results-less demise], is accorded a second chance to produce results, then per force there is no test whatsoever. He can ALWAYS claim a second coming during which he produces the results …..
With all due respect, you keep on trying to force a differentiation between someone who died after ‘starting the process’ and someone died without starting it. But you have no proof. You’re just basing it on a supposed concern of the Ramban in his disputation etc. Sorry, I still don’t see it.
Happy new year, you sound partially xian, partially Karaite and partially kook.
100% of Gemoro – not 80% as you wrote – is Torah.
Neville re what philosopher wrote: She?! Okay, now I’ll call you an apikorus.
Neville, you are a welcome breath of fresh air!
Please all of you who are interested see the post I just sent to the other thread. As I wrote the other day, I couldn’t be bothered doubling-up my replies about the same point.
First, thanks Neville and coffee addict for reiterating what both Menachem and I have been trying to say. Maybe they’ll listen to you. On the other hand, maybe you’ll be found guilty by association and be called some interesting juvenile epithets.
Which leads me to the following.
I suspect that qwerty is mentally unbalanced, and depite my disgust and distaste for him, I don’t want to be the one who causes him to go over the edge and do who-knows-what. Therefore, I have decided that until he stops posting inflammatory stuff I will totally ignore all his posts.
Of course, he will now say that he has checkmated me (I wonder if he’s ever even seen a chessboard…) and that that is why I am ignoring him. But – I really hope he can understand something as simple as this; I have my doubts – if qwerty desists from his infantile rabid style, I will bli neder deal with his posts. If he continues to be rabid, even if it is not me he is attacking, I will pretend he does not exist. I don’t want to be the one straw that breaks his mental state and leads him to harm himself or others chas veShalom.
As to philosopher, please read what Neville wrote to you. לא בחנם הלך הזרזיר אצל העורב
Although I strongly disagree with ARSo on most Lubavitch matters, I respect him as a level-headed poster and contributor to the CR.
Menachem, thanks for the compliment! And the same is true in the reverse. I disagree strongly with Lubavich views that you have posted elsewhere, but you’re certainly level-headed and not a looney.
And thanks for reminding me that qwerty used to be censored a lot, and that we didn’t know why.
I too what has happened to the mods…
First, Neville my apologies for not compllimenting you for writing what you did in the original post. It was clear and to the point.
Second, as it seems that this thread is devolving into a parallel thread to the original Chabad Media one, I think that although I will possibly read both, I intend to reply to anything that is related to the other thread as well only there. It’s just too much effort writing more or less the same thing twice.
So if you’re interested in what I have to say, look over there. Unless they close down that thread, then I may return here.
philosopher: i am not talking about the Lubavitche and pro-Lubavitche bringing sources that moshiach can come from the dead, my point in my last post is that they are arguing on Ramban and Ramban who said that moshiach can’t come from dead.
As you know, I have said numerous times that the LR is not, was not, and cannot be Mashiach for a number of reasons. One of those is that he has died and pre-Gimmel Tammuz all Lubavich, without even one exception, held that Mashiach had to be someone who is alive.
Nonetheless, I find it laughable that you cite the Ramban as a proof when you refuse to acknowledge, let alone accept, his resolution of your question from a passuk.
yankel berel to me: You write that someone who argues on rishonim and meforshim about pshat in gmara is apikorsus.
Not necessarily so.I thought I was being clear, but perhaps I wasn’t, so let me try now.
If you argue on a Rishon or one of very early and well-accepted Acharonim based on the fact that other people of equal stature to them argue, then there is nothing wrong, as long as you agree that אלו ואלו דברי אלקים חיים.
If, however, you reject a view of someone of that stature because it makes no sense to your small brain, then you are an apikorus.
Do you agree with that?
At any rate, here we are dealing with a third type of person: someone who rejects the existence of a view because they reject that view. That is, Rashi did not say it because it doesn’t make sense. If someone would make a shevua of that type it would be a shevuas shav because clearly Rashi does say it!
philosopher: Do you know how many men learnt in yeshiva and yet are amei haaratzim ?
No. Do you? One thing I do know, that you keep proving that men or women who do not have a yeshivah background are lacking in the basic knowledge of how to understand Rashi and other meforshim.
qwerty, keep piling on the insults. They work in my favor and against you. Although, you probably won’t be punished for your ravings because you seem to be a lunatic.
philosopher, qwerty and anyone else interested: Show me one post where I said that Yaakov Avinu is alive. I said that Rashi et al said it, and that one is not allowed to reject Rashi based on one’s logic.
Then, once you have given up trying to find me saying that Yaakov Avinu is alive, show me one post where I have disagreed with the Maharsha. Even the Maharsha himself says that Rashi holds that Yaakov Avinu is alive (!) but he argues with Rashi. He is allowed to argue with Rashi because he was much closer to him chronologically (sorry qwerty, you probaby don’t know what that word means because it contains the word ‘logic’ which you cannot comprehend) and he was a tzaddik gamur who wrote with Ruach Hakodesh. We, on the other hand, can’t reject Rashi or the Maharsha, and we have to resort to the rules of שבעים פנים לתורה and אלו ואלו דברי אלקים חיים. The fact that none of us can understand what is meant by Yaakov Avinu being alive must not bring us to say that it can’t be literal if Rashi says it is.
philosopher, please answer this. question clearly: Does the Ramban ask the same question you asked based on the passuk about Yaakov Avniu’s sons seeing that their father had died?
If no, then you have not been paying attention. End of discussion. If yes, then next question: Does he answer it in one of two ways, the second being that they mistakenly thought he was dead?
If no, then you are either lying or not translating correctly. If yes, then why do you incessantly quote the passuk as a proof that NO ONE holds that Yaakov Avinu did not die, when the Ramban resolves that issue?
The only conclusion I can come up with is that you have an agenda and that that agenda is not allowing you to see straight. (I too have an agenda against Lubavich, even without their messianic claims, but that does not affect the way I have been taught to understand Rishonim and Acharonim!) And, unfortunately, when your agenda leads you to “disagree” with Rashi, it makes you close to an apikorus.
As to your “demand” that I ask some Rabbi (who you will undoubtedly disqualify; after all, if the Ramban, the Rif and the Or Hachayim are disqualified, what makes mine any better?) I’m not going to do it, and I already told you why on the other thread. Do you, or have you ever, used Artscroll? They say it in the name of Rashi. If that’s not good enough for you, your agenda has completely blinded you.
Listen, I KNOW that the Lubavicher rebbe died, and I KNOW the he is not Mashiach. So clearly my understanding of Rashi et al has nothing to do with Lubavich and their crooked beliefs. Would you agree that that is true? Seems obvious. So stop thinking that anyone who says that according to Rashi et al Yaakov literally did not die must have a Lubavich agenda!
No, philosopher, he wants to say what I’ve been saying a long time. qwerty is talking garbage and arguing from a standpoint that is against that of lomdei Torah for centuries. All his invective is pointless if he doesn’t know how a 15 year-old yeshivah bochur learns, and it’s clear that he doesn’t.
As to you having listened to many shiurim on Yaakov Avinu lo meis, and none having said that he is alive… so what? Rashi says it, the Rif on Ein Yaakov says it, the Or Hachayim says it, the Ramban defends it against your questions from pesukim – isn’t that enough for you?
If any of your aforementioned talmidei chachomim said that Rashi is wrong (c”v) I would call them apikorsim, or at the very least huge am haratzim, but I am 100% sure they did NOT say that. You have to realize that aggadata is a prime source for derashos and shmuessen which are designed to attract and uplift an audience. Citing other meforshim who explain the statement in a way which is more suitable for a derashah is par for the course, and I would do the same if I was giving a non-lomdish talk. Citing Rashi et al doesn’t give you much opening for a derashah. That doesn’t mean chas veShalom that they reject Rashi! Ask them.
There’s another point here which is very very important. Were you to reject Rashi on the basis that the Maharsha or some other well-accepted meforash does, you would be wrong in doing so because אלו ואלו דברי אלקים חיים, but it would be little more than a mistake. If you reject Rashi because in your opinion what he says doesn’t make sense (c”v), which is what you have implied by incessantly referring to the impossibility of him breating etc underground, then you are rejecting him based on YOUR comprehension. That is unacceptable in Torah learning, and close, if not equal, to apikorsus.
philosopher: Arso, BTW, not to argue again over Yaacov lo mes again, but I do want to know if you took the advice you gave me to speak to a ruv or talmud chuchem if Yaacov lo mes means he is physcally alive in his kever.
No, I didn’t. And the reason is because I have a yeshivah background and have been learning gemoro with meforshim for many years. As I just wrote to qwerty, I was a high-level gemoro teacher for a number of years, and the parents and administration were distraught when I had to leave due to family commitments. In all the years, I never had one parent argue about my explanation of the gemoro I had taught his son.
I do not claim to be the biggest talmid chochom around, but I know how to understand a Rashi. I don’t need to go to someone and ask the stupid question, “What does Rashi believe?” when I can figure it out for myself.
You and qwerty, on the other hand, do not have that background, probably through not fault of your own. But just as I would be remiss to proffer an opinion about nuclear physics when I am talking to someone who has studied nuclear science for decades, you are remiss to argue with me and Shmei (despite him being a Lubavicher with quite possibly questionable beliefs) about how to understand a gemoro.
I urge you to read my previous post to qwerty in which I explain the impropriety of some of the things you say, and how I would explain to a student the correct attitude a yerei Shomayim has to have.
Please post the name of the rabbi you’ve spoken to about this who said that Yaacov’s guf is alive.
Rabbi Shlomo ben Yitzchak, 11th century commentator on the Talmud. Rabbi Yoshiya Pinto, 17th century scholar and commentator on the Ein Yaakov. Rabbi Haim ibn Attar, 18th century commentator on both the Talmud and the Pentateuch.
Well, to be honest, I haven’t actually spoken to them, but I have studied at least some of their writings.
One final word in this post:
I believe that you are seeking the truth, but because of your background you don’t know how much you have strayed. Please don’t take that as patronizing because that is not at all how I mean it. Shiv’im panim laTorah means that Rashi is right… as are those Rishonim, and early Acharonim like the Maharsha, who argue with Rashi! אלו ואלו דברי אלקים חיים. How does that work? We frail humans don’t understand, just as we don’t understand all the other secret ways of Hashem. But we cannot say that we disagree with any of them. That is apikorsus. So please be careful what you say, and don’t rely on the ravings of a fool. For your sake, not for mine.qwerty: To Lostspark
It takes a retard to know one. At least I’m successful.
Nope. It doesn’t take a retard to know one. But it certainly takes a retard to make such a juvenile statement.
And your defintion of success is clearly not a Jewish one. An apikorus, by definition, is a failure.
qwerty: I already conceded that you’re right about Rashi saying that Yaakov Avinu is alive.but I and all rational Jews follow Maharsha who disagree with Rashi.
In other words, you in your infinite wisdom, humility, non-arrogance, amazing literary skills, and more, “choose” to be rational – together will all rational Jews, of course – and “disagree” with Rashi.
What a chutzpah to say such a thing! You “disagree” with Rashi based on your rationality. You are truly, and very very sadly, an apikorus.
Listen, as someone who has a yeshivah-upbringing, and who taught high-level gemoro in a yeshivah for a number of years, let me set you straight. We NEVER say, “I disagree with [insert the name of any Rishon].” That is apikorsus. What we say is, “Shiv’im panim laTorah. Rashi says this. It doesn’t seem rational, but he was a Rishon who wrote with ruach hakodesh, so we can’t just ‘disagree’ with it.”
And if the the student still doesn’t understand, we explain on a more basic level: “Do you think Rashi was, chas veShalom, a simpleton? You’ve learnt Rashi for some years now, and you have certainly experienced his absolute brilliance. So do you really think that he doesn’t know that it is irrational to say that Yaakov Avinu is still alive? Of course he knows it. But he decided nonetheless to write that Yaakov Avinu is still alive. So please don’t make an utter fool of yourself by saying you disagree with him.”
Of course, qwerty, the above does not apply to you, because you are quite used to making an utter fool of yourself.
Lostspark: A narcissistic retard dentist and a woman debate a Lubavitcher and a Litvisher over a Torah subject they can’t comprehend.
Hey! Are you referring to me? I am a card-carrying member of a chassidic group, as I have mentioned in other threads.
Also, I can’t believe that you-know-who is really a dentist. Nor do I believe that he learns for hours upon hours each day and that he writes regularly for the JP. From his writing I get the feeling that he around 15 years-old and that he can’t control himself.