Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
yankel berel: Proclaiming to Klal Yisrael by force of a full-fledged Prophesy that RMMS has arrived to irrevocably take klal yisrael out of galut is an as clear as possible claim to the messiahship.
It’s certainly a clear claim to messianship, but how does that make it the start of the process? The Rambam makes no mention of the aspirer making a claim to be Mashiach. In fact when he talks about Ben Koziba he says that it was Rabi Akiva who declared that BK was Mashiach. (The Raavad, on the other hand, does say that BK himself made the claim.)
A claim which has to verified thru results and reality.
If there is a second coming and a second chance , then there is NO VERFICATION at all.100%. But there is a negative form of verification, that is that the dead person has done nothing so far to justify the claim that he is Mashiach, and he is therefore no better in this matter than any one of the millions of righteous Yidden who have perished over the last millennia.
Yankel berel: a] As far as I remember RASHI says ‘kegon’ Daniel. Not that Daniel is the only possibility if its min hameitim . There are other possibilities. So j would NOT be excluded according to that pshat of RASHI.
The gemoro itself says kegon Daniel, and Rashi says that that either means that if Mashiach was someone who has died it WAS Daniel (and Rashi adds that the word kegon is lav davka), or that Mashiach will be someone like Daniel. From Rashi, therefore, there is no wiggle room to say that it can be someone else who has died. yoshke would therefore definitely be excluded according to Rashi.
b] I am not ‘concerned’ about RAMBAN excluding j [because of his death], because he is contradicting RASHI. He contradicts RASHI many times.
According to what I have explained above, does he still contradict him here?
Now , let’s ask you . If the plastic and the forged one [or his followers for that matter] are able claim that a so called second coming will clear up all the left over mess, then we are back to square one.
Any failed , forged or plastic one , will say – I am still the right one . Just wait until I reappear.
.
Think about this.Call me stupid (this is an opening for qwerty to make his usual ‘pithy’ comments) but I don’t understand what you are trying to prove with the above.
qwerty, until you admit to Artscroll saying that Rashi holds that Yaakov Avinu is alive, you are a shirker and a liar because you said you would look it up and admit it if it’s true. Everyone can see that. You are also unfortunately an apikorus for declaring that whoever says that Yaakov Avinu is alive is wrong, as there are Rishonim and meforshim who do.
So your name-calling and infantile epithets don’t insult me at all. Aderaba they just give me more sachar, like when any other liar/am-haaretz/apikorus/xian would call me names.
Keep it up. I can do with all these zechuyos for defending Torah from people like you.
I think the funniest thing about you (perhaps it should be considered the saddest) is that because you want to see an agenda in everything some of us say, you yourself have developed an agenda and can’t even own up to your own commitments.
yankel berel, your suggestion that the Ramban differentiates between someone who has started the process and someone who has not is something you invented because you were ‘concerned’ how the Ramban got away with his refutation when, according to Rashi, Daniel could be Mashiach despite having died. But if you look at the gemoro you’ll see that it has nothing to do with Rashi as it is the gemoro itself that says that Daniel may be Mashiach.
If anything, Rashi makes a xian view even less acceptable, because he says either Mashiach is someone who is alive and similar to Daniel, or it was Daniel. It is only by ignoring Rashi that someone can wrongly extrapolate and say that someone else who has died is Mashiach.
So why come up with a differentiation based on conjecture and for which you have no source?
Furthermore, I would venture to suggest that if anything you have it back-to-front. Wouldn’t you agree that it is more likely for someone who has started to process to be an acceptable candidate after death than someone who has not started the process? If it has to be the latter, then why yoshke and not someone else?
And that would make the Rambam even more simple to understand. That is, even though Bar Koziba, whom Rabi Akiva supported and claimed that he was Mashiach, was disqualified when he died, how much more so someone who did not ‘start the process’.
As to your claim that by accepting petitions and the like the LR is believed by Lubavichers to have ‘started the process’, since when is accepting petitions a criterion? It certainly has no source in the Rambam. At any rate, what Lubavicher do or do not consider in regards to their rebbe is irrelevant to us.
coffee addict: Arso,
My question from bar kochba was according to Lubavitch “starting a process” makes someone a candidate for moshiach if that’s the case bar kochba has as much of a chance as the Rebbe of being moshiach
I don’t think that’s the case according to Lubavich. I think they decided long ago that the LR is Mashiach, and they distorted whatever they can in their attempt to have others believe it. Even if according to them he had not “started a process” they would still say he’s Mashiach!
Sorry yankel berel, but after reading your posts TWICE I still don’t understand how you claim to prove that, based on Rashi in Sanhedrin, there is a difference between someone whom we disqualify because he “started the process” before he died, and someone whom we don’t disqualify because he died before starting the process.
According to Rashi in Sanhedrin – and we don’t know for sure that the Ramban had that Rashi, but let’s assume he did – the gemoro’s mention of Daniel can mean either one of two things:
1. If Mashiach was someone who has died, it WAS Daniel. No one else.
2. Mashiach will have the same type of tzidkus/traits that Daniel had, but it will not be Daniel because Daniel has died,If the disputant of the Ramban believed in Rashi, then there is nothing further to discuss, as yoshke is both dead and he is not lehavdil Daniel.
If the disputant did not believe in Rashi, and he misinterpreted the gemoro by saying that the gemoro allows Mashiach to come from the dead, then what difference does it make if the dead person in question has started the process of geulah or not? The gemoro makes no mention of it. So why would the Ramban base any part of his argument on that. His argument, according to what you say, is that yoshke did not fit the criteria of Mashiach, period. Having started, or not having started, the process is irrelevant to the discussion.
Btw your differentiation between someone who has started the process and someone who has not works against you when it comes to the LR’s ‘candidacy’. He did not start the process – he may have wanted to, but he didn’t – and therefore according to your sevara – not mine! – he is not disqualified!
coffee addict to me: You know bar kochba also “started the process”
Bar Kochba was after the churban, and he waged a war to return Eretz Yisrael to the Jews, which seems to be “part of the process”. What did yoshke – who was in the times of the Beis Hamikdash – do to start the process?
yankel berel writes that yoshke allegedly claimed that he was the messiah. But that doesn’t seem to me as being part of the process. If anyone today would claim to be Mashiach and not do anything other than that, I don’t believe you would say that he had started the process.
Philosopher: Arso, as usual, you misunderstood. Qwerty said he’s out of the thread. I never said I’m leaving.
True. I misunderstood.
I said I’m not going to argue about Yaacov lo mes anymore. Why should I waste my time with people who want to believe that Yaacov Avinue is physically alive, that his body is breathing while buried under the ground, that he’s eating and his bodily functions are working while at the same time being his body is in his kever not being able to move?
Not one person on this thread, and not one of the meforshim I have seen, say that Yaakov Avinu is breathing, eating, or that his bodily functions are working. You take statements of Rashi and meforshim, twist them to reach your own conclusion, and then make fun of what you have concluded!
Yaakov Avinu being alive after embalmment and burial is clearly miraculous, and as far as miracles are concerned it’s not a greater miracle for him to be alive without breathing etc than it is for him to be alive at all.
I will not continue arguing with people who deny what it says outright in the Chumash that the brothers of Yosef saw their father DIED, and other pesukim that openly show that Yaacov died.
So the fact that meforshim of earlier times discuss this problem, and answer it (!), means nothing to you?! Or are you going to ignore me for making that point, because you “will not continue” (despite feeling justified in denigrating those of us who understand what Rashi et al say, even though you wrote that you will not continue arguing).
And my challenge to you is one of the main challenges to qwerty that went unaddressed:
Does Artscroll say explicitly that according to Rashi, Yaakov Avinu did not die? Yes or no, please? And if yes, are they also as stupid and unlearned as Shmei and myself?They don’t understand how to understand pesukim, Chazal and meforshim which only SEEM on the surface to contradict the pesukim that say that Yaacov died, but if learnt correctly, which these people obviously can’t or don’t want to
I take it you include in “these people” not only those on the thread, but also those meforshim, including the Ramban (Berishis 49:33), who answer your question.
I reiterate what I have said in the past, and although you will take it as an insult I mean it as a limud zechus. Women should not be involved in these discussions because they do not understand properly how learning Torah sheb’al peh works. (The same is true of men who do not have a yeshivah-education background.) Anyone who can stick to their question and ignore a Ramban who deals with it explicitly, hasn’t got a clue!
The fact is that you people choose to ignore meferishe pesukim
While you only ignore a Ramban who deals with the befeirushe pesukim…
because you want to use that as a springboard to then say the Lubavitche rebbe is alive. That is the point of you all arguing that Yaacov is physically alive.
And you say this to me?! How ridiculous! I challenge you to find anyone more adamant than me in arguing against the LR being Mashiach in a number of threads.
yankel berel: Did he not expect or anticipate a challenge [by believing Jews or lehavdil learned apostates] from sanhedrin about Daniel , according to one pshat in Rashi ? What would he say if he would be challenged ?
I have no idea what the Ramban thought or understood. What I do know, however, is that you can’t draw a definite conclusion from his supposed thoughts – as you seem to – that he differentiated between Daniel and any else who had died because Daniel had not started the process.
And by the way, how did yoshke start the process other than by supposedly saying that he was the king of the Jews, if he in fact said it?
For those wondering what the message in Vietnamese says, here is the translation:
Thanh Trung Mobile is a reputable electronic device repair system, established in 2006 in Ho Chi Minh City. This center specializes in providing repair services for a variety of devices from phones, tablets, to smart watches. With over 16 years of experience, Thanh Trung Mobile is proud of its team of professional and dedicated technicians, along with the use of genuine components and modern equipment to ensure service quality. Customers can find screen replacement, battery replacement, hardware repair, and many other utilities at Thanh Trung Mobile.
Perhaps he has, for some reason, seen a market to supply thousands of pagers and walkie-talkies!
So now that the deniers of fact – no, I’m not talking about the LR’s death; I’m referring to lying about Rashi – are no longer with us, I’d like to return to my original post of three weeks ago. Namely
1. What do those who say that the LR is physically alive and is with us ‘everywhere’ mean? And not meaningless drivel, please.
2. What Torah basis is there for using a random opening of the igros as instruction?
For the full explanaition of my questions see https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/chabad-media-won/page/9#post-2310514
So qwerty has taken the ‘high moral ground’ and is leaving us.
How noble of him… not to admit anything at all. I don’t know what others are waiting for, but I’m waiting for…
1. An admission that Artscroll says that Rashi holds that Yaakov Avinu did not die. qwerty committed to admitting that once he saw the Artscroll. Does that mean that he will never open an Artscroll again in case he sees something?
2. A statement that he explicitly asked Rabbi Plutchok, and the latter agreed, that the LR got his (alleged) theory of his master-race from H yemach shemo.
3. Confirmation from his Rabbis that Rashi does NOT say that Yaakov Avinu did not die.
I think there are more, but I can’t think of them offhand, and if he has takke left us I’m not interested in searching.
So if he reads this – and I have the feeling he will – do the honest thing and admit your mistakes instead of slinking off with your tail between your legs while convincing yourself that you are morally superior.
qwerty to yb: So now ArSo is also arguing with you. He states that Menachem Shmei cites phony sources to prove that the Rebbe is Moshiach but on the other hand he defends Shmei against those trying to disprove that the Rebbe is Moshiach.
Once again, the big lie. Show me – and don’t ignore this – where I said that Shmei cites phony sources, and where I defended him against those trying to prove that the LR is Mashiach.
Of course in your humble, non-arrogant and very lucid mind, defending – actually, agreeing – with Shmei about Rashi’s view, is arguing with those who don’t think the LR is Mashiach.
Someone, anyone, please explain that logic. Qwerty you’d better hope that you don’t like the same type of soup that Shmei likes because then you will be supporting his alleged view that the LR is Mashiach. No one else on this thread will understand that logic, but you should because it’s just paraphrasing what you write.
ArSo is a contrarian and or a nut job
To paraphrase Chazal, better to be called a nut job one’s entire life than to be an apikorus – not to mention someone who prays with idolaters – like you who distorts the words of meforshim.
yankel berel, your post on the history and the mood of the times of the Ramban’s debate (Btw I apologise for saying it was the King of Seville. I don’t know where I got Seville from.) is very nice, but your conclusion that WE MUST SAY that Daniel is different to the others because he didn’t start the process – something which the Ramban does not mention at all – is far-fetched and certainly cannot be proven to the extent that you take it as fact.
qwerty to me: Do you agree that the Rebbe declared himself god clothed in human form in 1962 and that he said he’s Moshiach in 1951 and that Lubavitchers believe they’re better than all other Jews and that the Rebbe’s goal was to conquer the world? Please tell me which if any of those statements you disagree with.
Not sure whether you mean do I agree that he declared/said/believed all these things – the answer to which is I’m not sure – or do I agree that all those things are true, which, of course, I do not.
But why are you asking me weird questions? Look though all my posts on all earlier threads and you will see clearly that I attacked the many things the LR claimed, citing proof after proof how it was self-aggrandizement. And, if may so humbly say, my attacks were far more coherent and logical than most others’. My view has not changed. BUT…
That does not mean that everything a Lubavicher says is incorrect, even if they have an agenda. Lubavichers say to put on tefillin daily. Do you agree with that? I certainly do. Undoubtedly many of them see others putting on tefillin as the first stage of becoming Lubavichers, but that is irrelevant to the question as to whether putting on tefillin is importatn or not.
Same with the discussion about Yaakov Avinu. I have no idea whether Shmei has an agenda – I suspect that he does – but he is right in saying that according to Rashi and others Yaakov Avinu is still alive. If he would state a crooked agenda I would argue with it, but I would not argue by saying the Rashi does not hold that Yaakov Avinu is alive, as it is totally untrue.
qwerty: And the simplest answer is that When Rashi said that Yaakov is alive he meant alive as per Maharsha and/or Ohr Hachaim, that is not literally alive.
Funny that Artscroll – whom you are so careful not to deal with here – didn’t think of the simplest answer, because Artscroll says that the Maharsha ARGUES with Rashi. How stupid of Artscroll.
And lets chalk up another win to Magnus-Carlsen-qwerty, world chess champion when playing with his own board and his own rules. Rules, by the way, that fly in the face of Torah. Oh, sorry. No they don’t. He has the word of his Rabbis that whatever he says is gospel (after all, he prays with idolaters).
Surely youRashi wasn’t following the Pshat of a lying weasel like Shmei who needs to believe that Yaakov is alive to convince dummies like ARSo that the Rebbe is still alive.
Well clearly he hasn’t convinced me, has he? SI’m probably too dumb even to be convinced. And, unlike you, B”H too dumb to write apikorsus.
Why doesn’t ArSo see what’s obvious to all? Because he’s insanely jealous of me and can’t deal with the thought that I beat him Nebach.
Did one of your alleged Rabbis tell you that? If yes, it must be true.
(I know I said the other day that I would not read all of qwerty’s comments, but sometimes I just can’t resist.)
qwerty to me: My Rav confirmed that Rabbi Alive said that a supporter of idolatry is considered an idolater but he didn’t remember off hand where it’s found.
And you expect me to accept the word of a pathological liar (you, not your alleged Rabbi) that Rabi Akiva said it?! As I wrote, maybe he did, but I have never heard it before, and I need a source. Not hearsay.
What I said is that the Rebbe learned two things from Hitler, how to create brain-dead followers and how toto conquer the world.
No you didn’t! (See my a above statement about you being a pathological liar.) You said that the LR learnt from H the idea of trying to produce a master race.
You are also a liar in saying that I insinuated that philosopher is chayav misah, but that’s just the way you work.
If you had an eighth of a brain you’d see I’m right. Maybe you need to be checkmated.
And maybe you need to have your strait-jacket adjusted so that you can’t reach the keyboard (or the chessboard).
Yankel berel, sorry, but your “perforces” don’t work. Rashi himself has two explanations re Daniel, and he himself does not say which he prefers. The Ramban may very well have held of the one that says that Mashiach will be similar to Daniel. He had no reason to worry that the King of Seville would argue based on the other pshat.
Also, you say that the Ramban always tells us when he disagrees with Rashi. Is that true? Have you researched all of Shas to come up with that statement? Furthermore, does your “rule” apply in aggadata?
Menachem, thanks for the link to the Or Hachayim. I hadn’t managed to look through it properly myself.
Qwerty: You scored a direct hit with your two questions. Great job .ARSo the Shmei puppet can’t answer either question so he says, We don’t die from a question..” When we add my two questions is why do Maharsha and Ohr Hachaim not accept Rashi’s statement literally. So now there are 4 powerful challenges to the ridiculous notion that Yaakov is still
Unfortunately you are not only stupid but you are an apikorus, and an ignorant one at that.
1. My answer was clearly a humorous one, as can be seen by the smiley at the end.
2. Your questions are stupid and worthless because you deny that Rashi et al hold that Yaakov Avinu never died, all because you want to prove that the LR can’t be Mashiach. Hey. I’ve been saying for ages that the LR can’t be Mashiach and that he is not alive, but I am still normal and honest enough to say that Rashi et al hold that Yaakov Avinu is alive. So climb down from your stupid dead tree, and accept that Rashi et al hold that.
3. The Maharsha disagrees with Rashi, but he does NOT say that Rashi does not hold that. So you bringing a “proof” from the Maharsha (and the Or Hachayim for which I am still waiting for a source) is ridiculous. You may as well say that Shmei agrees with everything you say because you disagree with him.When will you learn not to avoid issues you don’t like and to stop with your ridiculous and infantile “checkmates”? You probably can’t even play chess.
Anyone who disagrees with you about Rashi – and not “allowing” him to say that Yaakov Avinu is still alive is clearly an apikorus and an am ha’aretz – is a traitor, a puppet and whatever other silly epithet you can think of. I know you didn’t learn gemoro in school, but it seems to me that you didn’t learn – or at least failed dismally at – clear thinking.
qwerty: Harav Baruch Gigi has an excellent Dvar Torah on the subject. He quotes the Ohr Hachaim who explained that Yaakov Lo Meis means that his mission continued because he left over 12 sons who were all Tzaddikim. We know they were righteous because they told Yaakov Shema Yisrael Hashem Elokeinu Hashem Echad. Enough of Shmei’s lies and ARSo’s stupidity.
1. Can you supply a source for this Or Hachayim? I have searched for it but been unable to find it. That does not mean it doesn’t exist, but as I know I can’t rely on anything you say, I need a source.
2. No idea who this Rabbi is, but it makes no difference, as even according to what he allegedly said, it does not have any impact on what Rashi says.
You really are deluded, and I believe deranged, with your illogical statements that Menachem and I are disproven by people who make statements that have nothing to do with Rashi’s view.
I once read a story about two people who were playing chess by correspondence, and each one was making moves that his opponent objected to because according to the latter’s view of the board, the move was impossible. That is the way you ‘prove’ things that we haven’t said. Let’s call it discovered checkmate!
Finally, are you EVER going to deal with the fact that Artscroll says that Rashi understands יעקב אבינו לא מת literally?
qwerty, I assume to me: BA’s jealousy of my superiority…
You are possibly more deluded than the Lubaviches who say their rebbe is alive!
I’m not sure this went through, so I’m sending it again. My apologies if it’s doubled-up.
Qwerty: didn’t check the Hitler comparison with him, but Dr. Berger agrees with it so that’s reliable.
Where does Dr Berger agree with your statement that the LR learnt from H ym”sh the concept of the master race? I don’t believe he ever said it, and I believe you are a liar!
The challenge is for you to name a living non-Chabad Rabbi who says Yaakov Avinu is still physically alive.
1. Why non-living? The Rif on Ein Yaakov isn’t good enough for you?
2. The question is NOT who says Yaakov Avinu is still physically alive. The question is if Rashi held that, and he did according to the Riv et al AND ARTSCROLL. I stress that because you keep avoiding the point that Artscroll says it.You said that if the discussion was Menachem’s belief in the LR and Moshiach you would disagree with everything he wrote. I asked you why you would disagree with him. I’m sure he has phony sources for this garbage.
I disagree with him because I believe the LR did not fulfill ANY of the criteria required of Mashiach, and that he was not worthy of it anyhow. If he has PHONY sources, then that’s another reason I would not agree with him!
As for the Rabbi Akiva quote, bli Neder I’ll see my Rav tonight and get it. If I’m wrong I’ll admit it.
That will be a first.
Finally as I’ve said numerous not all Lubavitchers are idolaters and even those who are largely keep it to themselves so there’s no problem davening with them
So it is only prohibited to daven with idolaters who publicly profess their idolatry?! Do you always make up your own Torah?
qwerty: ARSo was insinuating that philosopher was Chayav Misah for learning Gemara.
Another brazen lie! (You tend to do that, following the premise that a big lie will be believed. I wonder which mass murdered you got that from…)
Show where I insinuated that or tell us all publicly that you were wrong. That’s a challenge, and if you don’t face up to it you should never play chess again!
coffee addict has two questions:
We say תורה צוה לנו משה מורשה קהילת יעקב the word מורשה (according what I heard at least) is that it means inheritance (and because we say קהילת יעקב it’s understood from יעקב) how can an alive person give over an inheritance, inheritance is only done after death?
and
Doesn’t it say Hashem doesn’t affix His name to a person while he’s alive? (Hashem said to Moshe “אלקי אביך” and the midrash says that’s how Moshe knew he passed away) yet Hashem says אלקי יעקב
Perhaps that’s where the Yiddish expression פון א קשיא שטארבט מען נישט – “one doesn’t die from a question” – comes from. Just because you have two problems with the statement יעקב אבינו לא מת it doesn’t mean that he died! 🙂
qwerty: To Benedict ARSo
Do you still want to be on Shmei’s team?
You are certainly one big weirdo! I am on “Shmei’s team” only insofar as he is quoting Rashi correctly. He definitely is – as, apparently Artscroll does – and you are not. Your hatred of Lubavich is making you make apikorsishe statements about Rashi and Chazal, R”l, and that I can’t abide by.
And let me absolutely clear, if Rabbi Plutchok (about whom I know nothing and assume that he is a sound person) says that the LR learned from H yemach shemo the idea of a master race, then he is a low-life. And I would say that if he said it about any Jew who is not openly pro-Nazi.
Also, if he said that Rashi is incorrect, and one may not understand יעקב אבינו לא מת literally, then is he should not be a Rabbi!
BUT I don’t believe he would say or agree to either of those two statements, and all we have to “assume” that he would is you saying that he agrees with everything you say. So I’ll have to call you, at best, misguided, or a liar… or more likely a looney.
qwerty: To Benedict ARSo. I’m waiting for an answer or to see how you try to squirm out of the question.
I don’t see a question.
On the other hand, there are a number of questions that I have asked you that you have not answered. For example, how to you justify praying with idolaters? And, where did Rabi Akiva say that associating with (or perhaps it was supporting) an idolater makes one like an idolater?
And there are others…
qwerty: I’ve told you that everything I say I either heard from Rabbi Plutchok or I checked it’s veracity with him.
So either he said that the LR got his idea for the master race from H yemach shemo, or you have checked it with him and he agrees with it. Is that correct?
Yes or no pretty please.
qwerty I don’t take your posts seriously at all because of what you have said and the fact that you refuse to ask your alleged Rabbis whether it is ok.
Furthermore, you have still not supplied a source for your statement that Rabi Akiva said whoever sides (or perhaps supports, I don’t remember exactly) an idolater is an idolater. I told you that I am not saying that there is no source, but I don’t know of one which is why I asked for one.
Finally, you continue to pray with idolaters, which BY YOUR DEFINITION makes you an idolater. So why should I take you seriously.
And btw I think you’re a sad case that you have to keep on telling us how so many different Rabbis like you.
As to philosopher, sorry, you have no idea how to learn, but despite that you won’t stop writing stuff that is close to, if not outright, apikorsus. You and qwerty refuse to deal with the fact that the Rif, Artscroll and others all say CLEARLY that Rashi holds that Yaakov Avinu is alive. I don’t give a hoot how many wonderful shiurim you have heard on the topic, until you admit that there are choshuve opinions who say that according to Rashi, Yaakov Avinu is still alive, you are learning on the level of someone who has never opened a gemoro.
For clarification, I’m sure that if the discussion was Menachem’s belief in the LR and Mashiach, I would disagree with everything he wrote. But Menachem – and I don’t care what his hidden agenda is – is arguing about the way you, qwerty and philosopher, misinterpret Chazal, Rishonim and Acharonim based on your am haaratzus, and in that I am fully in agreement with him.
Philosopher, have you asked any talmid (yes, you even get that wrong, as it’s not talmud, which you have written countless times) chochom whether you can prove that Rashi CANNOT be taken literally because there is a possuk that contradicts him? Try it, explain your issue here, and see if he agrees. Make sure also to show him the Rif on Ein Yaakov and the Artscroll footnote. And then let us know the answer.
Your post ‘rebutting’ Shmei is so weird, because you have now labeled yourself the defender of the faith by not knowing how to learn and understand Chazal.
Tell me, what does the passuk והיה הבכור אשר תלד יקום על שם אחיו המת mean LITERALLY, and what do Chazal say it means? How can Chazal ‘misinterpret’ c”v a possuk? (I know it’s not a perfect example, but it’s enough for someone who thinks they know how to learn Torah sheb’al peh but really don’t.)
qwerty, I have absolutely no intention of calling anyone. I have challenged you numerous times and you ignore my challenges.
So, until you write that you have directly asked Rabbi Plutchok
1. Whether it is ok to say that the LR got his “master race” idea from H yemach shemo, and
2. Whether it is UNEQUIVOCALLY WRONG for anyone to say that Rashi (and others) explain יעקב אבינו לא מת literally,I will not take anything you say seriously, as by your admission you daven with idolaters, and as far as I understand you are an apikorus. You also lie incessantly, as you now claimed that I called philosopher a shiksa! I will therefore only skim what you write, if at all.
Note, we are not at all arguing about the impossibility of the LR being Mashiach. That is not the issue here at all. He can’t be. But you feel the need to misinterpret Rashi et al to do so, while I don’t.
And as to philosopher’s posts re Rashi. Sorry, but you are so off the Torah mark that you are not worth arguing with. Once again, if a man with a yeshivah background would cite pesukim to reject Rashi’s pshat, he would be either a gross am haaretz or an apikorus. You, on the other hand, are merely dabbling in areas for which you are not qualified.
There are many areas where I am not qualified, and I avoid – possibly unsuccessfully at times – to avoid dabbling in them. Gemoro, Rishonim and how to deal with questions is not your area, and I am advising you to stop your incessant claims which fly in the face of the Torah.
philosopher: Indeed, ambiguous verses are part of Tanach too. All these thousands of years klal Yiroel knew how to study Torah. But some groups and individuals try to use Torah to give legitimacy to their idolatrous ideology so they’ll ignore when the posuk or chazal say things clearly and misinterpret things that seem ambiguous to “prove” their claims even though their beliefs clearly contradicts the Torah. It is easy to misinterpret things when its taken out of context. Within context it cannot be misinterpreted. Because, for example, when we read the entire parshas vayechi, how Yaacov took his last breath, the brothers of Yosef saw that their father died” etc. you know when the Rashi says Yaacov lo mes that it could mean many things but not that Yaacov is physically alive
With all due respect, you have just demonstrated why women – and anyone with a non-yeshivah background – should not be discussing Torah, as what you wrote is 100% incorrect and possibly מגלה פנים בתורה שלא כהלכה!
Anyone who for whatever reason they have, even because they ‘found’ a possuk that apparently contradicts Rashi, says that Rashi does not explain יעקב אבינו לא מת literally, is either an am haaretz, an apikorus or mentally deranged Rachmono litzlan from all of those.
Lostspark: Why feed into the ego of this overpaid tooth shiner that can’t understand Torah at the level of a child?
I object! How do you know that he is overpaid?
I hope that all of QWERTYs children become Lubavitchers, and they laugh about their fathers mesorah.
I object to both parts of the sentence:
1. I hope they don’t become Lubavichers,
2. I hope they totally reject their father’s mesorah (mesorah?! you mean meshigassen!) but have pity on him and don’t laugh.yankel berel, perhaps I wasn’t clear enough earlier.
You wroteDaniel never started. Therefore, he never failed. And therefore, he could still [at least according to one pshat in sanhedrin] be a candidate for mashiach.
As RAMBAN and RAMBAM point out, starting the ge’ula process and then, dying & leaving unfinished business, equals failureMy argument with the above is that you write that the Ramban and the Rambam reject a dead person being Mashiach ONLY IF that person started the process and died leaving it unfinished. Therefore, Daniel who died without having started the process of geulah could be resurrected and be Mashiach.
But you don’t cite a source for that!
It seems to me that you came to the conclusion that there is this difference because the Ramban and the Rambam reject a dead person’s candidacy, while the gemoro in Sanhedrin, according to one explanation of Rashi (Are we allowed to quote Rashi nowadays in this thread, or have certain fanatics ruled him persona non grata c”v?) allows the possibility that Daniel is Mashiach. But that gemoro is not something that is brought lehalocho by the Ramban or the Rambam, and we don’t even know how they interpreted that gemoro. Don’t forget that even Rashi has an alternative explanation which does not allow Daniel himself to be Mashiach.
Therefore, the simple pshat in the Ramban and the Rambam is that someone who has died cannot be Mashiach, regardless of what he achieved in his lifetime. This would then, apparently, include Daniel.
philosopher: Just because you two are male does not give you two an excuse to ignore
1. a befereshe posuk in Vayechi that the brothers of Yosef saw that their father died.
Indeed being male does not give me or anyone else an excuse to ignore an explicit possuk, but it does mean that as a male I, and probably the majority of others on this thread, have had a yeshivah background and know that you can’t cite a possuk against Rashi at any time and certainly not when Rashi is explaining the gemoro!
Furthermore, you should have asked a much stronger question, but not on us, on Rabi Yochanan. How can he say יעקב אבינו לא מת when the possuk you cited seems to say that he did? Moreover, why did Rav Nachman object to the statement only on the grounds that Yaakov was mourned, embalmed and buried? Shouldn’t he have objected on the grounds of the possuk that you keep on citing?
These are all strong questions dealt with by the meforshim who DO NOT reject Rashi’s interpretation. So please desist from citing that possuk as some sort of proof agains Rashi c”v/
2. Misinintrepret CLEAR words from the Chumash, gemarah and other meforshim
If anyone is misinterpreting here it is you, but based on your misunderstanding of how one deals with pesukim, divrei Chazal, Rishonim and Acharonim. And that is why I say that only men – and let me add, MEN who have had a decent yeshivah background (you know who I am excluding) should be dealing with these matters. It’s not misogynistic. It is merely something which Chazal and the poskim themselves iterate.
3. Ignore the fact that only Hashem runs the world, He is the only one you are allowed to pray to, He is the Only One who is every and never made nor never will make mistakes. To believe all this about the rebbe is idolatry.
BH nothing to do with me. Possibly to do with some/many Lubavichers.
Since you two are men and ou know better thna me, the non-talmud chuchem woman, you would think that you’d know better not to make your own misinterpretations on Chumash and Chazal.
See above. I am not making my own interpretation c”v. I am merely quoting Rashi and other meforshim.
What I don’t understand is why none of you have addressed what is apparently (I haven’t seen it inside) a clear statement in Artscroll that Rashi holds that Yaakov did not die. Is Artscroll now also a book of apikorsus? I would wager that both you and qwerty have made use of Artscroll, and that there is a good chance that you do so on a regular basis
philospher: The fact is that with all the “I’m a woman and can’t learn”, it is Arso who claimed that it says in taanus 13 that yaacov laughed when eisov’s eye fell out. Which was wrong of course and me the not talmud chochem woman pointed you in the right direction where it written, in Sotah 13a
In my very first post on this thread – September 1 REPLY #2310514 – I quoted the above gemoro with the correct source in Sotah. I also quoted it a few days later in another post. In one later post I made a typo and said it was in Taanis. So I’m sorry to correct you here, but you are not the one who enlightened me that it was in Sotah! Let’s fact it, typos happen.
qwerty to me:Hey bigmouth. If you question that I’m telling the truth go to the Five Towns and look up Rabbi Plutchok. Ask him his opinion of Chabad. Then tell him you can prove from a Siyum in the Rif that Yaakov Avinu is still alive. He’ll fit you for a straight jacket.
Great answer! You make a disgusting statement that the LR learnt his view from H yemach shemo, and when I challenge you on it you tell me to go and ask the Rabbi who allegedly approves of all the garbage that you write. You then follow it with apikorsus by making fun of a valid interpretation of a statement of Chazal!
Let me be abundantly clear: if Rabbi Plutchok says, as you say he would or does, that Rashi is wrong in his interpretation, and that only the Rambam is right, then he is going against the klal of שבעים פנים לתורה. I had never heard of Rabbi Plutchok until you started quoting him, so I googled him. I find it very hard to believe that he is an apikorus like you are (on the other hand, if he prays with you in a Lubavich prayer-house, he must be an idolater).
Btw you do realize that unfortunately there is no cure for rabies, don’t you?
Always_ask, no, not all of Chazal said not to teach Torah to women, but that is the halocho as paskened both by the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch.
(A dishonest person – not mentioning any names at the moment – could attempt to answer that in all cases it is dealing with teaching one’s daughter Torah, and that it doesn’t apply to other women. But that would be disingenuous. Clearly there was no question about the impropriety of teaching other women anything at all, and the case of the daughter was the only imaginable case.)
qwerty: I would add that Benedict ARSo should also be excluded from the Bes Medrash.
Do you mean Bes Medrash, as you wrote, or the place where YOU daven, which by YOUR definition is a beis avoda zara?
Look at his quote, “Perhaps this is the reason that Chazal said that Gemoro should be restricted to men and not women.” If you say it’s restricted to men don’t I know that women are excluded? So we add idiot to your resume.
Following that piece of superb logic, please add “incredible lamdan” to you long list of self-praise.
If you wanted to really pick on what I wrote, you should have said that the way I wrote it I mistakenly implied that it is not restricted to women! And what I should have written is that it is exclusively the domain of men and not women. But I’ll be melamed zechus and assume that at the time you were probably too busy trying to contain the rabid frothing of your mouth.
qwerty to me: I never said you’re Chabad
I’m pretty sure you did!
I can’t believe that Benedict ARSo is now playing the worthless women card. Elke Bentley just finished Shas. She started at 16 finished at 18..She also attends Harvard.
Give me a minute… I’m trying to figure out what you are proving… Oh, I get it. You don’t accept the statement of Chazal or the Halocho that women should not be taught gemoro. Fair enough. I assume you got that from your alleged Rabbis. Did they call it “the worthless women card”, or is that the invention of the oh-so-humble, oh-so-non-arrogant, oh-so-yerei-Shomayim, oh-so-great-writer, qwerty?
And right after writing that “When Shmei is reduced to name-calling his end is near” you call me a raving lunatic, which is not the first epithet I, and others, have been gifted by you.
You are most definitely a Johnny-come-lately to Torah (more likely a Johnny-not-coming-to-Torah-at-all), but your arrogance, hypocrisy and warped logic seem to know no limits.
Finally, don’t forget that according to your quote of Rabi Akiva (for which I requested a source) by davening with idolaters you too are an idolater!
philosopher, notwithstanding your beliefs about Lubavich and avoda zara, don’t you think it’s time for you to dissociate yourself from the ramblings of qwerty?
qwerty, in your latest self-praise you state “As I said recently I am a Yirei Shomayim.”
So now we know that you are not only not-arrogant, humble, that you learn for many hours every day and don’t waste any time, but that you are also a yerei Shomayim! The thing that immediately came to mind when I read that was that you have proven the statement in Zohar Hakadosh (3:193b) סימן דלא ידע כלום שבוחי – The sign that someone knows nothing is that he praises himself.
You certainly know nothing on a Torah level if you reject a Rashi and other meforshim based on what your alleged Rabbi allegedly told you about the Rambam. Every kid in a yeshivah high-school knows that that is not how the Torah works.
But then again, you pray with idolaters, so what can we expect from you?
qwerty: I can’t ask Rav Dovid what he thinks because he was Niftar.
My apologies. I was thinking of Rav Reuven.
But my challenge still stands in regards to Rav Dovid’s son-in-law and Rabbi Plutchok. I challenge/dare you to ask them whether it is appropriate to say that the LR got his view from H yemach shemo. If I don’t hear from you that you have asked them, and you don’t supply their exact reply, I will not believe anything you say in their names.
You probably assume that East Siders communicate with their dead Rabbis like Chabad does
That was a good one!
philosopher, without being too offensive, perhaps this is the reason that Chazal said that Gemoro should be restricted to men, and not women. Nothing against women, by the way. My wife is a woman, and lehavdil my mother a”h was also a women. Coincidentally so are my daughters and a number of my grandchildren B”H. But I am old-world, and I believe that this type of discussion should be kept to those who can, and are encouraged, to learn gemoro.
In answer to your inability to find the Rif, it seems from what you wrote in your post that you have a misunderstanding. The Rif on the gemoro is Rav Yitzchak Alfasi who was one of the early Rishonim. The Rif on the Ein Yaakov is a Rav Yoshiya Pinto of the 17th century. He will likely be found only on the Ein Yaakov, although I can’t be sure of that. He will DEFINITELY not be found in any regular edition of Shas.
As to Sefaria – a word of warning. I can’t remember where, but I have seen it quote xian sources in relation to their beliefs, and not to refute them. So although it is likely not relevant here, just be careful with that site.
(I just googled Sefaria and christianity and it came up with some “questionable” material.)
yankel berel: Daniel never started. Therefore, he never failed. And therefore, he could still [at least according to one pshat in sanhedrin] be a candidate for mashiach.
But, As RAMBAN and RAMBAM point out, starting the ge’ula process and then,
dying & leaving unfinished business, equals failure.I may have missed some quote that was cited before I joined the discussion, but where does it differentiate between someone who starts the process but doesn’t complete it, and someone has never started it, with the former being rejected as a candidate for Mashiach and the latter still valid? It would indeed seem from the Rambam that Bar Koziba “started” the process, but as far as I can tell it doesn’t say that he was rejected for that reason. Rather it was because he was killed. Perhaps he says it somewhere else, but not in Hilchos Melachim. (I can’t discuss what the Ramban says as I don’t have the source.)
As to qwerty, I find you absolutely disgusting!
Look through all my posts on numerous earlier threads and you will see that I am virulently anti-Lubavich in more ways than you have ever known. But to spout filth and garbage, and say that the LR (whether you like him or not) adopted the ideas of H yemach shemo, is beneath all levels of contempt.
Do us all a favor and ask Rav Dovid Feinstein, or his son-in-law, or Rabbi Plutchok, whether they would agree with that statement. I dare you!
And your logic in your vitriolic posts demonstrate that you have no logic at all. Rav Avigdor Miller was asked why Chabad think they’re the best. He answered that every group should think that about themselves. So you see it as a problem, where RAM says it isn’t, and you won’t “speculate” as to why he said that. Is it at all possible that he meant it about all groups?
But you won’t answer that, will you, as you never answer my questions with any decency? You’ll just attack me for being a Lubavicher and an associate of idolaters while you are the one who davens (takes communion?) in their houses of worship!
qwerty to me: I ignored your question above because of its stupidity
Ah, it’s a stupid question. In case anyone has forgotten what the original question was, here it is: Does the Rif hold that Yaakov Avinu is still alive? Couldn’t be more stupid, right?
but now I’ll respond, “I don’t answer questions from Christians. Philosopher theorizes that you’re Chabad. She may be right, but even if you aren’t you are now a supporter and Rabbi Akiva said that a supporter of idolatry is an idolater.”
I’m a supporter of Chabad because I agree with Menachem that according to Rashi and others Yaakov Avinu is still alive?! Note: that has nothing to do with Chabad theology, but who cares? When you are cornered you come out attacking even if what you’re saying makes no sense at all! And the fact that you daven with the ‘idolaters’ is fine. It’s just when someone disagrees with you that he is an idolater. One rule for the goose and one for the gander.
You claim to learn hours each day, but you have clearly displayed that you have no understanding of Torah. All you can do when faced with an issue is spew invective and hatred. I believe you claim you’re a dentist. I’d hate to sit in your dentist’s chair, Marathon Man.
Btw I now know that you are a Catholic because both you and the Pope reject totally Rashi’s opinion about Yaakov Avinu. That’s the logic you use, so it’s only fair to use it against you. Btw do you refrain from eating meat on Fridays?
And one other thing – which you will probably not answer because I am in agreement with a Lubavicher on one issue – what is the source of the above statement of Rabi Akiva? It may be that I have never heard of it or simply have forgotten it, but at any rate I would like a source, please.
First, even though it’s not necessarily in the correct order of the posters, I admit that I made a typo when I wrote Taanis 13 instead of Sotah 13. I have quoted that gemoro in an earlier post and there I wrote Sotah 13.
Now, legufo she inyan. Qwerty and philosopher you are so anti the Lubavicher posters online – and lately that’s mainly Menachem – that you are blinded to the points of the conversation, you veer dangerously close to apikorsus!
1. Because I am not the least bit interested in what that shiksa CO ym”sh says (and I’m not really interested in Shmuley Boteach either) does not mean that I take either side in the argument. I simply don’t care about what she says and hope that the epithet ym”sh indeed happens soon.
2. The fact that Rashi, and the Rif on Ein Yaakov (and, I believe others) explain that Yaakov Avinu was literally buried alive, has nothing whatsoever to do with the Lubavicher rebbe, who was buried after he died. But because you assume (and you may be correct in assuming so) that Menachem and the others want to make that connection, you refuse to accept that there is a VALID opinion that Yaakov did not die and that he is still alive, despite being buried. There isn’t much difference between that approach to that of the Lubavichers who refuse to accept anything which could fly in the face of their claim that the LR is Mashiach.
3. qwerty, your views on ‘rational’ Judaism scare me. I don’t know the Rabbis you keep quoting, but if they say that one cannot accept ‘irrational’ explanations to ‘strange’ statements of Chazal – as Rashi and others clearly do – and that anybody who does is a nutcase, then they are also veering close to apikorsus. I am therefore inclined to be melamed zechus and to believe that in your frenzy you are misquoting them.
4. philospher: It’s a mefureshe pasuk in the Torah that Yaakov Avinu meis. You cannot argue on a pasuk in the Torah. The Gemara is an agadata.
Are you suggesting that Rebbi Yochanan, who said יעקב אבינו לא מת, didn’t know the passuk? Of course he did, but he said his statement anyway. Saying it’s an aggadata does not help. Can you find me any aggadata that directly contradicts a passuk and that is not therefore refuted?
5. I’m still waiting on qwerty to answer the questions I asked…
qwerty in post #2313974 (on this page) I asked you a question which you have thus far ignored. Why? Are you any better than Shmei who, at least according to you, does not answer questions?
Once again I have to agree with Yasser-Shmei (I took the liberty of adding the firstname to pre-empt Saddam-qwerty) in regards to the Rif on Ein Yaakov.
Philosopher, in the edition I have on Ein Yaakov, the Rif makes absolutely no mention of Yaakov dying once he arrived in Eretz Yisrael. (The gemoro in Taanis 13a which says how he opened his eyes and smiled would clearly imply that he was alive, and that took place near the Me’aras Hamachpelah in Eretz Yisrael. Of course, it is possible to say that he had fully died by then, and that he resurrected for a very short time, but I feel that that is stretching it a bit.)
And one more point. Someone who is comatose breathes, and if Yaakov would have been comatose they would have know that he was alive from his breathing. If they mistakenly thought he was dead, he clearly was not comatose.
qwerty, you are forever challenging people (stooges?) to answer your questions, so here is an opportunity to face my challenge and answer mine without obfuscation:
1. Does the Rif hold that Yaakov Avinu is still alive? (In case you don’t know exactly where to look, in the standard edition of Ein Yaakov, with all the meforshim surrounding the gemoro, it’s in the last three lines of the Rif on page 91 of the volume that contains Taanis. Btw I could have asked the same question about the Artscroll, but as I don’t have access to it I am reticent to rely on the testimony of one of the stooges.)
2. If your answer is, “Yes, he does,” then why is it not ok for someone to quote it as a valid opinion, just as the Artscroll apparently does?
3. If your answer is, “No, he doesn’t,” you are either a brazen liar, or someone who can’t read/translate Hebrew.
4. If your answer is along the lines of, “These ‘fantastic’ statements aren’t to be taken literally,” then you are mistaken. There are indeed opinions that many aggadatos are not to be taken literally, but to the best of my knowledge there is NO opinion that the explanations of the Rishonim/Acharonim are not to be taken literally.