☕ DaasYochid ☕

So hint that it’s a specific a”z.

Yes, it’s a machlokes, but you’re making it a whole different, larger one.

I don’t mean that the others agree with R”T. Let’s save it until I look them up.

It doesn’t feel wrong if that’s what they tell us. And they weren’t really wrong; the oa”z didn’t use symbolism correctly, and the whole sugya is about assumptions, so they made a fair assumption which turned out to not bear out in metziyus (which they weren’t claiming to actually know, anyhow). Plus, you did the same thing; end result: wrong metziyus.

So RSB”G is also about assumptions, and so is tzoah, and that’s my point in the sugya: it’s not about what they knew to be a”z, it about rules to determine issur based on assumptions.

And there’s no reason to make the machlokes Rishonim about that; that’s the pashtus hasugya according to all.

Bigkhuna, it was.

Sam, or, choice 3), that they became aware that they were a”z and not ornamental.

The point remains that they weren’t known a”z, and the machlokes (with its various qualifications) isn’t whether atlas is an a”z, but if a statue withe a sphere/bird/stick etc. is halachically assumed to be.

Also, in the hemshech of the gemara, there are some forms about which they changed their opinion on what the symbolism was, and there’s even a teiku on one. If these statues were known a”z, why the emphasis in the sugya on what they symbolize? They were either ne’evad, or not.

It’s not clear in the gemara whether the Chachamim require a vaday or just more than a miut, but even if you’re right that they require a vaday, the whole gemara is discussing which factors make us assume a vaday without actually knowing, but you’re assuming it’s a known a”z, which is not the way the sugya goes.

?? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ???? ????? ?”? ???? ?? ???? ?”? ????? ?????? ?? ?”? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ??”? ????? ??????? ??? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ????? ??? ????? ??????? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ????

It’s not a certainty; it’s a machlokes what degree of chashas makes it assur.

The rest of the gemara consists of other factors influencing the likelihood of it being a ne’evad, but a vaday ne’evad is assur l’kulei alma, and a vaday lo ne’evad is muttar l’kulei alma, and your rebbe either made a mistake, or was making a rhetorical point about sports being avodah zarah.

The Gemara says we’re being choshesh when we don’t know, so don’t argue with me, argue with the Gemara.

1)

1)

I don’t know about 2) and 2a). (This is not a maalah per se, but at least it hasn’t led me to farkrum the gemara.)

3)

4)

See, the Mishna/Gemara are actually talking about statues of unknown status, and whether their form, symbolism and location make us assume, or at least be choshesh that they’re a”z. In your zeal to apply your vast knowledge of historical worship, you’re applying known statues to what Chazal say were not known to us.

The halachah, for example, that comes out of the Gemara, is that a statue known to not be atlas or zeus or whatever, but is holding a spherical object, is assur b’hana’ah out of a concern that it might be a”z based on the general symbolism of holding a ball (maybe they learned this from seeing atlas, but I don’t even know that that’s important). With your shtickel, though, since we know its not actually atlas, it would be okay, yet the Gemara clearly didn’t say that.

I know you don’t, but when the actual pashtus of the sugya based on Chazal, Rishonim, and Acharonim is rejected based on what your textbooks say, and then you call that the pashtus, I do consider it twisting.

That’s true. I just think you twisted the plain meaning of Chazal because of some historical tidbit you learned, and it might have a nafka minah, and it might be wrong.

College was lav davka anyhow, but yes, I’ll make that assumption.

Rishonim are Torah too, and I’ll bet if I looked hard enough I’ll find Chazal too, but I’m not looking, so I’ll concede that.

Edit:

Isn’t a Mishnah in Avodsh Zarah considered Chazal?

No. I’m not saying we don’t use math or even other forms of knowledge in Torah. I’m saying we don’t twist the Torah to conform to secular knowledge.

And that is why your hashkafah, IS, is incorrect.

Let’s start here: http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/daas-of-the-stars#post-573830

Sam, you most definitely are not what I was referring to. As much as some of your hashkafos (which you erroneously claim to be lack of haskhafos) irritate me, I don’t think you’ve ever ascribed negative personal stereotypes, which is what I’m talking about. In fact, I think you have pointed out that some stereotypes are just individual failings rather than policy, and that these individual failings are found everywhere.

That is the last comment I will make, bl”n, on any individual. I’m afraid to be asked by someone who I’ll find difficult to be diplomatic with, and my point isn’t to insult anyone (if I have, that was just an unintended bonus 😉 ).