HaLeiVi

The point of s Bracha is not simply because you saw something interesting. It is when you chance upon the hand of HKBH, and you make the most of that.

Coming across witness of the Briah is seeing the sun at its starting point, getting food which is arraigned from Above, or simply consuming parts of Hashem’s would for your benefit, even getting punished by Hashem, seeing locations that are still around from the time of the creation, noticing trees beginning to blossom, seeing stars that you usually wouldn’t see, as well as seeing the rebirth of the moon — which is an aspect of Briah.

But a phenomenon which is not a mark of creation, nor a consumption of Hashem’s world, but an effect, doesn’t elicit a Bracha. In what way did you encounter Hashem’s hand now more than before? In fact, there are many enjoyments that we don’t bless Hashem upon enjoying them.

Avira, the ‘flaw’ argument is an auxiliary addition to the above. It is called ליקוי for a reason. My description of its essence is from באר הגולה.

Gadolhadorah, so you’re implying that the Chachamim didn’t understand a certain topic so instead made up stuff and committed it to writing. Am I correct? Why would you ever learn the rest of what they wrote?

Spiritual victims were mainly before the declaration, and I’m the very early years. We couldn’t do anything about that, and we tried.

Afterwards, it actually was a tremendous preserver of Jewish identity which allowed for future Balei Teshuva, as well as Russian Jews holding out thanks to pride in being part of a real nation.

It’s hard to judge the physical aspect, and luckily it’s not my job.

Gadol, the whole concept of Mazal is based on predictable times.

UJM,
You won’t agree regardless, and I’m not sure you agree to the fourth point. Why haggle over step 2?

I’m not ready to go back and forth, others did that already. You can argue about many smaller aspects,, whether winning territory through a legitimate war is מרידה באומות. And I’m not all that invested in it, either.

Most people would say it’s a great development for the Jewish people, if not for being predisposed not to like it. Rav Ovadia Yosef spelled it all out, the merits and the shortcomings. You can’t ignore the Gemara in Sanhedrin 98 that אין לך קץ מגולה מזה, that the land is bearing fruit and it is a clear sign of the impending Geula. Oh, and that’s a good thing.

It’s not technically correct to say that Hashem wanted bad things to happen. כן ישיש משיש אחרים.

I hope we can avoid breaches of Tznius while speaking of Tznius

A more full quote:

שלשה הן הנקראים אפיקורסין. האומר שאין שם נבואה כלל ואין שם מדע שמגיע מהבורא ללב בני האדם. והמכחיש נבואתו של משה רבנו. והאומר שאין הבורא יודע מעשה בני האדם. כל אחד משלשה אלו הן אפיקורוסים. שלשה הן הכופרים בתורה. האומר שאין התורה מעם ה’ אפלו פסוק אחד אפלו תבה אחת אם אמר משה אמרו מפי עצמו הרי זה כופר בתורה. וכן הכופר בפרושה והוא תורה שבעל פה והמכחיש מגידיה כגון צדוק וביתוס. והאומר שהבורא החליף מצוה זו במצוה אחרת וכבר בטלה תורה זו אף על פי שהיא היתה מעם ה’ כגון ההגרים. כל אחד משלשה אלו כופר בתורה:

You don’t want to find yourself arguing against Chazal.

“[T]he gemara regarding oaths were clearly on Bayis Rishon and no where does it say Bayis Sheni.”

Explain where you see this clearly.

Which generation was Rav Yehuda and Rebbi Zeira?

Anon, line one is not an argument.

You seem to easily argue against Gemara. I’m not sure I get your Hashkafa, and I’m not sure I want to.

I did point out that Gemara engaged in a serious discussion about it, and applied it למעשה for their generation. Why did this Sugya do wrong to be labeled Agadata, and to be ignored?

In a separate discussion, with someone else, you challenged his apparent assumption that Ezra was a Navi, so I showed you a Gemara that mentions it. That’s all. That was not to subscribe to Avira’s full opinion.

I pointed out several times that everywhere thar the Gemara uses the term ומסתברא it is an unequivocal conclusion, reached through logic rather than textual proof.

“[B]eing anti zioni does not necessarily translate in to the dangerous dismantling of the medina.”

This is the official position of Satmar. They pray that it should be dismantled peacefully, but are against doing it by hand

UJM, this might come as a surprise, but not everyone hates those they disagree with.

פורום אוצר החכמה
על דעות הפוסקים שבועות הגלות

I found a Kuntres there that mentions this on page 8. There is no direct quote. It is all from articles or Kuntreisim in the name of previous Kuntreisim in the name of a certain edition of a Sefer. The original wording is long gone. And I’m assuming it is all based on the Hetter to learn Kabbalah these days, which is what the Bal Hatanya quotes him for.

Anon, you seemed to not have even bothered to check up the Gemara even though I gave you the exact מראה מקום. Also, you don’t seem to know the language. Go and check every single time the Gemara uses the term מסתברא. It means that it makes sense to accept this opinion, and that’s the מסקנא in every case

Here is the the words of the Gemara:
תניא, אמר רבי יהושע בן קרחה: מלאכי זה עזרא, וחכמים אומרים: מלאכי שמו. אמר רב נחמן: מסתברא כמאן דאמר מלאכי זה עזרא, דכתיב בנביאות מלאכי: ״בגדה יהודה ותועבה נעשתה בישראל ובירושלם כי חלל יהודה קדש ה׳ אשר אהב ובעל בת אל נכר״.

Rebbi Yehoshua ben Karcha holds that it is Ezra. This is a Tanna, not no-one. The Chachamim argue. Rav Nachman says that logically it is indeed Ezra. That’s the Sugya, whether or not you happen to like Rebbi Yehoshua ben Karcha or Rav Nachman.

This has nothing to do with your comparison of Galus to Geula. This is a response to you saying the that there is no such thing.

Avira answered you correctly about that, so there’s no need to repeat it.

What I would add is that those who stayed behind did not do so because of a Mesora. They did so because they wanted to. It does not say that they didn’t believe him. Daniel didn’t know the true end — until it was revealed. By the time the true 70 years was up it was as obvious as simply quoting previous Neviim.

We now went from Daas Yochid to no one?

“I have a sibling who fell into the trap of modern liberalism, and she told me that she can’t accept a God who says that 2 people loving each other is wrong just because of their gender. ”

Unfortunately, the response to these complaints have been weak. In truth, trying to formulate logical and mathematical explanations for any moral rule will sound out of touch. Murder is worse than just inhibiting someone’s right to live. Can you explain why?

The ספר הישר says that Apikursus can only be avoided, and is way too hard to rectify.

Avira, you write: “It is true that the brisker rov and his talmidim did not stress rhe shvuos; they focused more on how twisted nationalism was, the עקירת הדעת that it champions, its “new” jew who is not a galus yid, its high casualties in terms of deaths…

But rav chaim soloveitchik said repeatedly that zionism is indeed avodah zara. Rav elchonon wrote that many times too.”

But all this doesn’t apply anymore.

Avira,

Back to that topic for a minute

“Halevi, where do you see Rashi deviating from the pashut teitch of the machlokes?”

It is true that Rashi is not the deal breaker here. What I see in Rashi and the כלומר, implying that the Pshat doesn’t read right out of the words, is that it goes along with the flow that there is no מחלוקת of מציאות.

Neither Rebbi Yochanan, nor Rebbi Yosi say expressly that Hashem will actually perform miracles to fulfill false proclamations, and in fact this never happened. This is why the Gemara quotes the Maamarim in this order, ending with Rebbe Akiva.

Although Rebbe Akiva clearly argues in the Pshat of the Pasuk, in that it can’t be that the Torah would discuss miracles happening for a false prophet, there is no practical argument. All agree that you ignore a prophet, no matter what kinds of miracles he shows you, and even if he was once a true prophet.

And here, too. I agree, and have written as much, that you can’t prove any Shita based on special experiences. (Aside, perhaps, for the שלש שבועות in that the whole point is that it won’t work out.) My entire point is a complaint against the attribution of wondrous success to an angel, rather than to Hashem. Of this, there is no precedent.
___

“As for your diyuk in the lashon of the braysoh, the fact that the “Torah” gave AZ power is no different than the “Torah” “giving” permission for things; the same way the beginning of the maamar is that the Torah understood the depths of how AZ works… it’s Hashem who made the Torah eithe way.”

This doesn’t work. The Torah is the Halachos. הן הן גופי התורה. It is a Sefer. The Sefer can indeed give permission for us to do something, and then we can decide to do so if we want to. The Torah is not what enables me to stretch my arms.

That the Torah delved into the mindset of the idol worshipers, is a statement about the Sefer.
___

“Look at Rashi on the pasuk; he comes laafukei your diyuk between Hashem/Torah on the word memshalah. Rashi on the pasuk writes that the miracle will happen either in the sky אות), or the land (מופת) and that אעפ”כ, לא תשמע לו, וא”ת מפני מה
נותן לו הקב”ה ממשלה לעשות אות, כי מנסה ה….”

אי תנא תנא

This Rashi does indeed sound like your description, that Hashem gave the false prophet the ability to perform miracles.

However, being that this actually never happened, where and when was this power given? Obviously, it is referring to being able to trick people, it perform כישוף. After all, כישוף is מכחיש פמליא של מעלה, which is quite a ממשלה.

And even with regard to signs in the sky, mentioned by Rebbi Yochanan, and you wondered how anyone can fool people about that, there is the famous legend of Columbus threatening to blot out the light of the sun. To those near him, there is absolutely no way to explain that away. This is why it is important to take Rashi’s paraphrase of Rebbi Yosi to heart.

Rashi is informing us of the correct Hashkafa which is that absolutely nothing can revoke the Torah, and if you see the greatest miracles, just know that it is a test.

Having said that, I realize that Rashi’s words ring stronger with your approach. I will say, though, that when you look around at all Meforshim you only see descriptions of כישוף, for example in the Ramban, and the Malbim spells it out as a matter of course.

The most extreme case would be the Medrash שיר השירים רבה פרשה ז:ט, about the ציץ causing the statue to talk. But these are all different than actual miracles. Regardless, if a miracle happens to you you thank Hashem, all while not accepting changes in Halachah because of it (חרוב, אמת המים).
___

“And i didn’t read the gemara backwards – rebbe yochanan is quoted first, but that doesn’t mean that the maskanah is not like him. He is an amora and halacha k’basra, we follow amoraim because they knew what the tannaim said and still said their statements. I’m sorry if i presented it as if the gemara sequentially went with rebbe yochanan – you’re correct that it did not, but that would only he significant if we’re talking about shitos of other amoraim, where sequence shows us the maskanah.”

The only time the Gemara would bring a Braysa that differs from an Amora would be as מיתבי, תניא כוותיה or מסייע ליה. Otherwise, it adds to the Sugya without affecting the words of the Amora.

There would be no other reason to quote it in reverse. In my reading, there is no מחלוקת, and the Gemara is truly only adding.

About the Basrai thing, that term was only said from after רבא. But you are probably referring to Nida 7 אין למידין הלכה מפי תלמוד. It is true nonetheless, that we would follow the Amora’s Hachraa.

To sum it all up: True that we do not change Halacha because of a miracle, even an unexplainable one. But in actuality, Hashem will not perform a real miracle to prove a lie. This second point made Rebbi Akiva reinterpret the Pasuk, while Rebbi Yosi explained it as lowering to the mindset of the impressed worshipers. And either way, the recipient of a salvation looks only heavenward.

I must add that Rabbeinu Chananel does explicitly describe Rebbe Akiva as arguing on Rebbi Yosi, although they are not addressing each other because they are not in one Braysa. However, that being the case, Rabbeinu Chananel does on to say that we accepted Rebbe Akiva’s view.

It’s great that you looked up the Gemara I mentioned.

So you quote the Gemara exactly in backwards order in other to create a Machlokes and a fake Hachraa. The Gemara first mentions Rebbi Yochanan, and then the Braysa of Rebbi Yosi, and after that another Braysa of Rebbi Akiva.

Rashi writes
נתנה התורה ממשלה בה – כלומר אפילו תראה אותו נביא מושל ועושה כרצונו דכתיב ונתן אליך אות או מופת
So he explained Rebbi Yosi’s words as the Torah agreeing to the mindset of the viewer that believes it to be a מופת בשמים.

Notice. Rebbi Yosi does not say נתן הקב”ה ממשלה. He says נתנה התורה, in other words, he is not speaking of actual power being given, but rather a seeming admission of power was given to them by the fact that Total mentions their activities as a matter of fact.

You decided to bring a proof straight from the Pasuk that it actually can happen, and no one says yhat in this Sugya, but we have Rebbi Akiva saying explicitly that it cannot happen and that the Pasuk can’t Even be discussing it, while the others don’t reinterprate the Pasuk.

I don’t think they taught you in Yeshiva to quote s Gemara backwards. They might have taught you to look around, for example Avoda Zara 55 and try to quote that as proof.

One thing you certainly learned not to do is to Darshen your own Pesukim.

And then you be Megaleh Torah Shelo Kehalachah and twist Rebbi Akiva’s words like that. What is that if not agenda driven interpretation? You’re gonna say that Rebbe Akiva “didn’t say it was impossible, rather “chas veshalom””, while he literally reinterprated the Pasuk because of it? So Rebbe Shimon also held that yhe Torah will be forgotten because he said חס ושלום שתשתכח?

Next step is calling me almost MO, then zionism, neo chabad and modern orthodoxy/haskala/”rationalism”, and then, of course, you complain about all hominem attacks.

“Hashem is telling us clear, rochel btcha haketana – miracles will happen”

No. It is not a promise that such a miracle will happen. Because Rebbe Akiva tells us in Sanhedrin 90 that it won’t.

And again. No one here is bringing proof to the truth if a concept from a miracle. This is not אילן יוכיח. There are two points now at stake.

My point was that the שלש שבועות as explained by the Maharal are all about the fact that the Galus will stay in place and you shouldn’t even try to get out of it. And if you do try it will end badly and you’ll stay in Galus, obviously. And so, if calling your neighborhood a state is a direct violation to one of these oaths, it would have ended the way it describes. And fortunately, it didn’t. Instead, the state lived on and prospered.

This is my argument as to why I believe that in the end, none of the oaths were technically violated.

The second point here is that if a salvation happened, it was from Hashem, and we have to be thankful and not be כפויי טובה. If it was a remarkable salvation, all the more so. And situations a lot less remarkable than the wars in EY were called Nissim.

A side point: I’m sure you know that in Israel they prepared large cemeteries because, apparently, they weren’t as sure as the apathetic State Department. Even today, the US government is very optimistic on Israel’s back about how nothing that terrible would happen if they remove road blocks, let in many more workers unchecked, turn around and leave before concluding war goals, reward crimes with statehood, turn the other cheek, and overturn the government that doesn’t fully align with current administration in America. Do you trust their judgement? Or is it only brought up selectively to grab the Hodaa away from Hakadosh Baruch Hu?

Like Smerel above, I find this Sitra Achra attribution very troubling and strange. In truth, this wasn’t the only theory put forth by the Satmar Rebbe ZTL, but for some reason this is the one that kicked off.

We do find instances of the Satan creating a flash flood before the Akeida, a form of a man on a bed before the Eigel, and to mess up Iyov. All of these were tests that Hakadosh Baruch Hu was testing people, and being that it is the Satan who is the one tasked with tempting people, he was given the permission, or task, of performing the test. It is another way of saying that Hashem was testing them.

We don’t find such attribution of a long lasting favor and hospital event to the Satan, but this is the idea that is being stretched.

It is a brand new idea into Judaism not to thank Hashem for salvation but to attribute it to strength or other powers. We always took for granted that the miracle of Purim was self evident, and not just because we were told it’s a miracle done by the right Power.

AviraDeArah, your final statement was exactly my point. It’s true that the Torah world was against any replacement ideology, whether it’s Communism, nationalism, or Zionism. And they surely did not go for the whole creating a state thing. Nor did they think like Hertzl and all the Zionists, that a Jewish state would solve antisemitism.

And once the state was proclaimed and formed, and that was the new reality, they worked with it, since it’s not the state that is the issue. And even if the שלש שבועות was an ingredient of the opposition, it wasn’t נוגע anymore once it was all said and done, and the new reality set in.

But Satmar is unique in making it all about the שלש שבועות and therefore playing up their importance, as well as not letting go of the issue even though Zionism is long over.

Strangely, Satmar papers are more obsessed with Israeli politics than anyone else. But instead of referring to the Prime Minister they’ll write ראש המינים והאפיקורסים.

CS, I must say, something is very odd. Lubavitch has spoken this talk in earlier years, how Peilischer Chasidim make it all about the Rebbe but in Lubavitch the Chasidim do the work and the Rebbe is just the teacher.

But now you have the whole Chasidus more Rebbe-centric than anyone else. And you constantly hear about his greatness and status. But if you’re putting him up there—way more than Peilischer Chasidim—how can you also say that his influence is limited?

Which is it?

anon1m0us, I am puzzled. Why don’t you just take a peek at that Gemara?
https://hebrewbooks.org/shas.aspx?mesechta=15&daf=111&format=text

Anon1m0us, the Amoraim lived after Churban Bais Sheni. The Amoraim in Kesubos 111 applied the oaths to their generation.

UJM, in case you were serious, here is my point in other words. As per the Maharal, the oaths are means of keeping the Galus in place. The Galus is not something we were told to go into. We were taken. And, these Shvuos were set in place to keep the Galus. We were warned that if we try to force things it won’t work and it will turn out bad.

However, in the case of the state of Israel, when if the original groups agitated for and hoped for mass migration, it didn’t happen that way. The Jews of Europe didn’t just get up and go. And the fact that the state succeeded in being established, for quite a few decades now, is proof that this is not a violation of Olah Bechomah or Meridah Ba’umos. Because again, those Gezeiros meant that it can’t work.

Moreover, even if someone violated the oath and got punished, that’s the system at play, but it doesn’t make him the worst Kofer. Doesn’t the Gemara in Shabbos call Tzlafchad a Tzadik while considering him as one of the Mapilim?