Forum Replies Created

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 251 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Beis Hillel vs. Beis Shamai #1133170
    Kozov
    Member

    Oh. I thought that was what we were arguing about. I was saying that pshat is that in the future they will be able to pasken like Bais Shammai. You were saying pshat was that they will have to pasken like Bais Shammai.

    I never said that.

    It is definitely more than just being ‘able’ to pasken like Beis Shamai. That is not how to read pshat of ????? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????.

    What I was arguing with you about was that Beis Shamai could hypothetically be right in every instance and the majority and halacha can still be against him.

    If all you meant was they are more likely to pasken like Bais Shammai on any given question then we agree.

    I’m glad you finally think at least that much. Because before, your opinion was clearly something else.

    You said: “When we say Bais Shammai was not the majority, that means that the majority thought Bais Shammai was wrong!” you used that as a proof against my comment: “Actually that is not true. The Halacha was not like Beis Shamai because they were not the majority, not because they were wrong.” The indication is that you are of the opinion that Beis Shamai is wrong where the majority rules against him.

    This, I refuted (besides the obvious question since when is majority opinion equivalent to truth).

    A more honest and accurate expression would have been for you to say “I concede,” not “we agree.”

    in reply to: Blaming the Same Gender Unions: A Personal Rant #927691
    Kozov
    Member

    Is that statement by Rav Yehuda Hachasid brought down l’halacha?

    Why do you ask? In any case, I provided a source in halacha.

    Does he mean a public macha or does he mean speaking to someone in private in a way in which he will listen like we understand “hochaich tochiach?

    Yona’s entreatment was large scale. But the words in the statement indicate instruction for individuals too.

    Is he speaking about what one should do in golus or what one should do in Eretz Yisrael when it is under Jewish control

    Yona’s story occured outside of Eretz Yisrael.

    Most importantly, I have the same kasha on Rav Yehuda Hachasid as I had whomever

    originally made the argument from Yonah.

    Good luck with that.

    Why do we only find this by Yonah? The non-Jewish world has been violating the 7 mitzvos as long as the mitzvos have been around and we don’t find any common practice of protesting these actions.

    Really, I don’t appreciate the question’s approach, since as you may have recently read, you shouldn’t base your opinion solely on what you read into a perceived silence- in this case of protests, when enjoined otherwise. But I’ll offer an answer: The current circumstances, as far as ability to influence without backlash is concerned, are different from whatever they historically were. Though to the extent you disagree with, I don’t know.

    As for our brethren not raised with Torah and Mitzvos, the best way to influence them is by example and outreach, not by shouting at the goyim.

    As for those who have not yet been reached, different routes are surely not a contradiction to that one.

    in reply to: Blaming the Same Gender Unions: A Personal Rant #927690
    Kozov
    Member

    JayMatt19, as I was trying to say, ??????? ???? ??? ?? ???? ????? seems to be a (similar but) different concept.

    in reply to: Beis Hillel vs. Beis Shamai #1133168
    Kozov
    Member

    But it is unlikely that they will overturn all of it and certainly, short of removing their bechira and individual n’tiyas neshomo, there is no way to guarantee that they will pasken like Bais Shammai in every instance.

    No one ever said they will pasken like Bais Shammai in every instance. Like we say now, the Halacha is like Bais Hillel, but there are still exceptions.

    As far as bechira goes, if a member of the Sanhedrin understands something a certain way, he ‘must’ pasken that way. That’s why ?????? ?????? argued with ????? in .??? ??, as explained in footnote 62. Does that in any way remove bechira?!

    in reply to: Engagement #952362
    Kozov
    Member

    I was engaged for 2 months. But that’s just me.

    in reply to: Blaming the Same Gender Unions: A Personal Rant #927674
    Kozov
    Member

    Seems like he geared his shiur towards the shitta of R’ Yonasson

    What is your point? Even were it to be true that that was his personal shitta, though I find it to be a long stretch to say the least, there is another factor: ?? ??????? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?????. But as Health anyway said, that occurence was likely particular to the Exodus.

    in reply to: Beis Hillel vs. Beis Shamai #1133165
    Kozov
    Member

    benignuman- That is a good question. When you will finally read the explanation in the link provided, part ?, with the footnotes, especially 52 and 61, I am confident you will finally understand.

    in reply to: Blaming the Same Gender Unions: A Personal Rant #927638
    Kozov
    Member

    A ???? source for being involved in influencing ??? ?? regarding their laws is ??”? ??? ???? ??”? ??’ ???: ???? ???????.

    There is another important factor no one mentioned: there are tens of thousands of Jews who weren’t fortunate enough to have a ???? upbringing whose behavior and perspective these laws very realistically affect.

    Yonah had a direct command from Hashem as a navi (and still did his best to avoid it). I don’t think you can compare any issue today to Yonah.

    Rabbi Yehuda Hachasid makes the comparison: ?? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?????, ?? ???? ????? ????, ???? ??? ???”? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ?????”? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?????

    (??? ?????? ???? ?????)

    We also see here a similar thing to what Health argued (which JayMatt19 has yet to respond appropriately to) about not differentiating by destruction and that it is still something to be concerned about even were it not to be a ????.

    in reply to: Beis Hillel vs. Beis Shamai #1133162
    Kozov
    Member

    Sam-

    Or he doesn’t consider a source found in late Achronim to matter when no earlier sources mentioned it first.

    Or he didn’t know or remember. HaLeiVi I remember that as well. Hopefully this post will go through now that you brought that up.

    Sam, you said you asked several Gedolim; what was their reason?

    And actually, this concept, if not mentioned outright, is rooted strongly in ???? ??”?, as I proved before. Quite literally is the implication (-benignuman). If you would read what is explained on the subject it would become quite clear to you how aligned and firmly rooted with ???? ??”? these sources are.

    Part ? with the footnotes for the entirety of it (in the link I provided).

    in reply to: Beis Hillel vs. Beis Shamai #1133161
    Kozov
    Member

    benignuman-

    just because Bais Shammai were sharper doesn’t mean they were always right (or else we would pasken like them now)

    Actually that is not true. The Halacha was not like Beis Shamai because they were not the majority, not because they were wrong.

    in reply to: Beis Hillel vs. Beis Shamai #1133158
    Kozov
    Member

    Or he doesn’t consider a source found in late Achronim to matter when no earlier sources mentioned it first.

    But why do you think the Rogatchaver Gaon would say or quote it?! And why do you think the ????”? himself would say it, if not for it being a reputable statement?!

    Also, everyone should agree that just because something is found in Seforim, especially the Arizal (like the topic of our discussion), without earlier sources does not mean it isn’t considered a source. See the end of the ????? of ?’ ???? ????? to ??? ??????? starting with ‘???? ??? ??? ??? ????’ until ‘?????? ???’.

    Some examples he brings are ????? ????”? ?? ????? ???? ?”? and on ????? ??? ?????? ?”?, see there.

    in reply to: Beis Hillel vs. Beis Shamai #1133157
    Kozov
    Member

    Here is another source that the Sanhedrin will be ???? ?????:

    ??”? ??? ??? ?”?:

    ???????? ???? ???? ??? (?”? ?”?) ?????, ????? ???, ????? ????? ??? ????? ????? ???? ????? ????. ???? ?? ??? ?’ ???, ??? ????? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ??? ???. ???? ????? ??? ?????? ?????, ???? ???? ??? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ?????, ??? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ???? ??????, ????? ????, ??? ??? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ???, ?? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ??

    in reply to: Beis Hillel vs. Beis Shamai #1133148
    Kozov
    Member

    benignuman- What does confusion over the meaning of ????? ???? have to do with taking things literally? Did you look up the mekoros I cited? It’s actually relatively straightforward. Beis Shamai are ????? ???. When ???? will come the Sanhedrin will be ???? ?????. For more on the matter, go to the link I provided.

    As for Sam asking ‘Gedolim’ and they saying it has no source and it is from the Hamon Am, maybe you should revisit your basis for qualification.

    in reply to: Gedolei Torah "Trash talking" #922001
    Kozov
    Member

    I meant what yichusdik is saying: With some thought and consideration for the feelings of others, anything can be said respectfully AND directly.

    Ironically and unfortunately, people seem to think that if a Talmid Chacham makes a lot of noise he is a gadol and there must be some substance in what he is saying. That is not at all what I am saying, nor is it true, because regrettably, sometimes Talmidei Chachamim are not deliberate enough and overzealouly use the Torah as a ‘????? ?????’. And all too often people twist their words or outright forge to whatever they wish it should mean. And often, the positions of the baalei davar are mutually exclusive, so one of them must be wrong and the other, possibly right.

    in reply to: Gedolei Torah "Trash talking" #921992
    Kozov
    Member

    You usually have to “read between the lines” to get what they are saying since it is the mark of a Ben Torah to use polite indirect speech rather than ‘trash talking.”

    No, that is the mark of a person who is afraid of confrontation.

    in reply to: Fascinating Torah trivia #921048
    Kozov
    Member

    Are you sure Tosafos called it Targum Yonasan?

    Why don’t you check?

    in reply to: Fascinating Torah trivia #921046
    Kozov
    Member

    benignuman-

    I was unaware of the Rikanti’s usage of Targum Yonosan (a citation would be appreciated).

    Here is one example. Top of second column:

    http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=44376&st=&pgnum=17

    Haleivi-

    The Rikanti is after the Ramban, so you aren’t really adding much by saying that someone after the Ramban quotes it too.

    I was only responding to what you yourself wrote:

    The Ramban rarely mentions it. So, if other Rishonim refer to it one time less than the Ramban, they won’t mention it at all.

    And the Rikanati and Tosafos both cite it as Targum Yonasan.

    in reply to: Fascinating Torah trivia #921041
    Kozov
    Member

    there are only few differences. Many of the differences are merely linguistic.

    The Ramban rarely mentions it. So, if other Rishonim refer to it one time less than the Ramban, they won’t mention it at all.

    There are many differences, not just linguistic. Also, many linguistic differences are significant, since it is a ‘Targum’.

    The Ramban does mention it, in your words. And other Rishonim do refer to it. Like the Rikanati, who lived in the Ramban’s times, refers to Targum Yonasan on the Torah. Often. Tosafos mentions Targum Yonasan on the Torah (a”z 59a). Not only do they mention it, they also brings there a machlokes between the Targum Yerushalmi and the Targum Yonasan on the Torah on what Har Seir is.

    in reply to: Fascinating Torah trivia #921040
    Kozov
    Member

    A There are many Midrashim that were around then that are not not around anymore. If Targum Yonasan was composed or compiled during the Rishonim period, the author drew from these same Medrashim.

    B Until benignuman provides a reason to assume Targum Yonasan was not written by Yonasan ben Uziel don’t assume it.

    C Here is the reason to assume it is not written by Yonosan ben Uziel…

    Haleivi- Even if you would be able to speculate about the timetable of the origin of the Targum Yonasan, and were able to say that ‘Targum Yonasan’ ‘drew from Midrashim’, the fact that many of Rashi’s statements have no other known source than the Targum Yonasan, still allows for the possibility that Rashi used the ‘Targum Yonasan’ which itself would have ‘drawn from Midrashim’, and that Rashi didn’t himself draw from those Midrashim.

    benignuman- This possibility would in turn invalidate your argument that Rashi never saw Targum Yonasan, which would in turn invalidate your inference from there.

    And again, there is definitely nothing to be ‘wary’ of.

    in reply to: Fascinating Torah trivia #921017
    Kozov
    Member

    There are many Midrashim that were around then that are not not around anymore. If Targum Yonasan was composed or compiled during the Rishonim period, the author drew from these same Medrashim.

    Until benignuman provides a reason to assume Targum Yonasan was not written by Yonasan ben Uziel don’t assume it.

    There’s definitely nothing to be wary of.

    It’s very hard for us to sayy that Rashi’s Mekor had to any specific place. There are many Midrashim that were around then that are not not around anymore… We can’t bring any proof.

    I beg to differ. Rashi’s makkor doesn’t definitively have to be from somewhere specific but it can be said that it is likely to be from somewhere specific.

    in reply to: Fascinating Torah trivia #921012
    Kozov
    Member

    Rashi doesn’t provide a citation. There is certainly no need to assume that Rashi had a different girsa or that he had no makor.

    in reply to: Fascinating Torah trivia #921009
    Kozov
    Member

    benignuman-

    It would seem Rashi did see and use the Targum attributed to Yonasan ben Uziel on the Torah. In many places Rashi makes statements that have no source other than Targum Yonasan on the Torah. For example, Bereshis 4,15, Vayasem. Especially since Rashi changes from what Pirke R’ Eliezer writes there (21). -Lubavitcher Rebbe

    in reply to: The Troll Slaying Brigade #917369
    Kozov
    Member

    I read “at the expense of others” along with the rest of the post the only way I was able to understand it.

    And again, if something is common, it doesn’t make it legitimate.

    Also, the context of this forum is not the same as the context you mention, hence the multitude of complaints and offenses taken, not just by myself.

    in reply to: The Troll Slaying Brigade #917364
    Kozov
    Member

    “They may occasionally engage in sarcasm at the expense of others”

    OneOfMany- We are not goyim, troll. Stop legitimizing reprehensible behavior.

    Also, I find the schizophrenic meandering between seriousness and sarcasm to be more disingenuous and disagreeable than “normative” trolling.

    popa_bar_abba, as a non-troll, I say don’t leave the trolls be.

    in reply to: Should "shmedrick" stop posting? #918091
    Kozov
    Member

    “I’m actually enjoying your posts. I think you have nice sense of humor, I’m just afraid that some people are taking you seriously.”

    DaasYochid, you seem to be one who considers himself a discerning person, so is it so hard to recognize that every post adds or or takes away from the flow of an originally more serious thread? Troll posts, no matter how perceivedly humorous, especially with the current dynamics of this forum’s post delay rate, are an eyesore, and not worthy of mention or praise, and should be taken seriously.

    Another point is sometimes there is absolutely no way to determine whether a poster is trolling or not; being sarcastic or whatever. So to wait until they establish themselves as authentic trolls, or better yet, to claim post-fact of disapproval that it was a troll post, should be to push their luck. And what does “a respectable troll” possibly mean anyways?

    Additionally, I find many of the attempts at humor here predictable, repetitive, and distasteful.

    in reply to: The Troll Slaying Brigade #917361
    Kozov
    Member

    OneOfMany, I don’t care for why you or anyone else of many who typically do, are bent on defending the mods, when one of shmendrick’s first posts is self admittedly the cause for his blocking, and they also somehow know he is the same as the other troll. In any case in my opinion it was not a tough call at all determining what he was here for. The same goes for the other troll post they let through the other day and others in previous times. Worst case scenario the troll can just be meshane shmo and stop being a troll.

    in reply to: Help Using Scanner To Monitor Police #916885
    Kozov
    Member

    There is no excuse for allowing this troll post through. Can anyone suggest similar forums to this one without the annoyance?

    in reply to: Are you sure you lit the menora? #914804
    Kozov
    Member

    jmh- If you weren’t unaware of said inyan, what was your point? You jumping to conclude I didn’t see the paranthesis is incorrect.

    in reply to: Olmert Signals Concessions in Yerushalayim #914653
    Kozov
    Member

    “Arabs have shown little interest”

    “why many Israelis can make peace offers that they know won’t be accepted.”

    The offers have sometimes been accepted, or rather, granted.

    in reply to: Kasha of Beis Yosef #989814
    Kozov
    Member

    tzaddiq- Don’t we have a principle ?? ???? ???”? ???? ?????? The ness could just have had an expiration time, which is whenever they would bring the pure oil. -Lubavitcher Rebbe

    http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=15868&st=&pgnum=122

    in reply to: Philosophical QsNO KFIRAH #944178
    Kozov
    Member

    “Where did you get the idea that the Torah was literally infinite? The Torah is described as an ocean. Oceans are very very big, and very, very deep, but they aren’t infinite.”

    benignuman, actually it is described as wider than the ocean, and this is what that means:

    ???? (????? ???): ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ????? ???, ??? ?? ???????

    ???? ???? ?? ??? ???????, ??? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???????

    ??? ??? ?? ?????, ?????: (???? ??): ????? ???? ??? ????? ??? ??

    – ?????? ??? ? ?

    It is infinite because it is supernal wisdom. Consequently new insights will always be uncovered. -?? ????

    And by your own admission readynow, it is not dependent on any other existence.

    in reply to: What 3 wishes would you wish? #921347
    Kozov
    Member

    “4) ESCAPE FROM HERE!!”

    If you want to escape, why don’t you just leave?

    in reply to: Kasha of Beis Yosef #989811
    Kozov
    Member

    Sam, how would it be or lead to an Issur when it has always been permissible to make a 7 branch menora with wood or glass?

    in reply to: Are you sure you lit the menora? #914772
    Kozov
    Member

    “You do know that Neiros Chanuka is d’rabonon, right”

    It is still God’s will.

    in reply to: Kasha of Beis Yosef #989803
    Kozov
    Member

    Toi, it’s originally the Chidushei Harim’s kasha (though R’ Chaim may have added reasoning in saying it has to have been “kasis”). And both the Chidushei Harim and R’ Chaim are muchrach to answer that there is a difference between oil that “expanded” in the proximity of “real” olive oil, whatever that means, and olive oil created from nothing. However, in light of the answer I provided above that the oil never decreased until the eigth day, we do not need to be forced into that explanation for this question.

    Shticky Guy’s answer about making sure Beis Hillel and Shamai’s opinions never align so therefore no seven days also answers the question of why not nine days because of sfeika dyoma. -Gra

    in reply to: Kasha of Beis Yosef #989783
    Kozov
    Member

    A possible answer to this question, and yekke’s third question: When the Beis Yosef says in one answer that every day they found the menorah full with oil, this doesn’t mean it was replenished every morning, in which case one can ask, this is not shemen zayis, but shemen nes, but rather it means the oil was never depleted at all. This is like the fire in the ??? as is described in Shmos Rabba 2,5 “????? ????? ?????” burns but does not consume. But at the same time the fire must halachicly come from the oil, and it does as proof of its igniting when there is a wick and oil, and similar to the fire which Rabbi Elazar describes happened to him miraculously in his house in Bereshis Rabba 11,2, which he lit from oil and wick, but when he came Motzaei Shabbas he found it “???? ??? ??? ????”. This is understandably a very great miracle, because it is reliant on the oil and at the same time doesn’t consume it, similar to the paradoxical miracle of ???? ????? ???? ?? ????.

    http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=15868&st=&pgnum=114

    in reply to: Kasha of Beis Yosef #989782
    Kozov
    Member

    This question applies especially according to what the Rosh Yosef discusses in Shabbos: if we say there must be this specific measurement of oil even bidiavad, and if there isn’t this amount, we may be required to mix impure oil (?????? ??????) into the pure oil to fill it.

    in reply to: Throwing bleach at R' Nuchem Rosenberg to achieve justice? #912378
    Kozov
    Member

    zk,

    If making a machaa is what is fundamentally machlokes-inducing, I may have agreed with you. Fortunately and realistically, it isn’t. We should all say tehillim for Rabbi Rosenberg. And whoever threw bleach at him should be arraigned and punished. And your asking the point in this thread is conspicuously ironic.

    in reply to: Kasha of Beis Yosef #989781
    Kozov
    Member

    yekke please tell us where in the gemara it says they must be changed.

    A similar question is what it says in Menachos 89, 1, it must have a half-lug, the amount to stay lit from night to morning. According to the Beis Yosef (670) in the first answer that they split the oil into 8 portions, or even according to the Pri Chadash there and Tosafos Harash that it was originally filled entirely and every day an eighth burned, this is not being done. Even though according to the Tosafos Harash this law only applies when possible, we know the famous question, if ???? ????? ????? why did Hashem need to do the ness with the oil? The Sfas Emes answers ??? ????? ????? ?? ?????, ????”? ??? ??????? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ????? ??????. Hashem cherishes his people and their mitzvas, so he did this miracle so they would be able to perform the mitzva, when they looked for the opportunity to be mehader and do the mitzva of lighting the menorah by searching for oil. Based on this even according to the Tosafos Harash his answer is problematic, Hashem would likely arrange for the miracle to fulfill the mitzva in the most mehudar way.

    -Lubavitcher Rebbe

    in reply to: Philosophical QsNO KFIRAH #944144
    Kozov
    Member

    frum,

    In general it says:

    ?? ??… ?? ??? ???? ?? ??? ????? ????? ??? ?? ???? ????? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?? ????? ??? ???

    -Rambam Hilchos Milochim Umilchamosehem 10,1

    in reply to: Geveinas Akum #911266
    Kozov
    Member

    rebdoniel, rampant anti-semitism and self-justifying insincere Judaism has resulted in quite a bit of harm. That characteristically goes hand in hand with misconstruing the words of our sages. If you don’t take care to have the common decency to give them the benefit of the doubt with openminded inquisitiveness, then you are the one taking part in the harm by so easily following the belligerent. You may even surprise yourself and find that their opinions match perfectly with your consciense. It seems you have already had your earful of the outside rhetoric.

    Let us just consider the coherence of what you said. You said the notion caused harm, but you didn’t say whether or not the notion was untrue or counterintuitive (And you are going to point out to me where to read in the Sridei Eish). Now let us consider the subject of the R’ Yehuda Halevi, Maharal, and the Baal Hatanya’s studies. I’m sure they learned, for just one example, Bava Metziah 85:1 numerous times, where R’ Yehuda Hanasi gets punished for not comforting an animal properly.

    So, though it’s true we can never stress enough compassionate behavior to everyone, it would be a big stretch to say or even give off the impression that great Rabbis were guilty of such things. In the end we must say, we must study their words in more depth and hopefully come to a more agreeable understanding of what they are saying.

    in reply to: Poorer People Bigger Tzadikm; Richer People Not Such Tzadikim #910870
    Kozov
    Member

    yichusdik, I’m not sure what you’re implying, but if you’re implying that there is no such thing as perfection in the sense of a person having no yetzer hara, you are very much mistaken. See Yerushalmi Sota 25:1, about Avraham’s and Dovid’s yetzer haras. Yes, tzaddikim have nisyonos, but those are different from ours. I don’t know how many of them there are nowadays though. Don’t forget what it says in Shabbos 55:2, ????? ??? ????? ?? ???, ???? ??: ?????? ?? ????, ????? ??? ???, ???? ??? ???, ????? ?? ???.

    And comparing (the maalos of) tzaddikim may not neccessarily be a bad thing, if you are trying to determine whom to follow, for example, or you are mishabeach a tzaddik. Remember the comparison of R’ Elazar Ben Arach in Pirkei Avos.

    So for heaven’s sake, don’t bring in other religions to this. In general I think there is a kernel of truth in your message, especially the beginning, but I felt you were toeing the line.

    in reply to: ???? ???? – Angel of Death #911758
    Kozov
    Member

    4) There is also the authoritative position of the Arizal (whose teachings are from Eliyahu Hanavi), that all of Hevel’s gilgulim need Tikun through death (like he himself needed), and the Ir Miklat is Michaper and Misaken for those who kill them unintentionally. If we merit that Mashiach comes before “its time” which means before the Tikun is finished (when there won’t be any death at all since ??? ???? ????), there will be a need for (even more) Arei Miklat (and hence the word “??”). But if Mashiach comes in “its time,” after the Tikun is finished, there will be no need for the Arei Miklat. Either way, there will not be any intentional killing and the unintentionall killing will fit into the “Ina Liyado” in Makos 10:2. The Arizal is quoted by the Zayis Raanon and the Maskil Lidovid.

    5) The Maskil Lidovid also cites the Shalah. The Shalah proves that not all of the great successes prophesized will be at one time, there may be different periods, but eventually, there will be no death at all.

    6) The Alshich offers a similar explanation as the Arizal.

    So in response to your question about the Malach Hamaves, maybe Hashem will Shecht the Malach Hamaves after people finish killing unintentionally, after the Tikun of Hevel is finished, at a later period.

    And a person with ????? ????? can ?”? be mafsik someone from Torah and then let the ???? ???? finish the job.

    But you may be right, since I have no idea what the Malach Hamaves is and how it works.

    in reply to: ???? ???? – Angel of Death #911757
    Kozov
    Member

    1) The (Magen Avraham in) Zayis Raanon (on Yalkut Shimoni) asks a similar question. It says ?? ??? ??? ?? ??? ???. What is the need for ??? ????? He says it fits according to Shmuel who holds ??? ??? ???? ??? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ????. Or, he answers, it’s a Mitzva (/Gzeiras HaKasuv -Minchas Chinuch 520).

    2) The Shach (Sifsei Kohen, Parshas Shoftim) says even though the Rambam holds like Shmuel to a certain extent, he surely wouldn’t hold there would be killing in the times of Mashiach (even unintentionally, because it is implied in Makos 10:2 that a person unintentionally kills a person who killed intentionally, and when Mashiach comes there will be no people who kill intentionally, left to be killed, even unintentionally. And the Rambam says “?? ???? ??? ?????” and “?? ???? ??? ?? ????? ??? ???? ?? ? ????”. -Lubavitcher Rebbe.) See the Shach’s answer ?? ??? ???? that ???? is ????? ??????.

    3) The Maskil Lidavid (on Rashi) states that (though in his opinion according to Shmuel the Pasuk is understandable,) according to the other Man Diamar there obviously needs to be an explanation for the need for ??? ???? in the times of Mashiach as he says ????? ??? ???? ????? ???? and it is stated ??? ???? ????. He offers that the ????? and promise of no killing and similar ?????? only applies to Yidden of those times, not to those who will become Geirim then.

    in reply to: Chasuna Pictures Messed Up #892678
    Kozov
    Member

    takahmamash: the same thing happened by my nephew’s wedding.

    in reply to: Litvishe Gedolim respecting Chasiddishe Gedolim #894170
    Kozov
    Member

    Shlishi, no I’m not sure. That was something I remembered vaguely. He was definitely at least a Talmid and held the Baal Haflaah in high regard.

    in reply to: Litvishe Gedolim respecting Chasiddishe Gedolim #894162
    Kozov
    Member

    It looks like I mixed up the Choze from Lublin with the Baal Haflaah, both Hurvitz, both Chasidim of the Maggid of Mezrich.

    in reply to: I think the real issue here is… #892526
    Kozov
    Member

    No. What happened is that people were bashing choppy the same way they claimed he was bashing them, and because of the level of aggressiveness I felt it was more related to wickedness then trying to prove a point or a similar motive.

    in reply to: I think the real issue here is… #892523
    Kozov
    Member

    I’m not sure I understood.

    in reply to: Shlomo Carelbach #895743
    Kozov
    Member

    go ask the storeowner.

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 251 total)