Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Menachem: Was it Chabad ‘s minhag to remove shoes already in prewar Europe?
If I’m not mistaken they did.
I have seen teshuva seforim (non Chabad) that mention this minhag.
Sefer שמש ומגן – תרנ”א writes a whole arichus explaining the reasons for the minhag, and it seems that this was a regular minhag in those days. He concludes:
ועל כן נמצא סמך למנהג העולם שפושטים נעליהם בבואם על קברי הצדיקים זיע”א”.
He calls it מנהג העולם, so it must be that it was a common minhag.I know that Rabbi Yochanan (Chabad) wrote up the history and sources of this minhag, but I haven’t gotten a hold of his writing.
Here’s something else I found online:
“R’ Moshe Dovber Rivkin[1] wrote:
דאדרבא מקום קברי צדיקי נחשב למקום קדוש, וכמ”ש המהרי”ל “דמקום מנוחת הצדיקים הוא מקום קדוש וטהור והתפלה מתקבלת יותר” הביאו הבה”ט בססי׳ תקפ״א.)ובוודאי מטע”ז נוהגיס הרבה בעת השתטחות על קברי צדיקים לחלוץ הנעלים כשנגשים אל הציון
The burial place of the righteous is (as the Maharil writes) “holy and pure, where prayers are accepted”. That’s why many, when going to prostrate themselves on the graves of the righteous, take off their shoes when they approach the grave.
The Nitei Gavriel also writes that this was the custom of R’ Yisrael of Sadigora (the grandson of the Ruzhiner) and Chernobyl.
[1] : One of the Chossidim of the Rebbe Rashab (the fifth Lubavitcher Rebbe) and the Previous Lubavitcher Rebbe, and one of the Roshei Yeshiva of Torah VaDaas)”
Do Lubavitch take off their shoes by מערת המכפלה, קבר רחל, or קבר רשב״י?
I’m not sure.
If not, why not?
If not, maybe because they have more minhagim of respect for their rabbeim’s kvarim.
I love this! This should not even be a chiddush, this should be obvious. Our connection to another Jew is WAY above politics. Thanks OP for sharing this.
Additionally, if I’m not mistaken, the minhag of removing shoes was quite common in the past by many Jews at kivrei tzaddikim, I don’t think it was unique to Lubavitch.
Coffee addict,
What’s up with the non leather shoes, and walking out backwards. I’ve been to countless kivrei tzaddikim (רשב״י, רמב״ם, ר מאיר בעל הנס etc) and I don’t think breslovers have that rule (I have friends that went for Rosh Hashanah)
I understand the rule of אדמת קודש but isn’t this going a little TOO far?
Every Jewish sect has minhagim. It is normal for people to treat their holy places with various signs of respect. These are the traditional Chabad minhagim for the kevarim of their rabbeim.
See also Chabad-org: Why Do People Take Off Their Shoes When Visiting the Ohel?
Why should something be “a little too far” just because it happens to be a minhag Chabad?
The above proposition is that the conditions of physical death did not apply to Yaacov. Are you understanding that this also means that all conditions of physical life did / do apply? Please clarify.
I have no idea. It is certainly more literal than Maharsha himself who holds that Yaakov’s body is dead like any other and he lives on through his children.
He quoted Rambam who, of course, said it’s allegorical but then he said that Ramban says it’s literal and Chabad follows Ramban. Which leads us to ask, Why do they study Rambam?
This again highlights Qwerty’s misunderstanding of normal study and dialogue, which seems to result in a limited grasp of how to approach learning Torah.
Qwerty, it seems that, in your mind, every discussion becomes a litmus test: Are you with me or against me? If someone is on your “team,” you’ll support whatever they say. If they’re not, you’ll dismiss or challenge their points and try to “checkmate” them, as if an intellectual conversation is just a game of chess.
But that’s not how real discussions work. One can agree on some things and disagree on others. You can find nuance in someone’s position and still respect their views despite some differences.
How much more so in Torah study, which is rooted in truth and peace. It is entirely possible to hold the Rambam in great esteem, and to emphasize studying his works, even if one doesn’t follow his rulings in every instance.
Happy New Year,
Many rishonim have opposed the concept of gilgulim and brought Chazal to support their stance.
Zohar, Arizal, and the major kabbalists support the idea of gilgulim.
The latter has been supported by the major gedolim of the recent centuries from the various Jewish circles, including chassidish, litvish and sfardi.
I don’t think you have to worry about the 5-6 CR Rabbi’s who disagree with you. The The Gur Aryeh (Maharal), The Maskil L’Dovid and Divrei Dovid (Taz) certainly did not learn Rashi like them (Obviously neither did the Ramban).
You haven’t been following the long discussion until now.
To summarize:
Rashi on Vayechi is quite ambiguous, and can probably be understood either way.
Rashi on Taanis however is simply understood to mean that Yaakov is physically alive, since he explains the Gemara that the only reason why Yaakov was embalmed and buried is because “he SEEMED dead, though really he was alive” (נדמה להם שהוא מת אבל חי הוא) [– as OPPOSED to other meforshim who hold that Yaakov was embalmed and buried because he was physically dead].
Maharsha understands Rashi this way (which is why he says that Rashi’s pshat is דוחק, and gives his own pshat). Artscroll understands Rashi this way (I’ve quoted the footnote many times). Rif to Ein Yaakov, Etz Yosef, Iyun Yaakov and Ohr Hachayim all clearly hold that יעקב לא מת is literal, and ויגוע means that Yaakov was in a deep state of sleep.
[None of the meforshim that you mentioned (גו”א, משכיל לדוד, ד”ד) quote Rashi on Taanis (נדמה להם), rather they are being mefaresh Rashi on chumash. Even if you were to find a meforash who interprets Rashi on Taanis to mean spiritual, that is definitely not the פירוש הפשוט of Rashi there, as I have shown in the previous paragraph.]
The answer to Philosopher’s question (that later it says that the sons saw כי מת אביהם) is obvious after reading the Ramban: The possuk is only writing about how Yaakov seemed to the sons’ perspective — they looked at Yaakov and say כי מת אביהם, which doesn’t necessarily reflect on the reality.
This answer of the Ramban solves the issue from this possuk for all the opinions in meforshim, including the literal interpretations. Ramban’s own opinion (which seems to be cryptic and not clearly fitting with either interpretation) is irrelevant to this point.
The mods have WENT TO SLEEP about a month or two ago, and there has been a surge of spam ever since.
It will probably only get worse.
A true shame.
Interesting point, Yankel.
I assume that Qwerty and Philosopher insist that all meforshim interpret the story of Yonah to be a משל, because Torah must be completely rational, G-d performs nothing above nature.
Lubavitchers never discuss the Holocaust as per the Rebbe’s orders. I knew that and so one Shabbos I gave a speech focusing on the Shoah in order to annoy a certain Chabad Rabbi. As I anticipated he blew a gasket and announced,”The Holocaust is one of those times when G-d couldn’t explain himself. Like when the Romans were torturing Rabbi Akiva and the angels said Zeh Torah and Zeh it’s Schar? And Hashem couldn’t answer them.”
So do Lubavitchers never discuss the Holocaust, or do they disagree with the reasons you gave for why the Holocaust happened? 🤔
(Not that it makes much of a difference. After all, one who disagrees with Qwerty is disagreeing with G-d Hikiddos.
P.S. It’s incredible that with all of Qwerty’s insane hate and rhetoric here for anyone who dares associate with Chabad in any which way, he is allowed to gives speeches in a Chabad shul!!!
Qwerty, your Chabad Rabbis must be very, very kind and merciful toward you. I’m sure they use immense self control to treat you like a mensch. It’s incredible how chassidus can help someone master their middos.
Participant,
Mods seem to be fast asleep.
Hey mods 👋, are you still there?
@Participant directed an important post at you. Did you miss it?It is not rare for a sicko creep to baselessly accuse others of the very sins they themselves are guilty of.
Someone has been baselessly accusing Arso of terrible things for a while now, and this individual is starting to reveal his true colors, which are even darker than we initially thought.
I am increasingly surprised at the recent absolute lack of moderation on this platform, which has now descended from maniacal rhetoric to inyonim of hepech hatznius, r”l.
Wow, most posters here don’t seem to know the first thing about kiruv.
I thought you were openly a tichiyas-hameisim-first-nik, rather than a still-alive-nik if you’re catching my drift. Is that not correct?
You’re right, this conversation is irrelevant to the Rebbe. I haven’t voiced ANY opinion here about the Rebbe being alive or being Moshiach.
Philosopher started the conversation out of the blue, with this ignorant attack:
It is Lubavitche like you who twist everything out of context. For example when Rashi says that Yaacov avinu did not die there are numerous mefarshim that explain what it means. There is no mefoiresh saying that he is here with us physically. And yet i heard a Chabad rabbi claim that Rashi said that Yaacov is with us physically; that is a lie.
In a way I am happy about this discussion, because it led me to do more research into יעקב לא מת than I’ve ever done.
You claimed that Rashi is saying something different on the Gemorah. He is not. He is saying the exact same thing. But instead of saying “Yaacov lo mes” he is saying “lo mes-he chai l’oilum” which is essentially the same thing.
If this is the only difference you saw in Rashi on Taanis then you have no idea what the entire discussion is about!
You clearly don’t even know what Rashi wrote in Taanis, and why Maharsha, Artscroll, et al understood him to mean literally.
Somejew, you haven’t answered my question. Is killing intrinsically bad or not?
the Ramban clearly concludes that Rashi saying Yaacov lo mes means he is spiritually alive.
No. He brings the מאמר חז”ל from Rashi. Then he gives his own interpretation of Chazal. His pirush has nothing to do with Rashi’s pirush specifically, and definitely not with Rashi on Shas (which is what we are discussing).
Honestly, I don’t think we even know which way the Ramban held, because his words here can be understood both ways (as opposed to Maharsha, Rashba, etc. who clearly hold that Yaakov is alive spiritually. And Rashi, Rif, etc. who clearly hold that Yaakov is alive physically).
Either way, the point is that your question is clearly answered, no matter what the Ramban held.
Mods, one of the posters is going to far. He was often censored in the past, and I think his posts should be reviewed.
Rashi is saying Yaacov lo mes.
Rashi (on Shas, which is what we’re discussing) did not say Yaakov Lo Mes. He was mefaresh the Gemara that said that, and in a way that clearly means that he physically didn’t die, as Rashi is understood by Maharsha and Artscroll and more.
The Chofetz Chaim says the above. Idol worshippers are apikorsom. You are bringing stories from Tanach to reach your own conclusion to disagree with the Chofetz Chaim? Or are you being misunderstood? Where in Shulchan Aruch does it say it is ever prohibited to condemn, mock or despise idol worshippers?
My point was that when speaking about Jews, one is playing with fire. Handle with care.
Somejew,
Question: Why can’t we use iron on the מזבח? We are told it’s because iron is a tool of death. But isn’t it used for the killing of bad people? How can death itself be something bad, sometimes it is a very good a necessary thing?
Another question: Dovid Hamelech was not able to build the Beis Hamikdash because דם לרוב שפחת – Hashem didn’t want His house built by someone whose hands were filled with blood.
But wasn’t it the blood of wicked enemies of the Jews who deserved to be killed? What could negative about this?Yakov would not be ‘in a deep sleep’ because how didn’t the embalmers notice his breathing ?
And his pulse ?
It says they thought him being dead ?It could be that his brain was functioning bederech nes without oxygen supply, and that was the measure of life within his body.
Thats why it does not say vayamat.This is indeed a plausible explanation, I don’t know. I was just bringing how the meforshim explain the word ויגוע here.
In other words, the Ramban is questioning in the first part but his conclusion is that Yaacov lo mes means that his non-death is a spiritual matter.
Philosopher, this is the problem when you ignore the answer to your question for three weeks, and suddenly wake up to address it when you think you found a challenge.
In my original post where I brought the Ramban, I acknowledged your point, and it’s irrelevant to the discussion!
Here is part of my original post, with the part where I acknowledge your point in bold:
D) Your exellent question stands even if you learn יעקב לא מת spiritually: The fact is that Gemara calls Yaakov לא מת, and Rashi on Chumash (and Tosfos in Gemara) proves it from the fact that the posuk doesn’t use the word מיתה regarding Yaakov, so how can it say מת אביהם!?
E) Ramban (who doesn’t necessarily interpret the Gemara physically) is bothered by the same question as you!
In other words: Your question is a question on the Chazal according to any pirush, physical or spiritual.
Ramban answers your question perfectly. It doesn’t matter if he is one of the meforshim who interpret it physically or not. The point is that your question has been asked and answered.
The answer works for all pirushim of Yaakov Lo Mes.This was the exact point I made originally with the Ramban, and you conveniently waited till everyone would forget this point before proposing your weak argument and pretending as if I ignored that part of Ramban.
P.S. The reason why I wrote “not necessarily” is because the last part of the Ramban is written in very vague and concise terms, so I’m not fully clear on his stance. However, even if he does hold that it is only spiritual, the answer still stand for Rashi et al, as I just explained.
one must be equally careful in both directions.
I’m not sure this is true. Chessed is an inherently good middah, though it can be used for bad. Achzariyus is an inherently bad middah, though it can be used for good.
It is definitely better to err on the side of chessed.
The issue with the Tzedoikim was that they interpreted Torah Shebchsav wrongly because they disregarded Torah Shebaal Peh entirely, not that they interpreted it wrong
What you are doing is, in a way, worse than the tzedokim. They only accepted the literal meaning of Torah Shebiksav and rejected Torah Shebaal Peh outright. You only accept the literal meaning of Torah Shebiksav yet twist Torah Shebaal Peh to fit your literal understanding.
Philosopher, if a woman touches a man inappropriately, should her hand be cut off?
If, based on Chazal, you answer no – my question is: How can Chazal “contradict” the clear meaning of the possuk (Devarim 25:12)?
Please answer this question. Should her hand be cut off or not.
Menachem Shmei refers to a Gemara as “obscure.”
Obscure (not well known) for a child who just began learning Chumash.
What does it mean that Yaacov expired?
Why do you ignore the meforshim I brought who say ויגוע means a deep sleep?
A little further in the parsha it says that the brothers of Yosef saw that their father DIED with the loshen “mes”.
But Rashi said that מיתה לא נאמרה בו – it doesn’t use the term “death” regarding Yaakov!
Why do you ignore the Ramban I brought on that possuk who explained that the possuk is not saying that Yaakov died, rather that his sons SAW him as dead, as Rashi wrote נדמה להם שהוא מת?
Would you criticize the IDF cook by saying: “Why are you sitting comfortably in a safe room while other soldiers are risking their lives on the battlefield? Why aren’t you out there in danger, fighting alongside them?”
Such an argument would be absurd. While combat may seem more heroic and demanding than working in the kitchen, if the cooks were to abandon their post and join the battle, the soldiers would starve!
The soldiers and the cooks are partners, each fulfilling a critical role in the war effort.
The same applies to Torah learners and physical fighters:
The ruchniyus aspect of the war is waged by those learning Torah in yeshiva, while the physical war is fought by the soldiers on the battlefield.
The Gemara says (Sanhedrin 49a):
אילמלא דוד לא עשה יואב מלחמה ואילמלא יואב לא עסק דוד בתורה
Were it not for David [who engaged in Torah study], Joab would not have been able to wage war. And were it not for Joab [who fought the battles], David would not have been able to study Torah.If either side abandoned their responsibilities due to a desire to do the other’s role, it would endanger us all, ch”v.
Pikuach nefesh overrides Yehareig V’al Yaavor and you know that.
Huh?
Instead of saying “Jewish Boy Dies from Bullying”
it probably would have been better if I had said:
“Jewish Boy Who was Victim of Bullying, has Died”.That is indeed a wise correction.
Bullying must be stoped, and strongly addressed.
No need to spread disinformation, especially of such magnitude.
Rashi or any mefoiresh on the Chumash is meant as explanation to the pesukim in the Chumash-they do not contradict the Chumash. If they appear to contradict a pesuk in the Chumash you are interpreting the mefoiresh wrong.
Or you are interpreting the chumash wrong, like the tzedokim did?
In our case, the meforshim who hold that Yaakov is physically alive are very clear (you only read Rashi, not any of the others whom I referenced).
You have a question from a posuk, and Ramban there answers. End of story. There is no contradiction between Torah Sebiksav and Shebaal Peh here.
Again, saying that one should always change the pshat of a clear Chazal/meforash to fit the literal meaning of a posuk (especially one which was already discussed and answered by meforshim) will usually lead one to Karaism (as we see from a poster who recently joined this thread).
It’s very concerning that not one person here properly understood anything I said.
Happy,
I can attest, I didn’t understand anything you said.
The Bible Academy you went to must have had a different yeshivishe shprach than the Yeshiva I went to.
There is a Sefer called רש״י כפשוטו (it’s a Chumash with rashi and an explanation on rashi) that brings a Gemara in bava basra that says it doesn’t say מיתה by דוד המלך because his son Shlomo followed in his footsteps and the same could be said here
Coffee,
1. It is not Rashi’s derech in his pirush in chumash to be understood based on an obscure Gemara. He writes his pirush assuming a child will read it and understand it at face value.
2. Even if you want to say that this is Rashi’s intention in his pirush on Vayechi, it is bipashtus not able to be his intention in his pirush on Taanis where he adds the part of נדמה להם etc.
The main discussion in this thread is regarding Rashi’s pirush in Taanis.
[And, as I have demonstrated in an earlier post, Rashi’s pirush on chumash need not match his pirush in Shas.]
ARSo is crazy if he thinks Hashem has any place for someone who’s not only a liar but he attacks those who disagree with him only to end up admitting we were right. If he was actually a Gemara teacher we can only imagine the percentage of boys who went OTD. Now Shmei and Benedict have officially formed an alliance. It’s a beautiful thing a modern day Hitler Stalin pact.
MODS? MODS?
Is this Twitter?
First he was arguing with me that Yacov wasn’t buried. When I showed him that the posuk says that Yacov was buried, he backtracked.
Of course, you never pointed out a SINGLE post where I insinuated that Yaakov wasn’t buried. Not a SINGLE one. Because I NEVER said that.
The same thing is now happening with Arso. First he argues on the entire thread that Yacov is PHYSICALLY alive
I haven’t seen a SINGLE POST where ARSo said that Yaakov is physically alive. He said that RASHI holds that Yaakov is alive.
If you don’t provide the posts where ARSo said I said those things you claim we said – you are a LIAR.
Call me an Apikorus.
Sure: You, Happy New Year, are an apikorus.
(Or, hopefully, a poor Jew who received a very very poor Jewish education).Why? This is what you wrote:
“Saying Chazer will be mutar is against the Torah. Period. I don’t CARE who said that. Including Chazal. Chazal, like the Neviim and Ksuvim, have NO right to contradict the Torah.
This is why Ruchniyus is so evil and why the Torah WARNS us against the SEDUCTION of Ruchniyus, and how we should only focus on Gashmiyus.”Rambam regarding one who denies Torah Shebal Peh: מֵאַחַר שֶׁנִּתְפַּרְסֵם שֶׁהוּא כּוֹפֵר בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁבְּעַל פֶּה [מוֹרִידִין אוֹתוֹ] וְלֹא מַעֲלִין וַהֲרֵי הוּא כִּשְׁאָר כָּל הָאֶפִּיקוֹרוֹסִין וְהָאוֹמְרִין אֵין תּוֹרָה מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהַמּוֹסְרִין וְהַמּוּמָרִין. שֶׁכָּל אֵלּוּ אֵינָם בִּכְלַל יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לֹא לְעֵדִים וְלֹא הַתְרָאָה וְלֹא דַּיָּנִים [אֶלָּא כָּל הַהוֹרֵג אֶחָד מֵהֶן עָשָׂה מִצְוָה גְּדוֹלָה וְהֵסִיר הַמִּכְשׁוֹל]:
(In the next halacha, the Rambam writes that this din does not apply to those who grew up without a proper upbringing and don’t know better. I hope you are part of that category.)
Oh. And by the way. The whole PURPOSE of Mashiach is to RESTORE the Torah (דברים פרק ל)
Correct, to restore the ENTIRE Torah, which includes Torah Shebiksav and Torah Shebal Peh (תורה בפירושה ניתנה).
As the Rambam writes regarding Moshiach: וְאִם יַעֲמֹד מֶלֶךְ מִבֵּית דָּוִד הוֹגֶה בַּתּוֹרָה וְעוֹסֵק בְּמִצְוֹת כְּדָוִד אָבִיו. כְּפִי תּוֹרָה שֶׁבִּכְתָב וְשֶׁבְּעַל פֶּה.Who cares who / if Mashiach is? As long as he / she RESTORES the Torah and Israel כדת וכדין.
“SHE”: Again, kefira in תורה שבעל פה.
Rambam: אֵין מַעֲמִידִין אִשָּׁה בְּמַלְכוּת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יז טו) “עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ” וְלֹא מַלְכָּה. וְכֵן כָּל מְשִׂימוֹת שֶׁבְּיִשְׂרָאֵל אֵין מְמַנִּים בָּהֶם אֶלָּא אִישׁ.P.S. Regarding what it means that the chazzir will be kosher, there is much discussion. All agree that Torah does not change when Moshiach comes. Will the physical characteristic of the chazzir change? Does the possuk itself hint that the chazzir will change and become kosher? Does it mean that the tumah will leave the chazzir, but it will still be forbidden to eat? Does this apply to other animals as well, or only the pig?
This is a great discussion amongst gedolei Yisroel since the rishonim. Whatever the case, making this sound like a “Chabad kefira” just because a Lubavitcher sefer happened to quote this famous statement in the name of Chazal (“עתיד חזיר ליטהר”) is ludicrous.
A comment I posted on a Jewish news website that posted the story of the child whose death was “triggered by bullying”:
Bullying is a terrible, terrible thing that can break a child.
Death is a terrible, terrible thing that can break a family.
But do you know what can break an entire class, an entire school, or even an entire community? הוצאת שם רע.
Did the author investigate thoroughly to confirm that this tragic death was indeed caused by bullying and not an unrelated birth defect?
Did the author verify that the child left the bar mitzvah because he was bullied by his peers, and not because he was yelled at by a photographer?
Isn’t it necessary to conduct proper research before publicly accusing an entire class of murder right after they’ve lost a classmate?
This is something to seriously consider.
May the family be comforted, and may we suffer no more pain with the coming of Geula.
Q1, So if Yaakov is alive, even though we cant understand in what way, how does it help the discussion here about Chabad? Q2, Where does Chabad get the idea LR can be alive? Q3, What source do they have that its even possible in our days? Q4, What source is there for LR specifically?
You’re right, the discussion has nothing to do with Chabad.
It started when Philosopher exposed her ignorance to all by opening this discussion with the following post:
“It is Lubavitche like you who twist everything out of context. For example when Rashi says that Yaacov avinu did not die there are numerous mefarshim that explain what it means. There is no mefoiresh saying that he is here with us physically. And yet i heard a Chabad rabbi claim that Rashi said that Yaacov is with us physically; that is a lie.”
This is reminiscent of the time when Qwerty thought that chazzir becoming kosher when Moshiach comes was some kind of Chabad “kefira” 🤭.
For the past two weeks Benedict ARSo has been pounding away that he agrees with his Rebbe Shmei that Yaakov Avinu is alive because he follows Rashi’s Pshat
I think ARSo’s point was that he doesn’t follow any pshat about if Yaakov is physically alive or not. He doesn’t have an opinion about Yaakov’s death, and why should it make a difference to him anyways?
He is just quoting the opinions of Rashi vs Maharsha.
He has no reason to take a side.
I can say the same for myself. I don’t know if Yaakov is alive; who am I, a tiny ant, to put myself in between a machlokes of great rishonim?
What I DO know is what the rishonim themselves hold, and I will not accept anyone misinterpreting their opinions.Which opinion is right?
אלו ואלו דברים אלקים חיים, תשבי יתרץ קושיות ואיבעיותMenachem: I’m not sure what you’re objecting to. I simply quoted the Chofetz Chaim verbatim. Are you disagreeing with the Chofetz Chaim?
I was very clear:
“I would be very careful to research when and with whom these halachos apply.”Because many GREAT tzaddikim were punished in the past for speaking negatively about IDOLATERS.
We must be very careful in the proper way to apply these halachos, and to whom.
At least Benedict ARSo answered our challenge… There is no way he was ever a Rebbe because such an arrogant jerk wouldn’t last a day. He’s probably an escepee from a psych ward… Oh yeah he’s a high level Torah teacher. What a joke. Boy you can say anything on line if you don’t believe in Hashem.
Mods!
Although I strongly disagree with ARSo on most Lubavitch matters, I respect him as a level-headed poster and contributor to the CR. This inflammatory vitriol by Qwerty is completely out of hand and unacceptable.
In the past, Qwerty’s posts were ALWAYS censored, and we didn’t know why. Now that the (new?) mods have stopped censoring posts, his disgusting rhetoric can be seen for all.
If we wanted a fully uncensored forum where we can attack each other like children in a disgusting fashion, we could use Twitter instead.
Mods, please consider this. Thank you.
Q1, what does it mean, how is it different from being dead?
Check the meforshim (Rif, Iyun Yaakov, Etz Yosef, Ohr Hachayim) who explain it at length. You probably still won’t fully understand because it’s something completely supernatural beyond out understand. Ask Eliyahu Hanovi to explain it when Moshiach comes.
Q2, who is authority enough to say that if Yaakov aveinu can get to lo meis status then we can say the same about the LR?
No one said that in this thread. Completely unrelated to this discussion about Yaakov Avinu.