philosopher

Neville, “If I’m not mistaken, you brought up the case of Hashem’s hand elsewhere. The pashut pshat is that he has a literal hand”

I repeatedly said that everything has to be read within context, including the Chumash. You cannot take one word and one verse out of context and run with it. Therefore, when it says that Yaacov expired, was embalmed and was buried but it doesn’t say that he died but later in the parshah it does say that he died, you look at the entire parshah in context, including with meforshim, and you can learn what the Torah means to say only when everything is in context. What this means was that Yaacov’s dying was exceptional and the state he is in now is exceptional, but it does not mean specifically that he’s physically alive.

The same is with Hashem’s hand. If we know Chumash (and Nach) we know know that Hashem is not a physical Being and therefore we know that Hashem’s hand, and yes, He does have a hand, is not a physical thing, it’s a higher concept that we can’t understand.

You think that pushat pshat means that posukim are automatically teiched to mean “physical aspects/physical things” which is not the case. Only when we know the entire context, only then can we understand if the pashut pshat is spiritual or physical or even higher than spiritual when it comes to Hashem because He created the spiritual so the dimension He occupies is even higher than the spiritual.

Neville, I’m not a das yochid and I know it for a fact DESPITE not learning attending cheder and yeshiva.

Neville,
on what I wrote, “I said you can bring a rishon on a posuk too but they don’t contradict the Torah. They expound and explain the Torah.”
YOU said: “Yes, we all agree to this in theory.”
Lol. Really, it’s so funny. If you agree with it in “theory” why are you arguing with me about it? If you are arguing with me about it but you agree with it in theory, you’re simply a hypocrite.

To save face you need to resort to blatant lies about me.
You write, “However, what you’re actually saying time and time again is that rishonim are not allowed to contradict the pashut pshat of the Torah, except in certain cases where you personally have deemed it okay because you’re comfortable with it. ”
As I said before mant times, never can a mefoiresh contradict a posuk in the Torah.

You said “If it gets too eeby jeeby for you eg. dead people not actually being dead), you need to find a new interpretation to console yourself and then try to force that personal interpretation on people who were born and raised Jewish with the normative way of learning it.”
If Yaacov would be alive physically after he expired it would contradict the posuk that says that the brothers of Yosef saw that their father died. I’m saying that Rashi is saying that Yaacov is alive in a spiritual sense, that DOES NOT contradict the pushat p’shat. So your comment that “I change an interpretation of a Rishon to contradict pushat pshat when it suits me” is so completely utterly ridiculous and completely illogical.

This is your funniest line yet:”…and then try to force that personal interpretation on people who were born and raised Jewish with the normative way of learning it.” I’m not forcing anything on anyone. I’m saying what I’m saying, take it or leave it.

Neville, you are a liar. I never said anywhere that that “in certain cases” rishonim can contradict pushat p’shat”. I said rishonim do not ever contradict a posuk in the Torah. That is what I said, and not just once but many times.

Aren’t you ashamed to lie like that?!

Wow, I’m contradicting 6-7 people on these threads (who are these 6-7 people- name them!)!! Isn’t that terrible! What gaaveh you have! Who are you exactly are you that I can’t contradict you?!!

I never read the Artscoll Chumash so I don’t know what they write. I have your word to take your word for it… I’m certainly not believing a liar like you.

Yankel berel, you wrote “The main issue is habads self contradictory innovations and pretzel maneuverings , cloaked in selective and misleading quotes coupled with deceptive sugarcoated statements.
Leading to …. ?”

Exactly that is the issue.

Shmei, btw, so Rashi is not saying Yaacov lo mes on the Gemorah…wow, big difference…not. 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.

The argument about both Rashis is the same-what does not dying mean and what does living forever mean. You say that Rashi means he’s alive physically and I say Rashi means that he’s alive spiritually.

Yankel berel, I left out in my last comment I wrote the Ramban is clearly saying Yaacov is alive in a sense, I meant to write he is alive spiritual sense.

Yankel berel, I am not the one to have bought the Ramban originally, this is my response to Shmei and Arso who have referred to it many times on this thread and I simply bought the complete version what the Ramban is saying which is clearly that Yaacov lo mes means that Yaacov is alive in a sense.

So my question to you is why didn’t you tell Shmei and Arso who were arguing what the Ramban says on Rashi, why didn’t you tell them that what you told me “@philosopher Quoting RAMBAN does not convince anyone of shitat RASHI”? NOW you are saying that when I bought the complete Ramban so everyone can see exactly what the Ramban is saying?

When they “quote” the Ramban and other meforshim out of context, no one has an issue. When I bring exactly what the Ramban says, in the entire context, all of a sudden it doesn’t prove anything….

Now, I will take the Ramban’s and Rabbeinu B’Chaya’s explanation that Yaacov lo mes means Yaacov is alive in a spiritual sense and in a second spiritual body over your insistence that it means that Yaacov’s brain is alive.

Menachem shmei, the Ramban clearly concludes that Rashi saying Yaacov lo mes means he is spiritually alive. Your comments trying to dilute the conclusion of the Ramban is simply a word salad and nothing else.

Lostspark, ok that Rabaynu B’Chaya is talking about a second guf, not Yaacov’s guf which is embalmed and buried, the one I was talking about the entire time. I said many times that Yaacov’s body that was buried was not physically alive.

Menachem Shmei, as I said before, I will not argue with you on this topic. You will see what you want to see. You WANT Yaacov Avinu
to be physically alive in his kever. We already went around and around with this getting nowhere.

I’m bringing here the Ramban for those who want to see it:
וַיִּגְוַע וַיֵּאָסֶף וּמִיתָה לֹא נֶאֶמְרָה בוֹ, וְאָמְרוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ (תענית ה), יַעֲקֹב אָבִינוּ לֹא מֵת, לְשׁוֹן רַשִׁ”י (רש”י על בראשית מ”ט:ל”ג). וּלְדַעַת רַבּוֹתֵינוּ הֲרֵי יַעֲקֹב הִזְכִּיר מִיתָה בְּעַצְמוֹ (בראשית מ”ח:כ”א), “הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי מֵת וְהָיָה אֱלֹהִים עִמָּכֶם”, וְאוּלַי לֹא יָדַע הוּא בְּנַפְשׁוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא רָצָה לָתֵת כָּבוֹד לִשְׁמוֹ. וְכֵן (בראשית נ’:ט”ו) “וַיִּרְאוּ אֲחֵי יוֹסֵף כִּי מֵת אֲבִיהֶם”, כִּי לָהֶם מֵת הוּא, אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יָדְעוּ הֵם בָּזֶה כְּלָל.
AND HE EXPIRED, AND WAS GATHERED TO HIS PEOPLE. But the word “death” is not mentioned in his case. Our Rabbis therefore said, “Jacob, our father, did not die.” This is the language of Rashi.
Now according to this opinion of our Rabbis, the difficulty arises: Now Jacob applied the term “death” to himself, as it is written, Behold, I die, but G-d shall be with you! Now perhaps he did not know it himself, or it may be that he did not wish to pay honor to himself. Similarly, with respect to the verse, And when Joseph’s brethren saw that their father was dead, we must say that to them he was dead, or it may be that they did not at all know of this.

Here is the Ramban’s conclusion:

וְעִנְיַן הַמִּדְרָשׁ הַזֶּה, כִּי נַפְשׁוֹת הַצַּדִּיקִים צְרוּרוֹת בִּצְרוֹר הַחַיִּים, וְזוֹ תְּחוֹפֵף עָלָיו כָּל הַיּוֹם, לוֹבֶשֶׁת לְבוּשָׁה הַשֵּׁנִי, שֶׁלֹּא יִפְשְׁטֶנָּה עֲרוּמָה, כְּיַעֲקֹב, אוֹ תִּתְלַבֵּשׁ לְעִתִּים מְזֻמָּנוֹת. וְיוּבַן הָעִנְיָן הַזֶּה בְּמַסֶּכֶת שַׁבָּת (שבת קנ”ב) וּבְמַסֶּכֶת כְּתֻבּוֹת (קג.):
THE PURPORT of this Midrash [which states that “Jacob, our father, did not die],” is that the souls of the righteous are bound in the bind of life with the Eternal, and his soul covers him all the day, “wearing a scarlet garment” so that she not be stripped naked, as Yaacov’s [soul was privileged to do continually], or which she dons at certain occasions [as do the souls of lesser righteous individuals]. This matter will be understood in the light of what is told in masechtos Shabbath and masechtos Kethuboth.

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.

Menachem Shmei writes” 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.” Well, your interpretation of Rashi contradicts Torah Shebischav where it says clearly that a. Yaacov expired and b. Yaacov died (the brothers saw that their father died).

Again, Torah Shebal Peh does NOT CONTRADICT EVER Torah Shebischav, period. 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 like YOU are doing to try to “prove the authenticity” of YOUR AVODAH ZORA worship of your rebbe. Whatever you want things should mean you interpret it that way.

Torah Shebachsav expands and explains the Torah Shebaal Peh, particularly it teaches us how to implement halacha of Torah Shebischav in our everyday lives. The Torah Shebaal Peh does not contradict the halacha in Torah Shebischav, it teaches and expounds and clarifies it, so does not Torah Shebaal Peh contradict Torah Shebischsav in anything, not only halacha.

Yankel berel, your conclusion is that there is a “measure of life in Yaacov’s body”.

Yosef and his brothers would not bury their father if his guf would still be physically alive. As it says in the posuk that he “expired”, Rashi himself says the posuk says “expired but not died” . What does it mean that Yaacov expired? Yaacov is alive but his body expired. A little further in the parsha it says that the brothers of Yosef saw that their father DIED with the loshen “mes”.

Rashi does not contradict any posuk in the Chumash and therefore he did not write that Yaacov’s guf is physically alive.

In conclusion, Yaacov’s guf is not alive in a physical sense. But his guf is alive spiritually by Yaacov’s soul being dormant in his guf. In that sense it would be “a measure of life in Yaacov’s body”.

Neville, you say, “The presence of the word guf is irrelevant. If he included it, you would just find other reasons to say it isn’t literal because you’re set on interpreting this the way you want. ”

That is an absolutely ridiculous comment you made. THE FACT IS THAT RASHI DOESNT CONTRADICT THE CHUMASH AND THAT’S WHY HE DOESNT WRITE “GUF”. The exclusion of the word “guf” is not irrelevantat at all. What is irrelevant is your speculation of how I would interpret it if Rashi put in the word “guf” because Rashi does NOT contradict any posuk in the Chumash, he expounds and explains the Chumash and therefore if his comment seems to contradict what the Chumash is saying then it is YOU who has misinterpreted what Rashi is saying.

Neville, I wasn’t so clear in my last comment. I meant that 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.

When you are having a discussion on Gemorah then a pusok from the Chumash will not come into the discussion. When you are talking about a pesuk in the Torah, you can bring a mefoiresh to explain it, not to contradict what the Chumash is saying.

You are taking the Word of Hashem very lightly. Everything that the Rabbis expound upon is taken FROM the Chumash, not vice versa.

Coffee addict, after all this you think that I dont know what Rashi says? I don’t think any of you understand what we are arguing about here. We are arguing what “alive” means. Is Yacov avinu’s guf still physically alive or is Rashi talking about alive spiritually?

Unlike many of you here taking the pesukim of the Torah pretty lightly the way you keep on harping about what Rashi says and disregard that it says later in the Chumash that the brothers of Yosef saw that their father DIED, the great Rabbis understood that the Word of God cannot be contradicted. Rashi does not contradict the Torah. He does not say that Yaacov’s guv stayed alive, Yacov is always alive in a spiritual sense. Or as the Gemarah states, that Yacov is alive through his descendants. Also, according to another mefoiresh Yaacov not dying can mean that part of his soul lies dormant in the body. There are many meforshim on “Yaacov lo mes”. But nothing can contradict the Torah which says clearly that Yaacov died.

Menachem Shmei claims that Happy New Year is an apikorus. Meanwhile, Menachem Shmei believes that a (dead) human being is running the world, that that dead and buried human being is really alive, that you can pray to this dead human being, that that dead human being is everywhere and that that dead human being never made, and still doesn’t make, mistakes, and that he’s coming back soon to fulfill his messianic duties…

So who is the apikorus?

Neville, what is that I’m saying “that no Bais Yacov girl would say what I say?”

It says b’feresh in the Torah that brothers of Yosef saw that their father died. No mefoiresh says that Yacov’s GUF is alive, period. You are just parroting what Menachem Shmei and Arso are saying. Menachem Shmei is claiming meforshim are saying that his guf is alive. I’m asking you, did YOU look into his sources? I will answer that for you. No, you didn’t.

As for Rashi, he is simply saying Yacov did not die. He is not saying his guf is alive. Yacov not dying can mean spiritually. The Torah itself says many literal things such as “the arm of Hashem”. Does Hashem have a physical arm? No, he doesn’t. You have to understand how to understand pshat.

Arso, I said earlier on the other thread that I will not engage anymore with this back and forth with what Rashi means with “Yacov lo mes” in any way shape or form. We covered that extensively already and I’m not interested in arguing anymore with you. I said what I have to say on it. You also said what you have to say on “Yacov lo mes”. I dont agree with your interpretations and you told me it’s because I’m a woman who doesn’t know how to learn and that I’m an apikorus (c”s).

Therefore, since I don’t accept your interpretations of Rashi and meforshim then do what you advised me to do and go ask a reputable rav or talmud chuchem what Yacov Avinu’s guf is alive in his kever. Let me know the name of the rabbi said that Yacov is alive in his kever. Thank you.

Arso says, ” Show me one post where I said that Yaakov Avinu is alive. I said that Rashi et al said it, and that one is not allowed to reject Rashi based on one’s logic.”
You were arguing with me throughout the entire thread that with Rashi saying Yacov lo mes he means that Yacov is physically alive- that is what YOU are saying that you believe Rashi to mean with those words! As I’ve said many times, Rashi never ever said that Yaacov’s guf is alive in his kever and “alive” can mean many things which if you would be a tamud chuchem you would know that. Thats why you claiming that i am rejecting Rashi based on my logic is a strawman’s argument because i never rejected Rashi, period. Besides for Lubavitche “rabbis”, Menachem Shmei and you, I’ve heard no Rabbi interpret that Rashi means that Yacov’s guf is alive. Therefore, I told you to clarify that with a reputable rabbi.

Arso says “philosopher: Do you know how many men learnt in yeshiva and yet are amei haaratzim ? No. Do you? ”
Yes, I know many amei haaratzim and I consider you to be one as well. Your opinions are not valid to me. Therefore, again, I advise you, like you claimed I should do, talk it over with a reputable rabbi or talmid chuchem to gain clarity on the matter and let me know which rabbi said that Yaacov’s guf is alive in his kever.

Bringing tons of meforshim to “support” something that the mefoirshim are not saying at all is simply deliberate misinterpretation and those sources have nothing to do with what that person is claiming the source is supporting. The vast majority of meforshim (with the exception of one source which i wasnt able to independently verify) that the Lubavitche and pro-Lubavitche are bringing did not support their argument but they skillfully interpreted to mean the way they wanted it.

It’s totally laughable how one can seriously argue that moshiach can be someone who already died ( also, at the same time the LR didnt die cause he is still alive in his kever like Yacov avinu, so hes covered from all angles)Despite the Ramban and Rambam saying explicitly that moshiach can’t be from a dead person and everyone thinks their arguments hold much water. And same goes for their other arguments.

So it’s really funny when people become overwhelmed when idol worshippers quote sources left right and center to “support” their idolatrous claims and then people think that they are such great “talmidei chachomim”…

Qwerty, exactly. Learning gemorah with mefoirshim for many years, like Arso he claims he did, does not automatically make a person intelligent IF it they are not learning it correctly. For example, the Lubavitchers who claim their rebbe is alive and coming back as the moshiach, that their rebbe is running the world, etc. obviously are learning gemorah and meforshim wrong. Just like Shabsi Tzvi was a big “talmid chachom” . His followers included tamidei chachumim and rabbis but they were wrong because they learnt pshat wrong, they were blinded by all the noise made by Shabsi Tzvi.

Arso, aha. So you decide that Yacov’s guf is physically alive and you can’t be bothered to clarify that with a rav or talmud chuchem because you “learnt in yeshiva”. That means that all talmidie chachumim who say that Yaacov lo mes means that he’s alive through his descendants (like the gemorah says) or have other peshutim on what it means that Yacov is alive but not that his guf is alive are “apikorsim” because you decided that Yacov lo mes means that Yacov is physically alive? Or is it only me because I have not learnt in yeshiva and I’m a woman so I can be called an apikorus? Shame on you.

You do not get a pass because you learnt in yeshiva. Are you that stupid? Do you know how many men learnt in yeshiva and yet are amei haaratzim ?

Or do you just want everyone to shut up because Menachem Shmei spouts “mefoshim” left right and center that does not support his idology all, he just very confidently makes it seem that way.

Arso, BTW, not to argue again over Yaacov lo mes again, but I do want to know if you took the advice you gave me to speak to a ruv or talmud chuchem if Yaacov lo mes means he is physcally alive in his kever. I told you should take that advice yourself and speak to a ruv or talmid chochem if Yaacov is physically alive while his guf is not engaging in any bodily functions (or perhaps it does, who knows…) I’m still awaiting an answer. Please post the name of the rabbi you’ve spoken to about this who said that Yaacov’s guf is alive. Thanks.