TheFakeMaven

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 118 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Can you request an online purchase for delivery on shabbos?? #1797719

    TheFakeMaven
    Participant

    It is not an issue. Amirah LeAmirah is allowed.

    in reply to: Are there levels of holiness? #1739509

    TheFakeMaven
    Participant

    That is the difference between ממלא וסובב.

    in reply to: Joining Chabad #1698117

    TheFakeMaven
    Participant

    NonPolitical: Was your last post a parody of a logical argument?
    Again you write words, yet say nothing, it’s quite the talent. Saying that a certain argument is a parody does not make it neither unsound nor invalid. If you see a fallacy in the argument call it out specifically; otherwise I think it fair to say that you actually have nothing to say.

    As to getting into tzimzum, no I do not expect you to, what I do think that anybody that actually knows what they are talking about would do, would be to be meramez berimizah. [Not what you said before, which is completely meaningless].

    I see a certain pattern emerging as this disagreement goes on. The more I elaborate on why what your saying is incorrect, the less you actually say. All you do is say this is incorrect etc. without providing any arguments. Please try to actually say something of substance in the future, otherwise I don’t think it wrong not to answer unsubstantiated claims.

    in reply to: Joining Chabad #1697886

    TheFakeMaven
    Participant

    NonPolitical: Simple. Since, according to both of you the NH did not rely on any novel Chassidic sources, rather any quotation are like a sima bearuvah, then obviously the only issue with Chassidus can be its novelty which is false; otherwise why place them in a cherem.
    In other words:
    A) Chassidus was place in a cherem, two options, 1) for good reasons, 2) for bad. Obviously for 2.
    B) Chassidus was either 1) novel, 2) old news. Obviously 1, for if it was 2 then what’s the issue with it. (Novel meaning what was not thought of before).
    C) Chassidus was a novel concept, 1) a completely new approach, 2) it has some new concepts, but is mainly old. (The answer for this one is a little longer, so please bear with me).
    Claim: the NH has Chassidic ideas in it. A claim which was agreed upon by both you, since your claim is that although the NH says ideas that seem Chassidic the truth of the matter is that he actually took it from the same origin as Chassidus. So, our point of contention is if the NH is based on Chassidus. I claim option 1, it is a new approach, therefore, since the NH states some Chassidic ideas he must have based it on it. You claim option 2, that Chassidus has some old ideasm and for that it would not have been put in cherem (B, option 2), and the NH took those ideas, but they were put in cherem for B option 1.
    Now, since Chassidus was place in a cherem for its bad (A) novel (B) ideas, {both of you seem to say that Chassidus is an invention}- and even the NH that has some Chassidic sources doesn’t take it from Chassidus (C) then obviously no talmudei HaGra held there was any truth to it, for if not, why put it them in cherem.

    As for the rest of you rebuttal, saying I won’t get into it is more or less an admission, so thank you.

    in reply to: Joining Litvishe #1697839

    TheFakeMaven
    Participant

    Joseph: You’re opposed to discussing halachic questions that are directly addressed in the S”A?!
    Of course not, I’m just opposed to ignorant people making false claims as facts.

    As to what the S”A paskens: If you’re truly interested you can look it up yourself, E”H 1:10.

    in reply to: Joining Chabad #1697640

    TheFakeMaven
    Participant

    NonPolitical: To make this so that you too can follow along I’ll be short and straight to the point. (For reasons that would be clear at the end, I’m starting from the bottom up)/
    1) We have not made any claims. You made a claim (or rather expressed a fanciful delusion).
    Wrong. Both of you seem to claim that A) Chassidus is an invention (in the strictest sense), and B) no talmudei Ha’Gra held that it’s novelty had any truth to it, on the contrary it was put into cherem percisely for it. (As to my claim, see number 3). According to any interpretation of the English language this is called a ‘claim’.

    2) Much like you have interpreted the English language in a novel way.
    If you are referring to ‘invented’, all I can say is that if you can’t refute it then as far as we are concerned it is true.

    3) You keep repeating this ridiculous claim like a broken record without giving even one coherent example to back yourself up. And no, saying the word “Tzimzum” doesn’t count as a coherent example, sorry.
    I have already given you a source to look up my claims, (see also in the publication Heichal HaBesht many instances where the NH quoted exclusive Chassidus). [As for Tzimzum, see 3:7, and Likutei HaGra at the back of Sifrei DeTzuaseh].
    If you are intellectually dishonest or too lazy to look these up yourself, then we truly have nothing to discuss, as it is quite obvious then that you are not interested in the truth.

    in reply to: Joining Litvishe #1697440

    TheFakeMaven
    Participant

    Joseph: About the CRG, I’m very disapointed in you, (or rather, this confirms my suspicions…). Your question is addressed openly in Shulchan Aruch. As Iv’e told you countless times, before writing some silly point, make sure you know what you are talking about.

    in reply to: Joining Chabad #1697132

    TheFakeMaven
    Participant

    DaasYachid: Sounds like a new testament, the way you describe it.

    Seriously! The NT is not a novel way of interpreting the Torah, it quotes some, changes most, and makes away with it. [I will not quote any of it for obvious reasons]. Chassidus interpenetrates the Arizal in a novel way, much like the the Arizal interpenetrates the Zohar in a novel way.
    To sum it up, neither you or NonPolitical have actually quoted anything to substantiate you claims, whilst I have answered any point, regardless of its merit.

    in reply to: Joining Chabad #1697097

    TheFakeMaven
    Participant

    Daas Yachid: Where did chassidus get it from?

    Same place that the Arizal and Rashbi did. [I am NOT comparing the Besh’t with them, that is not in my place]. They are new novel ways of understanding Kabbalistic concepts even for the layman that Hashem revealed to the Besh”t, which is why you do not find these interpretation anywhere else.

    in reply to: Joining Chabad #1697096

    TheFakeMaven
    Participant

    NonPolitical: First off, thanks for not answering me directly, it speaks volumes…
    Second of all, I understand perfectly the premise, but again both of you seem to miss the point. The term invented in this discussion has two meanings, 1) a new idea or concept, one that is not based on any earlier idea, 2) an addition and/or improvement to an earlier concept. However the Gr”a understood Chassidus, whether as an entirely new movement or an addition to the Arizal, he was against it, and further, there are no Chassidic concepts in his works whatsoever, nor are there any interpretations of the Torah and Chazal that parallel Chassidic ones.
    However, with the NH one encounters a completely different story. Not only does the NH quote extensively from Chassidic sources, at times he even deviates from his Rebbe the Gr”a in the favor of Chassidic interpretations, case in point Tzimzum. In fact the only place that the NH does not agree with Chassidus is in Shaar 4, (and the Yesodai Ha’Avodah was written in response to it). In other words, however R’ Chaim understood Chassidus, either as entirely new movement or as an addition, he actually had no issues with it whatsoever other than one aspect, (which was not the driving factor of the Gr”as’ cherem).
    To sum this up for those that need Cliff Notes, However the Gr’a viewed Chassus he had an issue with all the core tenets, whereas R’ Chaim his talmud had only one issue with it.

    Again, study the relevant texts before commenting.

    in reply to: Joining Chabad #1697075

    TheFakeMaven
    Participant

    DaasYochid: That only makes sense if you think chassidus was invented, not if it’s just restating what’s already in the Torah.

    In that case there should and should not have been any disagreements about Chassidus. [And if you mean to say that the parts that the NH writes like Chassidus is not because he takes it from them, rather because it is pashut peshat in Chazal, In that case you missed my point. The NH interpenetrates many passages in the same context as Chassidus, where it is not found in any other source only there.]

    in reply to: Joining Chabad #1697017

    TheFakeMaven
    Participant

    As to the Rashbi and the Arizal not being put in Cherem, that is completely irrelevant, as the question was why did Chasisidus need to “invent” something new. To that the answer is that it is the same invention as Kabbalah in general, (i.e. not an invention at all).

    in reply to: Joining Chabad #1697014

    TheFakeMaven
    Participant

    Nonpolitical: Obviously, he relied on chassidus. It’s not like his Rebbe the GR”A was familiar with the Zohar and Kitvai HaAri, he needed the Baal HaTanya to explain it to him. Nebech.

    Spoken like someone who has never gone through the NH nor the Tanya. The NH is not Kaballah rather it is based on Kabbalah, the same as the Tanya (and Chassidus in general). And as is the case with anything that is based on something, there is a hermeneutic that predisposed any interpretation; this is what I meant by saying the NH is based on the Chassidus. If you would like to see exactly the extant that he based it, there is a new NH that just came out which endeavors to show the general sources (not strictly Chassidic ones) of the NH. If you would go through it you will many novel interpetaions of the NH are actually taken from early Chassidic texts. So unless the NH was mechaven to chassidis by himself he obviously took it from there. (At the minimum there are many places where he deviates from the Gra himself, e.g. 3:7).
    {In the future before making away with what someone says, make sure you check your facts)

    in reply to: Joining Chabad #1696562

    TheFakeMaven
    Participant

    ModernMisnagid: You seem to be very confused as to whatthe chidush of Chassidus is. Tell me, did R’ Shimon need to ‘invent’ Kabbalah? Did the Ariza”l need to add to an invention? Chassdus invented things the same way the Ariza”l did; i.e. it is not an addition rather it is how to each and every Jew can understand Kabbalah in a practical way. The Nefesh HaChaim is very similar, and in fact relied heavily on chasidic interpretations (at least in the first three gates).
    There are a few differences between Chassidus and non-Chasidus as to how to understand a few major ideas of Ariza”l, which do translate to difference in hashkafah. However the Chassidic masters had the utmost respect for their contemporaries. For instance the Baal HaTanya never once spoke against the Gr”a, on the contrary he forbid it. Their were Chassidim that did things that were not condoned by Rebbes, but that was and is not Chassidus.

    in reply to: Joining Chabad #1696401

    TheFakeMaven
    Participant

    For some reason people seem to be conflating two issues. First off you cant judge a movement by the actions of its adherents rather by the actual philosophy it teaches. Does Chassidus preach that one is supposed to daven after the zman? Does Chassidus say that one should eat before davening? Of course not. And those that bring up the Cherem have obviously never read the actual Cherem as its printed.
    And let’s not forget that their were many Rebbes who would put any Gadol alive today, such as the Ba’al Hatanyah, Chidushei Rim, Sfas Emes, Divrei Chaim, R’ Tzadok Hacohen etc… All their minhagim were and are based on Halacha.

    in reply to: Joining Chabad #1695724

    TheFakeMaven
    Participant

    nonpolitical: I would really like to respond to your comments, but since you didn’t say anything yet I guess I’ll need to wait. Sigh…..

    in reply to: Joining Chabad #1695596

    TheFakeMaven
    Participant

    It seems that there is confusion with hashkafah and minhagim. Hashkafah is a derech in avodah, of how one should go around with achieving their tafkid; this can be changed. Minhag, although not all things actually count as one, pertains to halacha, not pure hashkafah, that cannot be changed simply. Waiting one, three, or six hours is not an hashkafik issue rather an halachic one.

    in reply to: Joining Chabad #1694832

    TheFakeMaven
    Participant

    Joseph: One is not allowed to change mesorah where it pertains to minhagim, however regarding hashkafa there is no such thing as following in your fathers mesorah. No one (unless he knows your shoresh haneshama) can tell you which path of avodas Hashem is the best for you. Ultimately hashkafa is just another way of saying how one can grow in avodah, and since everyone is different, what worked for you parents may not necessarily work for you. Since none of us are big enough to actually forge his own path we must follow a path already made, however, which one can be different for each individual.

    in reply to: How do you think? #1660485

    TheFakeMaven
    Participant

    laskern: No, that was not my intention. The person, that you are is the Nefesh Hasichlias, who has two other ‘souls’ the Nefesh Elokis, and the Nefesh Habahamis. In the NH”E there are many levels, but the Nefesh Hasichlias is not on a higher level per se.

    As for Fraud, the concept of tri part soul is a concept clearly expressed in the Greek writings. But I don’t see the Nefesh Hasichlias there at all….

    in reply to: How do you think? #1660343

    TheFakeMaven
    Participant

    A person has three souls, נפש הבהמות, נפש אלקות, ונפש השכלית. You are the נפש השכלית, the other two start the thought processes, נפש אלקות for עבודת ה’ and the נפש הבהמות for tavah etc. The נפש השכלית has three modes of actualizing it’s thoughts, Thinking, speaking, and acting, these are called the Levushai HaNefesh.

    in reply to: Even Haezer #1645060

    TheFakeMaven
    Participant

    There are currently two Mishna Berura style seforim on Even Haezer, Mishnas Haezer and Even Berura. Both are pretty good and a lot more compact than the Otzer Haposkim (although they can’t take its place). However both are not holding too far in, and it seems that it will be quite some time until they are completed.
    There is one other one that I know of that is on most of Even Haezer, I never used it but I have flipped through it and it seems to be extremely concise which may actually suit your need more.
    As to a kitzur, recently there was a sefer that came out on Hilchos Kiddushin which had a kitzur in it designed for chazara, I don’t know which Halachos your learning so I’m not sure if that would help you.
    Not Mishna Berura style there are quite a few.

    in reply to: Even Haezer #1644863

    TheFakeMaven
    Participant

    *which Simanim

    in reply to: Even Haezer #1644851

    TheFakeMaven
    Participant

    Actually their are a few, depending on what simanim you want.

    in reply to: why were reshaim created? #1621185

    TheFakeMaven
    Participant

    square root of 2: Not quite. I think it would be more practical to break down your argument in a more syllogistic form and answer it thus.

    You question:
    Premise A) Hashem created the world in order to bestow the ultimate good.
    Premise B) Hashem knows ultimately that certain people would not be able to receive this good.
    Conclusion (question) C) Therefore, why did Hashem create those people.

    Before I get to my answer, I think it prudent to clarify these points. In the statement of premise A lies some hidden propositions. First of all, THIS is the reason why Hashem created the world from the start. Secondly, the Ultimate good referred to here means the reward in the world to come which cannot be a “free gift”. Premise B implies that regardless as to HOW Hashems’ “knowing” that someone would not turn out righteous, and will therefore not be deserving of the Ultimate Good; this knowing does not take away his free will to act as he wishes.

    in reply to: why were reshaim created? #1617883

    TheFakeMaven
    Participant

    AviK: Actually that is not what the CI says. First of all, he wouldn’t go against all the Rishonim (see Rambam Mitzvah Asai 1 and Ramban there). Second what the CI was explaining was the practical differecne between Emunah and Bitochen; he says that since we believe (the mitzvah of Emunah according to the understanding of the Rishonim) the Hashem is omnipotent, then all he does is for the best. That is rule (or in his words the halacha), the part which is le’masah, is bitachon, when one is tested.

    in reply to: why were reshaim created? #1616085

    TheFakeMaven
    Participant

    Square Root of 2, Chabadshlucha: What I’m saying is that although the Ramchal does in fact say that is the purpose, he does not mean it as THE purpose. Let me explain. We find at least three reasons in Chazal why Hashem created the world, of which one of them is because Hashem wanted to bestow goodness. But in order to say that, one must say that Hashem must have created the world, for if the תכלית of the Ultimate Good is to bestow, if He doesn’t than he dis lacking in shleimus, which is why he created the world. However obviously one cannot say that about Hashem, whatever He does MUST be of his own free will, for, if not, then he is not omnipotent. What then does the Ramchal mean?
    The answer lies in what the Tikunei Zohar says, אנת הוא ממלא כל עלמין וסובב כל עלמין. What this means is, that there are two ways of how Hashem runs the world, one is in a ‘revealed’ way, the other hidden. Chazal tell us מה הנשמה ממלא את הגוף כך הקב”ה ממלא את העולם. With this expression they are teaching us a profound lesson, which ties in with the two Mitzvohs of Emunah and Yedias Hashem.
    The fact that Hashem exists is something which can be proven through logic. Just as that a person has a soul which is his consciousness is something all must agree upon, for otherwise there is no “I” or ‘you”. I think, therefore I am, i.e. if “I” can think than the “I” must exist. However, we can’t see this “I”, yet we know it exists because we can FEEL it. In other words sense perception, (what we can sense with our five senses), is not what tells us what is reality, it is not our eyes that see, rather it THROUGH our eyes we see. There is a whole world which we can’t see but we can feel, and in truth that is what really exists. The ‘I’ (i.e. our soul) is what sees and interacts with the world through the body. [Obviously this is a very broad topic, but I hope this would suffice].
    Now, we know that the soul exists, however we do not know what it truly is, we know the concept, but do not know the substance of it. The same is true with Hashem, we know that he exists, the same way we know that the soul exists. Moreover we can even “feel” him much the same way we feel our soul. This is called ממלא, and is what Chazal meant by מה הנשמה ממלא וכו’.
    However the same way that we know of the existence of the soul but not its substance (מהות), the same is true with Hashem on a deeper level. Although we can truly ‘feel’ and ‘connect’ to Hashem, that is only on the level that he has ‘decided’ to ‘lower’ Himself down to our comprehension, (which, in a much abridged version is what is meant by [one of the] Tzimtzum); however, on the level that he did not and does not let us ‘feel’ we cannot relate to him at all. Although his omnipotence says that He HImself is everywhere, we cannot “feel” this. We believe it to be true because that is what Hashem has told us through the Torah, but that is all that we can know until Moshiach comes.
    These two ideas, ממלא וסובב correspond to the two aforementioned mitzvohs, Emunah and Yediah. The mitzvah Yediah does not mean the knowledge of Hashem which can be known logically, rather the outcome of this knowing, in other words “feeling” Hashem; which is why it is called “Yediaas Hashem” from the word Daas which means connection. This connection only a Jew can feel because of the Nefesh Elokis that only Jews have (which is a discussion in its own right). So, although a gentile can know logically the concepts of ממלא, the outcome of it which is what the mitzvah of Yediaas Hashem is, they cannot ‘feel’.
    The mitzvah of Emunah is refering to ‘part’ of Hashem that we too cannot feel (until Moshiach will come). However, the highest level of our soul can feel it, but we on this world do not, which is what the definition of סובב is.

    After this introduction we can understand what the Ramchal means, with the addition of one more point. Hashem could have created the world in any way he would of wanted, yet he chose to create the world the way we currently have it. Why? The real answer to this is: We don’t know. Simple. The reason is, that knowledge, (i.e. our ability to reason) is in ITSELF a creation, therefore any question that transcended the creation of knowledge itself is completely unintelligible to humans.
    So for which ever reason Hashem ‘decided’ to create the world the way we have it. He did this by creating exactly Ten Sefiros, not more not less. If he would have created a different amount then the world would be completely different than we have now. Each Sefirah is unique. Now Chazal tell us that originally Hashem ‘wanted’ to create the world with Din, i.e. the Sefirah of Gevurah but then decided to create it through Chesed, Olam Chesed Yabonah. Now the question of WHY Hashem decided to create the world at all is not addressed here at all, rather all it is saying is when Hashem, for whichever reason, decided to create the world he did it through Chesed.
    Now we know that Chesed is the ultimate Goodness, on this we can ask a simple question, how can we say that Hashem created the world through the Middah of Chesed (not that HE is Chesed, since Chesed itself is a creation), there is so much suffering and pain in the world, why not give everyone a free ride?. For this reason we say that since תכלית הטוב להטבי, and if the reward would be ‘unearned’ it wouldn’t be pure Goodness. In other words since the world was created through pure Goodness, we must understand how what we see is actually set up that way; but it is not addressing the question of WHY it was created that way to begin with.
    Now, all this is in regards to ממלא, we can feel all the above. However the question of Bechira touches on Sovev, it is something we cannot understand because we cannot feel it. But, by definition, if it doesn’t interact with us, it doesn’t affect us either, as only what does interact with something can affect it. So even though there is for Hashem a Yedia of what will transpire, since it doesn’t interact with us, it doesn’t affect us and therefore does not affect our free will at all, this is known as ידיעה עילאה. [admittedly a hard concept and deserves elaboration for a different time]. But ידיעה תתאה, which is what sustains the world and interacts with it, is what is meant by saying תכלית הטוב להטיב, and in truth, being of a lower level than סובב, since it is IN each and every being according to THEIR level, has in truth no knowledge of the future.

    I hope this clarified my meaning somewhat.

    in reply to: why were reshaim created? #1614836

    TheFakeMaven
    Participant

    There are many facets to this topic. Broadly speaking I think we can separate them into two categories, Hashem Himself, and our connection to Him. I’ll address the second one (first). According to your understanding, we can connect to Him on two levels, A) through ‘imitating’ His attributes, since it is using the same Sefiros (Tanya part 1 ch. 2-3). B) Through emunah which is unique to us Jews. You further correlated these two concepts to the two mitzvohs, Yedias Hashem and Emunah. “Knowing” Hashem by definition can only be actualized by things that we can envision, whereas emunah is believing in Hashems ‘essence’ something that no human can actually “know”. (It is this point which is the first category that I mentioned above).

    There are a few points which I think you have misunderstood. Let’s start with the connection through ‘imitating’ His attributes. As mentioned above, you equate this with the mitzvoh of ‘knowing Hashem’ and you further claimed that in this regard the gentiles can also ‘know’ Hashem. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Torah means by וידעת היום, והשבית אל לבבך וגו’, this mitzvah of Yediah does NOT mean simply understanding through logic (which is what a gentile can do as well). Furthermore I believe that this misunderstanding is why you also misapprehend what the mitzvah of emunah is.

    The Tzemach Tzedak in mitzvahs Emunah ch. 3 explains what yediah actually means. In truth, the Tanya states this all the way at the start in ch. 3, and in Torah Ohr Mishpatim the first Drush. In a nutshell, all three of the first three Sefiros (Chabad), are unique. Chochmah and Binah are the intellectual faculties, i.e. what we use to actually reason with, however just knowing something does not change a person in the slightest. It is the third Sefira, Daas, which does this. Daas is what the person uses to connect his knowledge with himself.

    [The Rashab in hemshech 5772 part 1 explains it succinctly. A person may know that a certain food or item is good, however as long as he doesn’t take HIMSELF into the equation, i.e. which is good for him, his knowledge of the item would not cause him to do anything about it].

    Knowing the omnipotence of Hashem in all its intricacies, does not do anything for the person, he stays the same as he has always. However when he goes to the next step through meditating on these concepts and how they relate to HIM, that changes the person.

    Now let’s take this a step further. What happens through this meditation, and why it effectuates a dramatic change is because through this we can actually ‘feel’ Hashems presence. To elaborate on this point would take up too much time, so a brief explanation will have to suffice for now. Because the Nefesh Elokis is made of the same ‘substance’ of (a certain level of) Hashem [this point needs serious elaboration for a different time], it is naturally drawn to Him, however the physical world prevents it from ‘connecting’ to its source. However, as the Baal Shem taught (that is what the Tanya means in part 2 ch. 1 see Likutei Sichos 29, p. 26) all physical entities’ existence is only from the Ohr that lies within it, which is directly from Hashem. Therefore, Chassidus teaches that when used correctly (Tanya p. 1 ch 7-9) one CAN connect to Hashem through the physical itself. But again, this only happens BECAUSE of Ten Sefiros that lie inherently in a Jew.

    In other words, the world is full of opportunities to see Hashem in literally everything, as long as it done in the correct way, i.e. to draw closer to him. This ability is inherent ONLY to Jews because of where their soul comes from. Although a gentile may be able to understand (certain concepts) of Yechid Hashem, the next step, i.e. internalizing it, that is an ability ONLY a Jew has. (see Tanya p.1 ch 1, and chs. 18-22).

    This, in a nutshell, is what the Mitzvah of Yedias Hashem is.

    Emunas Hashem is a totally different mitzvah. It means believing the parts of Hashems’ Omnipotence that we cannot logically understand. And, by definition, being that we cannot understand it, we can also not internalize it in any way that it will change us and bring us closer to Hashem.

    in reply to: why were reshaim created? #1614993

    TheFakeMaven
    Participant

    AviK: October 29, 2018 1:39 pm, Fake Maven, you are indeed. Your words verbatim. I have actually answered your points. In l”k changing how we USE a word does not effect what it actually MEANS as with all other languages. Thus anybody saying לשבר את האוזן is one hundred percent correct far more than anybody using לסבור since the Hashem intended it is לשבור as all the Rishonim did too. Regardless from how my discussion with deteriorated right from the start, it seems that this will not be a productive conversation at all, and is a waste of time on both of our parts.

    in reply to: why were reshaim created? #1614982

    TheFakeMaven
    Participant

    Chabadshlucha: I responded late last night after the mods already closed shop for the day. It was a rather long post, but I expect it to be up soon.

    in reply to: why were reshaim created? #1614838

    TheFakeMaven
    Participant

    StuartW: Thank you for you comment. I hear you loud and clear.

    in reply to: why were reshaim created? #1614751

    TheFakeMaven
    Participant

    StuartW: Two points, first of all where is your indignation to AviK? Only after his repeated personal attacks against me did I question his wanting a honest discussion or a trading of bards.
    Secondly, my points are irrelevant of my character. Either my arguments are valid based on the truth or they are not, my personality is irrelevant to this.

    in reply to: why were reshaim created? #1614588

    TheFakeMaven
    Participant

    Is Daniel written is Lashon Hakodesh?

    in reply to: why were reshaim created? #1614575

    TheFakeMaven
    Participant

    AviK: Your ignorance knows no bounds! I’m left shaking my head in wonderment at how one can be so ignorant, yet not hesitate to make statements as if they were facts.
    Take a look at the first Ran in Mesechet Nadrim where he states the general rule that a language is convention. In other words no language is true or false. For instance if we both decide to call a house chair and chair house then we are just as correct as those that call chair chair. Another way to think about it is that if there would be no humans alive there would also be no language.
    All this is said of every other language BESIDES for L”K. Hashem created the world with this language, it obviously predates man, and is therefore NOT a matter of convention. Furthermore, in l”k the words are not merely prescriptive rather they are the ESSENCE of each being (see Tanya part 2 chapters 1, 8-12). It is then also not for us to change since it is not a matter of description rather the essence of each creation. Anybody lumping together L’K with all other languages shows complete ignorance.
    Your second point is pointless, what does one thing have to do with another.
    As to the third point of ignorance, is the Targam Onkelos L’K?

    in reply to: why were reshaim created? #1614578

    TheFakeMaven
    Participant

    laskern: I cannot say that I KNOW peshat, I have my opinion that I have formulated from I have learnt. But I am always open to hearing others opinions which is why I am questioning you as I am having problems understanding you reasoning.

    Chabadshlucha: Since it seems we are both interested in the truth rather than being right, I will gladly tell you (later tonight iy’h when I have the time) which parts I differ from you. If you feel I am wrong or misunderstood you I’m sure you will correct me accordingly.

    in reply to: why were reshaim created? #1614414

    TheFakeMaven
    Participant

    AviK: From the negative way you write, it is quite obvious that you are not interested in the truth rather you all you care about is being correct. It’s a big pity since it is quite obvious that you of all people are wholly ignorant with matters such as these.
    You have totally misunderstood the Shela Hakodosh, and again, before you start typing things, do the research. Lashon Hakodosh can and has NEVER changed. As the Pardes Harimonim (by the Ram”ak) clearly states the difference from L”K and all other languages is that in L”K the word chair is not a description of it, rather the חיות וקיום, of a chair is from the word כסא in L”K. The Shelah HIMSELF quotes it and expounds on it. L”k CANNOT change just as the essence of the world does not change!
    [All the SHela means is that in regards as to how WE use words it can change, not the actual language].
    And to go correct someone for using a word the correct way as ALL the Rishonim do, and when called out on it cannot be a man and own up to, is an extremely arrogant and abhorrent thing to do.
    Be a man and admit to your mistakes, you may learn something one day….

    in reply to: why were reshaim created? #1614421

    TheFakeMaven
    Participant

    Chabadshlucha: According to what you have just written, it is quite clear that you are quoting Derech Mitzvasecha the first five chapters of Mitzvahs Emunas Elokim. However without knowing for instance Mitzvahs Hatfillah it is impossible to know what he means with Hashems names and the Sefiros.
    Furthermore, although you correctly differentiated between the two mitzvohs, your application seems rather faulty. Emunah is Sovev, by definition Sovev has NO connection to us (that we can feel) as the Rashab explains beautifully in Heshach 5772 part 1. The Sefiros that you are reffering to is in Memalah not Sovev.
    Another point, you explanation of Hashems seems to be contradicted by the Rashab Hemshech 5766 pages 200-260 (in the new edition).

    in reply to: why were reshaim created? #1614218

    TheFakeMaven
    Participant

    laskern: Again you seem to be missing the point. The ‘advisor’ of Mercy (which wants the best for him) and The Ultimate Good, also wants the best for him. In that case there is no difference between Mercy and the Ultimate Good.

    in reply to: why were reshaim created? #1614103

    TheFakeMaven
    Participant

    laskern: Think for a minute, if I have two options, both of them good, one of them is obviously better than the other (99 percent of the time). Both the Ultimate Good and the Merciful one will want the option that is the better one, and in that case there is no difference between them.
    In other words Both the Ultimate Good and the Merciful one want the exact same outcome and the choice would always be the same.

    in reply to: why were reshaim created? #1613594

    TheFakeMaven
    Participant

    AviK: Your’e trying way to hard to sound knowledgeable. The correct way to say it is as ALL the Rishonim have used it לשבר את האוזן. It is completely irrelevant what modern Hebrew does or does not say. Lashon Hakodesh is NOT Hebrew. In the future before taking anyone to task about anything, make sure you know what you are talking about or risk sounding the fool….

    in reply to: why were reshaim created? #1613694

    TheFakeMaven
    Participant

    laskern: Again, you haven’t addressed my point. According to your definition, there is no difference between the Middah of Mercy and the Middah of Judgement, since both of them seek to give to each individual what is truly best for them. For instance, there are two options for person X, option A) which is the best thing for him to actually happen (even if it may be a punishment), or option B) which is not as good.
    Hashem, being ultimate Goodness would choose option A), and Middas Harachamim, wanting to do what is actually the best for this person X, would also choose option A). Therefore there is no difference between them.

    in reply to: why were reshaim created? #1613599

    TheFakeMaven
    Participant

    Laskern: I don’t think you understood my point. True mercy is when someone does what is best for the that individual. For instance if a father disciplines a child he is being merciful even if the child does not like it. One that spares the rod is not practicing mercy, rather harming him, which is not mercy, rather misguided mercy, i.e. wanting to do what is best (true mercy) but is not knowledgeable as to how to go about it.. The Middah of Rachamim, must be pure Rachamim, and thus must want what is best for the individual. Hashem, being the ultimate goodness according to your line of reasoning, too wants what is best for the same individual, therefore there is no practical difference between Mishpat/Goodness, and Rachamim.

    in reply to: why were reshaim created? #1613596

    TheFakeMaven
    Participant

    As to Meschet Beitza, it has absolutely no relevance to this case. Everyone agrees that the actual pronunciation is with a tzaddik, rather the MA (O”C 156) says that for different reasons one should say Beiah.

    in reply to: why were reshaim created? #1613394

    TheFakeMaven
    Participant

    In that case there is no difference between Judgement and Merciful. A person that wants to be merciful would do what is best for that individual, but that is what, according to your definition, is the role of judgement. We therefore do not have Hashem as a Judge between Din and Rachamim, since being that He is good, he is Rachamim itself.

    in reply to: why were reshaim created? #1613374

    TheFakeMaven
    Participant

    So, according to your reasoning, Hashems essence comprises of at the minimum A) Mishpat, B) Goodness. Thus you have successfully made a case that there is a plurality in Hashem c”v; i.e. his essence is comprised of at least two parts. How is this in line with what we know that Hashem must be פשוט בתכלית הפשיטות?
    [someones essence is what he is בעצם]

    in reply to: why were reshaim created? #1613356

    TheFakeMaven
    Participant

    laskern: I don’t think I would be remiss in saying, as you seem to have been saying through this whole thread, that Hashem is the paradigm of ultimate goodness. Furthermore, as your last post would imply, I surmise that you would say that this too is Hashems essence, His essence is ultimate goodness.
    Do you agree to the above statements?

    in reply to: why were reshaim created? #1613262

    TheFakeMaven
    Participant

    laskern: So you are saying that Hashem is משפט, and decides what is ‘correct’ after hearing the argument of דין ורחמים?
    Is Mishpat the essence of Hashem, or is it a characteristic of Him? (By essence I mean, for instance the essence of a Human is that it has a soul, So is Hashems’ essence Mishpat, or is it just instantiated in Him?)

    in reply to: why were reshaim created? #1613133

    TheFakeMaven
    Participant

    AviK: Before you try to sound knowledgeable, make sure you are. לשבר את האוזן is the correct way of saying it as is prevalent in all the Rishonim. Furthermore, it is spelled with a sin not a shin, and is tantamount to saying לסבור.

    What you both are missing is that Hashem is תכלית הפשיטות, what that means is that He has no will. If you would take the time to actually learn the Morah in full, not in snippets, you will see that the Rambam actually says the exact opposite. There is no concept of “Middot” with Hashem. אינו יודע במדה שחוץ ממנו. Middos are an extension of a person not the person itself, Hashem has no extensions, and therefore, when we say that we cannot know Hashem, that includes whatever Middos you want to attribute to him.
    As the Navi says: כי לא מחשבותי מחשבותיכם therefore there are no adjectives we can use even for HIs so called MIddos.

    in reply to: why were reshaim created? #1613134

    TheFakeMaven
    Participant

    Laskern: It means that the mercy and the judgement agree to the action.
    So tell are these two attributes, A) part of Hashem, or B) outside of Him?
    If A) then you are saying there are ‘parts to Hashem, mercy and judgement, if B) then you are saying that Hashem does not reward or punish himself.

    in reply to: why were reshaim created? #1612525

    TheFakeMaven
    Participant

    laskern: How about:
    דברים כג:ו, ולא אבה ה’ אלקיך לשמוע אל בלעם וגו’
    ואהבת את ה’ אלקיך וגו”
    דברים ח’ ז’: את ה’ אלקיך מביאך אל ארץ טובה וגו’.
    I can give many many more examples if you want. [Can you also address the other points?]

    in reply to: why were reshaim created? #1612457

    TheFakeMaven
    Participant

    Laskern: There is a distinction between saying that לשבר את האזן is to help us speak about Hashem proper, as you and AviK are doing, as opposed to what I am saying, which is, that in regards to Hashem proper we cannot speak of at all, there are no words to describe Him at all, [see Guide 1:58], rather anything we say is as apophatic theology, (see Guide ibid).
    Speaking in any positive way of Hashems ‘wants’ ‘likes’ ‘desires’ etc, is simply wrong and touches upon the issue of הגשמה. This is why the Mekubulim took great pains to say that they are referring to the Sefiros NOT Hashem proper (see any Kabalistic sefer [usually by way of introduction] written by the Rishonim, for instance, Mareches Elokim, Avodos Elokim, etc,).
    As such, (as daas Yachid rightfully points out) according to your understanding, saying Hahsem bestows goodness because he likes too, is a tautology, it adds nothing to our understanding of the WHY Hashem bestows. It is a description of a description, Hashem gives good because he gives good, since even you agree that Hashem doesn’t really ‘want’ anything.
    [As an aside, this is not what צמצום means. צמצום is a concept first revealed to us by the Ariza”l, whereas לשבר את האוזן is concept that has already been in use since the times of the Geonim].

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 118 total)