“To the extent that you are reinterpreting tefillos and even Joseph’s own position he said quote “We all should hope that we, l… should be killed al kiddush Hashem.”” This involves a misah meshunah. I dont understand why you change his position to know say ” that we should daven to die al kiddush Hashem” that is not what he said”
Ubiquitin, I don’t understand what you are trying to say. Joseph wrote that we should daven to be killed al kiddush Hashem. He did not write that we should daven to have a misah meshunah. Are you trying to say now that you think that dying al Kiddush Hashem has to be a misah meshuna? You wrote above that you didn’t think so.
“If you think that it’s possible to die al kiddush Hashem w/o a misah meshuna”
“that was DY”
Yes, but you wrote that you agreed with him:
DY: “Dying al kiddush Hashem doesn’t require a nisayon or even a misah meshunah”
Ubiqiutin: “Of course not!” (post #1271240)
This means that you agree with DY that one can die al kiddush Hashem w/o a misah meshunah. At least that is how I understood it. Did you mean something else? Did you mean the opposite? Did you mean “of course it is not the way you are saying and it’s not true that dying al Kiddush Hashem doesn’t necessarily involve a misah meshuna”?
I see now how “of course not” can be taken either way. Which way did you mean it?
From the continuation of your that post, it sounds like you meant it the way I understood it.
After that, you wrote
” Joseph said “We all should hope that we, like Rabi Akiva wished for himself, when our time to leave this world arrives we should be killed al kiddush Hashem.”
This involves both a misa meshunah (scraping flesh with iron combs would widely be considered a misa meshuna by any definition I can think of) and a nisayon too”
I understood that first you were telling DY that his point is correct and that one can die Al Kiddush Hashem w/o a misah meshuna. However, you still felt that your argument (about the fact that we daven not to have a misah meshuna) was still a good argument against Joseph because Joseph’s point was that we are specifically davening to have a misah meshuna. (so even though you think that DY is right and one can die al Kiddush Hasehem w/o a misah meshuna, you are still using this as an arugment against Joseph’s point that we are specifically davening to die al Kiddush Hashem WITH a misah meshuna even though the two don’t always have to go together).
If in fact, when you wrote “of course not”, you meant that you DISagree with DY and you think that dying al kiddush Hashem always involves misah meshuna, then what were you adding by quoting Joseph?