- This topic has 171 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 1 week ago by .
-
Posts
-
Famed chess grandmaster Qwerty once said the following about me:
“To Avira
I hope you realize how desperate the Lubavichers are. Before I joined, you and Neville were the leaders against Chabad.Now Rabb Menachem wants to win you over because he knows he can’t deal with me.”While I’m somewhat embarrassed to have been considered a “leader against Chabad” in light of what’s being said on the other thread, I wanted to remind Qwerty of that past statement before he starts calling me his “enemy” like he is doing with ARSo.
For the current anti-Chabad posters over in that thread, you are bringing knives to gunfights. I am speaking from personal experience as someone who made a fool of himself on these forums too many times to count. You aren’t arguing with your peers/intellectual equals. These are people who were brought up in the yeshiva system and simply know more Torah than you and know exactly how the mainstream Orthodox system learns it. You can have kashehs on this mainstream approach and ask those to someone with whom you’re close, but loudly airing them here comes across extremely foolish (eg. calling anyone who agrees with Rashi over other meforshim on a certain matter “stupid”). If that doesn’t get through to you, then consider this: you’re making your “side” look terrible to outside observers. I’m not even impartial; I’m predisposed to AGREE with the non-Chabad side, yet you’re making it impossible to associate with you on that thread. Menachem Shmei is doing you a huge chessed by asking the mods to close the thread, because it is–quite frankly–the greatest thing to ever happen for Chabad propaganda in Coffee Room history.
Then for the anti-anti-Chabad side (not the same thing as pro-Chabad anymore apparently), consider the reality of who you’re probably arguing with. Not everyone with a YWN account is a 30+ year old, mentally and intellectually healthy, FFB man. If you can picture someone in real life saying these things near you, would that really be the kind of person you would yell at or get defensive with, or would you probably just humor them and spare their feelings if this were real life?
Neville,
Amazing point
I love it
And your point is?
I’ve listened to many shuirim from talmidei chachomim on the subject of Yaacov lo mes and NONE said that Yaacov Avinu is physically alive.
So what’s your point in opening this thread? You want to “prove” as well that Yaacov Avinu is physically alive?
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.
OP,
Once you’re pulling out some old Qwerty-related posts, here’s something related that I wrote to him last year (after he “accused” Chabad of “claiming” that chazir will be kosher when Moshiach comes 🤯):
“I advise you to get off the internet and open some Jewish books. Start learning from the basics before accusing others.
P.S. To the other posters: Obviously, I will not generalize and say that all litvishers are like this, since I know from the coffeeroom that most of you are very knowledgeable in many areas of Torah despite our various disagreements.”
And from another post:
“Even here in the CR, there are many posters whom I may disagree with on many issues, yet I consider them very normal and bright.
There are some other posters (I have one recent poster particularly in mind) whom I consider completely nuts (at least they provide comic relief).”No, philosopher, he wants to say what I’ve been saying a long time. qwerty is talking garbage and arguing from a standpoint that is against that of lomdei Torah for centuries. All his invective is pointless if he doesn’t know how a 15 year-old yeshivah bochur learns, and it’s clear that he doesn’t.
As to you having listened to many shiurim on Yaakov Avinu lo meis, and none having said that he is alive… so what? Rashi says it, the Rif on Ein Yaakov says it, the Or Hachayim says it, the Ramban defends it against your questions from pesukim – isn’t that enough for you?
If any of your aforementioned talmidei chachomim said that Rashi is wrong (c”v) I would call them apikorsim, or at the very least huge am haratzim, but I am 100% sure they did NOT say that. You have to realize that aggadata is a prime source for derashos and shmuessen which are designed to attract and uplift an audience. Citing other meforshim who explain the statement in a way which is more suitable for a derashah is par for the course, and I would do the same if I was giving a non-lomdish talk. Citing Rashi et al doesn’t give you much opening for a derashah. That doesn’t mean chas veShalom that they reject Rashi! Ask them.
There’s another point here which is very very important. Were you to reject Rashi on the basis that the Maharsha or some other well-accepted meforash does, you would be wrong in doing so because אלו ואלו דברי אלקים חיים, but it would be little more than a mistake. If you reject Rashi because in your opinion what he says doesn’t make sense (c”v), which is what you have implied by incessantly referring to the impossibility of him breating etc underground, then you are rejecting him based on YOUR comprehension. That is unacceptable in Torah learning, and close, if not equal, to apikorsus.
Do not be bamboozled by the Chabad missionaries who twist classical Torah teachings into a pretzel to make them appear as supporting Chabad Meshichist delusions.
One just has to casually review a few of the many Chabad Meshichist websites to realize that “Chabadianity” is a different religion than Judaism.
“Chabadianity” is where Christianity was about 2000 years ago.
For example, on the Moshiach Reality youtube channel – the Rebbe is a resurrected Moshiach, the Rebbe is the atzmus of Hashem (L’HAVDIL), the Rebbe gives us Hashem, the Rebbe is doing things in this world, etc.
Neville, first of all, to make it clear, i never pretended to be an “authority” on anything. Ive made it abundantly clear who i am. The mistake you make is that you think Menachem Shmei is an authority when he is regurgitating Lubavitche talking points which I’ve seen all of them in many of articles on many Lubavitche websites. You get scared of the noise he makes.
Now here’s the thing you write that absolutely disgusts me. You write “Case and point, davar Torahs are inherently less likely to take a literal approach on anything since anyone could just go and read the Rashi or pshat for themselves” . Eexcuse me. It is Menachem Shmei who keeps on writing that Rashi says “Yacov lo mes” literally! He believes that Yacov Avinu is PHYSICALLY alive simply because of the words that Rashi writes “Yacov lo mes”. And yet you give him a pass because hes a man. But since I’m a woman, when i say that Rashi is not contradicting a b’fesrishe posuk in Veyechi which proves that Yacov mes and Rashi saying that Yacov lo mes can mean that he is spiritually alive or like the Gemorah is saying that he is alive through his descendants, that is “not interesting” “dvar Torah” because I’m a woman who didn’t learn in yeshiva”. Unbelievable.
Arso, so did you clarify yet with a talmid chuchem if “Yacov lo mes” means that Yacov’s guf is physically alive? Because as I’ve said, I have never heard a rav or talmid chuchem say that it means that his guf is alive and ive listened to many of them speaking on the subject. I’ve only heard it from Lubavitche and you. Don’t calk me an apikorus when I’m saying what I heard from talmidei chachumim. Perhaps you are the apikorus. You should clear that up with a reputable, non-Chabad, rabbi.
As I’ve said, if you have a Rabbi or talmud chuchem saying that Yacov lo mes means that Yacov’s guf is alive n his kever then post the rabbi’s name on this thread or the other one. (Still) Awaiting your response.
I’m not really familiar with this apparently ongoing machlokes, but I have a couple of observations based solely on the shakle vetarye here in the Coffee Room:
1. If Moshiach can be min hameisim, what do we need a recently deceased individual. What’s wrong with David haMelech himseelf?
2.If it is true that meshichists say that chazir will be muttar B’zman haMoshiach, that puts them in line with previous messianic movements like the Sabateans and Frankists who took the beracha Matir Asurim literally, I.E. that forbidden things are permitted.philosopher, please answer this. question clearly: Does the Ramban ask the same question you asked based on the passuk about Yaakov Avniu’s sons seeing that their father had died?
If no, then you have not been paying attention. End of discussion. If yes, then next question: Does he answer it in one of two ways, the second being that they mistakenly thought he was dead?
If no, then you are either lying or not translating correctly. If yes, then why do you incessantly quote the passuk as a proof that NO ONE holds that Yaakov Avinu did not die, when the Ramban resolves that issue?
The only conclusion I can come up with is that you have an agenda and that that agenda is not allowing you to see straight. (I too have an agenda against Lubavich, even without their messianic claims, but that does not affect the way I have been taught to understand Rishonim and Acharonim!) And, unfortunately, when your agenda leads you to “disagree” with Rashi, it makes you close to an apikorus.
As to your “demand” that I ask some Rabbi (who you will undoubtedly disqualify; after all, if the Ramban, the Rif and the Or Hachayim are disqualified, what makes mine any better?) I’m not going to do it, and I already told you why on the other thread. Do you, or have you ever, used Artscroll? They say it in the name of Rashi. If that’s not good enough for you, your agenda has completely blinded you.
Listen, I KNOW that the Lubavicher rebbe died, and I KNOW the he is not Mashiach. So clearly my understanding of Rashi et al has nothing to do with Lubavich and their crooked beliefs. Would you agree that that is true? Seems obvious. So stop thinking that anyone who says that according to Rashi et al Yaakov literally did not die must have a Lubavich agenda!
RightJew, exactly. We see how many Jews are becoming weakened in the face of the onslaught of Chabad missionaries sounding very knowledgeable and dropping meforshim left right and center despite it proving nothing to support their avodah zora. But people become confused easily because they “sound like talmidie chachomim”. Meanwhile, you have one of their “talmud chuchem rabbis” like Manis Friedman claiming that Hashem has “needs” like a human being has needs and that is why He created humans to serve his needs and that there’s no gehinom and gan eden we should only do mitzvas because Hashem “needs” that…he’s just one of their crazy “rabbis” spouting kefira mamesh.
B’kitzer, their Chabadianity ideology is version #2 of Christianity which in summary is to upgrade the rebbe with the “atzmus emehus mlebush haguf” line to deity level and at the same time to downgrade the greatness of Hashem so that for them they pretty much even out in the end. Total and complete avodah zora.
The danger is that non-Chabad people can become confused by these Lubavitche looking so frum (the men at least) and even being “so knowledgeable in Torah” and they don’t chap that they spout non-sense by using pesukim, Chazal and meforshim to prove absolutely nothing because nothing in the Torah supports their ideology.
if you have a Rabbi or talmud chuchem saying that Yacov lo mes means that Yacov’s guf is alive n his kever then post the rabbi’s name on this thread or the other one. (Still) Awaiting your response.
Sure: Rashi, Rif, Iyun Yaakov, Etz Yosef, Ohr Hachayim, Artscroll.
He believes that Yacov Avinu is PHYSICALLY alive simply because of the words that Rashi writes “Yacov lo mes”.
Rashi didn’t wrote that, the Gemara did. Rashi explained the Gemara in different words that are quite clear. Even Artscroll understands.
when i say that Rashi is not contradicting a b’fesrishe posuk in Veyechi which proves that Yacov mes
Which the Ramban (Nachmanodies, ever heard of him? BIG rabbi) answers why it’s not a contradiction. You are clearly SCAAAARED of checking this Ramban. Why?
P.S. Funny that we are even having this discussion when you ADMIT that NOT ONCE have you even learned this Rif/Iyun Yaakov/Etz Yosef/Ohr Hachaim/Artscroll to see for yourself.
All your “claims” come from shiurim you watched, yet you attack OTHERS for using online talking points.Do not be bamboozled by the Chabad missionaries who twist classical Torah teachings into a pretzel to make them appear as supporting Chabad Meshichist delusions.
Also: Do not be bamboozled by the Anti-Chabad missionaries who twist classical Torah teachings into a pretzel to make them appear as opposing a Torah-based statement that a Lubavitcher happened to make.
Truth. Truth. Truth.
Torah. Torah. Torah.Forgetting momentarily about Chabad media, not a good week for traditional “Jewish Media”.
First, there were news reports today that the Jewish Chronicle in the UK (founded back in 1848) had fired one of its most high-profile contributors/writers for fabricating his resume (including educational honors, personal involvement with the Entebe raid, relationships with Netanyahu, etc.) and faking news stories. Earlier this week, another story runs about the former editor of the Jewish Press, Eliot Resnick, who was sentenced to Federal Prison after pleading guilty to several felony counts related to the January 6th riots at the Capital. Perhaps even worse, he was thrown off two Jewish dating sites (including “Saw you at Sinai” )so he will have to work with a shadchan remotely while spending quality time at Otisville. (The Judge showed a bit of menchlechkite, deferring his date for reporting to prison until after Rosh Hashanah.
Notwithstanding occasional disagreements on the wording of headlines or selection of stock photos, I’ll settle for the lack of drama here at YWN.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”…
And let me modify my last comment-i am not talking about the Lubavitche and pro-Lubavitche bringing sources that moshiach can come from the dead, my point in my last post is that they are arguing on Ramban and Ramban who said that moshiach can’t come from dead.
philosopher: i am not talking about the Lubavitche and pro-Lubavitche bringing sources that moshiach can come from the dead, my point in my last post is that they are arguing on Ramban and Ramban who said that moshiach can’t come from dead.
As you know, I have said numerous times that the LR is not, was not, and cannot be Mashiach for a number of reasons. One of those is that he has died and pre-Gimmel Tammuz all Lubavich, without even one exception, held that Mashiach had to be someone who is alive.
Nonetheless, I find it laughable that you cite the Ramban as a proof when you refuse to acknowledge, let alone accept, his resolution of your question from a passuk.
First, Neville my apologies for not compllimenting you for writing what you did in the original post. It was clear and to the point.
Second, as it seems that this thread is devolving into a parallel thread to the original Chabad Media one, I think that although I will possibly read both, I intend to reply to anything that is related to the other thread as well only there. It’s just too much effort writing more or less the same thing twice.
So if you’re interested in what I have to say, look over there. Unless they close down that thread, then I may return here.
Menachem Shmei, nope, that is not true. It is not only ahuirim I heard from other talmidei chachumim on Yacov lo mes. I have looked at the gemorah you quoted and many meforshim and none of them said what you were trying to them twist into. As for the ein yacov that i wasnt able to verify, ive said in the last thread, it is weird that that the only place that brings the iyin yacov you write about is from you and another Chabad article online. As i said before, i dont have a copy of the ein yacov and im not planning to buy it just for purposes of this thread. We covered that extensively in the last thread and I’m not going back there arguing over this topic again.
Now, you say “Truth. Truth. Truth. Torah. Torah. Torah.”
So I ask you again, I’ve lost track how many times I’ve asked you and you didn’t answer me. If you claim to be for the truth why don’t you tell everyone what you hold to be the truth? Why do you dodge my questions?Do you believe that the Lubavitche rebbe is running the world, that you can pray directly to him, that he never died and that he never made mistakes, that he is everywhere?
If you claim to be for the truth you would answer my questions. Either you believe in what I asked you or not. Whatever hashkafas you have, it is the truth for you so why be evasive about them?
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.
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.To defend the Rabbi who claimed that Chazer will be mutar, the ONLY explanation could be that it will “Rise up” its cud,
מעלה גרה
, מלשון חזרה,Ruchniyus was invented during Bayis Sheni to PROTECT the Torah, even when the government isn’t enforcing it, like a wrapper protects food, until the time to eat it. Not to replace the food!
Using Ruchniyus (Nach, Agada, kabalah etc…) to REPLACE or CONTRADICT the Torah, defeats the WHOLE purpose of why it was adapted to begin with.
Call me an Apikorus. I’m proud to defend כבוד התורה
Oh. And by the way. The whole PURPOSE of Mashiach is to RESTORE the Torah (דברים פרק ל)
Who cares who Mashiach is, or even if there is a specific person??
It’s like arguing who will be the President of the USA in 2032. As long as he / she upholds freedoms / American values, right?
Who cares who / if Mashiach is? As long as he / she RESTORES the Torah and Israel כדת וכדין.
הנסתרות לה’ אלוקינו והנגלות לנו ולבנינו עד עולם לעשות את כל דברי התורה הזאת
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.
Happy new year got it right.
Chazal and meforshim do NOT contradict the Torah ever. I’ve said that over and over and over again. If you think that they do YOU are learning pshat wrong. Chazal and later meforshim NEVER contradicted a posuk in the Torah, period. Not Rashi, not Ramban, nobody. The Torah is the Word of the Living God. The Torah is the Truth. The Torah is eternal. If that’s what YOU take out of learning Mishnayos, Gemorah, Rashi, whatever else you are learning which seems to contradict a posuk in the Torah YOU are learning pshat wrong which most often comes from learning things out of context. I’ve said so many times, you cannot take a one posuk or a few words from the Tanach or Gemorah or whatever you are learning and build your empire on it. Everything needs to be learnt in context.
If you are basing your conclusions on a posuk or word you are doing like the Christians who take a posuk or word and misconstrue it. It is very easy to do so. To understand the Torah you need to know everything that the Torah says on that particular thing you are trying to understand, you need to know the context. Meforshim often are the keys to understanding the Torah. If you think that a mefoiresh is refuting or contradicting a posuk in the Torah YOUR understanding of that mefoiresh is wrong.
Now, if there is a sefer on the market that teaches pshat that contradicts a posuk in the Torah or a mefoiresh that contradicts a pusok in the Torah then that wrong. I do not believe though that there is any mefoiresh contradicts a posuk in the Torah. If it seems to contradict the posuk it’s because the one who is learning pshat is learning it wrong.
As for the Rashi which many of claim i am saying I am not believing what he says, you are all lying. I never said Rashi is wrong. Stop with your lies. I am saying that Rashi does NOT CONTRADICT any posuk in the Torah, period. Therefore, if it says in the Torah that the brothers of Yosef saw that their father DIED, Rashi who knew Torah better than you, did not mean to say what you are saying he is which is that his GUF was alive. That is YOUR conclusion. If you know Torah and Chazal and meforshim well you understand that “alive” can have many forms. Rashi is NOT saying that Yacov lo mes means that Yacov’s guf is alive. Yacov lo mes can mean that his soul is alive or he is alive through his descendants or any which way meforshim explain what alive means without the guf being alive because it says clearly in the Torah that Yacov died.
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.
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?
In my last comment that I addressed to Neville I wrote the ” the Torah says many literal things”…
I meant to write that the Torah says many things which is not meant to be interpreted in a physical sense. As an example, the Torah talks about “the arm of Hashem”. Does Hashem have a physical arm? No, He doesn’t.
Menachem,
I was not kofer in Torah shebaal peh. That is pure manipulation.
If anything, I would be a kofer in “shebiKsav”
The whole Torah is Al peh. Both Torah, and Limud.
Talmud Torah, means “studying the Law”.
The Law is the Bris. 80% of Gemorah is Torah. Period. No games.
That is the Torah. Not Nach, Agadah, Kabalah etc….
ושננתם לבניך is Mishna. ולמדתם אותם את בניכם is Talmud.
The posuk does NOT say, read this book.
It says, study the Law, בפיך ובלבבך לעשותוI understand that Chazal held Moshiach needs to be from David, but the Chashmonaim disagreed. Yochanan Kohen Gadol, was Moshiach. HaKohen haMoshiach.
That’s why he conquered Edom and destroyed Har Grizim, to unite Israel, in Yerushalayim. He looked at himself as Moshiach.Anyway, (ignoring that part), my point remains the same.
The identity of the pizza delivery man is not important.
As long as the pizza is delivered.
If someone brings chopped liver, and claims he’s the pizza guy, he’s not, until he brings the pizza. Period.I’m not specifically attacking Chabad.
If Chazal meant that a Chazer would be Mutar as is; they are wrong. And we MUST interpret it that the SCIENCE would change, not the Law.
(that it would raise cud, “chazer” means “return”, like “Maaleh Gera”, thats why it’s specifically the Pig)Just like Chananya Ben Chizkiya Ben Garon, RE – INTERPRETED Yechezkel 44 to not contradict Toras Kohanim (sefer Vayikra).
Because, otherwise, that book would have been removed from Kisvay haQodesh.Same with Koheles, Shir haShirim and others.
Many Shitos took these books out (last perek in Yadayim).Only by interpreting it in a way that doesn’t contradict the Torah, can we accept it.
Same with Rus (yibum to a cousin??)Some books were removed entirely, because they couldn’t be interpreted in line with Torah at all (like Shoshana, Chanoch, Yovlos etc….)
Neville says “Irrelevant. We don’t bring proofs from straight pasukim pretty much ever. This is the kind of thing I’m talking about. I get the temptation to say “well you’re bringing a rishon? I’ll bring an even better proof, a passuk from the Torah itself!” For better or for worse, that’s not how the Orthodox world works.”
When you want to have a Talmudic discussion you can bring a rishon. But to say that the comment that Rashi is making on a pasuk contradicts another posuk in the Chumash is absolutely ridiculous and disgusting. Rashi did not contradict the Word of Hashem.
Do you know that anyone can “prove” anything from such type of “learning” that you claim is the legitimate way?
You, like the others, keep parroting that Rashi means that Yaacov’s guf is alive is the mainstream understanding. So, please bring me any reputable rabbi that says that that is the meaning that Rashi means- that Yaacov’s guf is alive in his kever. Still waiting to hear from Arso, and now from you.
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.
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 re what philosopher wrote: She?! Okay, now I’ll call you an apikorus.
Neville, you are a welcome breath of fresh air!
Please all of you who are interested see the post I just sent to the other thread. As I wrote the other day, I couldn’t be bothered doubling-up my replies about the same point.
Happy new year, you sound partially xian, partially Karaite and partially kook.
100% of Gemoro – not 80% as you wrote – is Torah.
Arso, so when will I hear from you which rabbi or talmud chuchem agrees that Yaacov was buried alive and is currently alive in his grave?
Seems like it’s easier for you to call me an apikorus because I don’t agree with your interpretation of a Rashi so you don’t bother clarifying your interpretation that contradicts a posuk in the Torah. That is really childish of childish of you.
It’s very concerning that not one person here properly understood anything I said.
What I’m saying is that the Torah is the #1 priority and therefore, Nach, Agadah etc need to interpreted in a way that fits in to it.
That’s basic Torah Judaism.
Really not a big deal and definitely not controversial.Torah means Halacha.
הברכה והקללה, החיים והמות, נתתי לפניך.
The Bris is the Law. The Bracha and Chaim is if we follow the Mitzvos, the klala and Maves is if we don’t.
ובבחרת בחייםWhat I said was that 80% of Gemorah is a discussion about Halacha אשר אנכי מצוך היום
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.
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).
“This is why Ruchniyus is so evil”
What?!?
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.
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.
Neville, what’s the point of your argument?
I said you can bring a rishon on a posuk too but they don’t contradict the Torah. They expound and explain the Torah.
משה אמת ותרתו אמת
The Torah never changes.
Halacha never changes, Chazal, Rishonim, Achroinim, etc. never contracted halacha in the Torah and neither did they contradict anything else written in the Torah.
Rashi is saying Yaacov lo mes. I am not saying that Rashi is not saying that Yaacov is alive. The question is what alive means. You are INTERPRETING alive to mean that the body that was embalmed and buried and what the Torah says the brothers said “mes” on is physically alive. I’m saying alive means in a spiritual sense.
End of discussion. If you have PROOF that what I’m saying is wrong then I’ll listen. I’m not interested in hearing your opinion.
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.
Shmei, no, we were discussing both Rashis, on the posuk and on the Gemorah. Obviously, if I talk about Rashi saying Yaacov lo mes I’m talking about the Rashi on the posuk in Chumash.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.