- This topic has 1,090 replies, 32 voices, and was last updated 1 day, 3 hours ago by .
-
Posts
-
Arso and menachem shmei quote the ayin yaacov on the rif on yaacov lo meis but I can’t find that anywhere either
The Rif, Iyun Yaakov and Etz Yosef are all in the link that I posted. Sorry, I couldn’t find a clearer edition on Hebrewbooks. Check out any Win Yaakov with the classic meforshim.
Amazing how you attack first and ask later.
Philosopher: “At first I was impressed that you were able to refer to so many meforshim on this Rashi and Gemorah. But then when you mentioned that you don’t see the part of the rif that I mentioned I realized that it’s copy and paste from some “Chabad Torah”.”
Also Philosopher: “What I have said about the Rif’s commentary on Yaacov lo mes I take back. I have written what I saw in other articles but I cannot find the actual sources.”
Regarding this, Chazal said:
כל הפוסל במומו פוסלOr, as we say in English: “It takes one to know one (or think you know one).”
I am impressed though that you admitted the truth.
After we have already established the late leader of habad is a mashiach sheker , and everyone on this thread agrees to it , as there is only shtika which is rightfully interpreted as hoda’a.
Hoda’a that he is a mashiach sheker, as attested to by those two luminaries, RAMBAN and RAMBAM.
We have to, however, still examine the a’z complaint.Atsmut betoh haguf was meant only non literal, so they claim.
So, why did my eyes have to see a poster of their leader with the inscription god right next it ?
And I happened to see this, multiple times.
Are you going to tell me that this inscription was also non literal ???No, it definitely was literal. And it was habad people who put it up.
Inspired by exactly who ?
Inspired by the totally self educated leader of habad, who never learnt in a yeshiva and studied at the two top universities in Berlin and Paris….To ARSo
I ignored your question above because of its stupidity but now I’ll respond, “I don’t answer questions from Christians. Philosopher theorizes that you’re Chabad. She may be right, but even if you aren’t you are now a supporter and Rabbi Akiva said that a supporter of idolatry is an idolater.”
To Philosopher
I apologize for assuming you’re a male. I will reiterate that you write beautifully and are a tremendous asset to the team of those who believe in Hashem. Now that you’ve stated your gender let me add some Torah. The mistake that Chavah made is that she conversed with the snake. I have intentionally referred to Shmei as the primordial serpent because he follows that MO. He never makes a definitive statement, rather whatever his opponent says he twists. It was particularly important for Shmei to engage you and the others in that idiotic discussion as to whether Yaakov is still alive because he felt the heat from the Candace Owens question. There are many ways to checkmate Chabad, but Owens accidentally hit on a very powerful approach. What’s interesting is that Boteach does not believe the Rebbe is Moshiach. He was interviewed by Zev Brenner years ago and he stated that Judaism does not accept any suggestion of a second coming. Checkmate.
ויחי קאפיטל נ פסוק ט”ו: וַיִּרְא֤וּ אֲחֵֽי־יוֹסֵף֙ כִּי־מֵ֣ת אֲבִיהֶ֔ם וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ ל֥וּ יִשְׂטְמֵ֖נוּ יוֹסֵ֑ף וְהָשֵׁ֤ב יָשִׁיב֙ לָ֔נוּ אֵ֚ת כׇּל־הָ֣רָעָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר גָּמַ֖לְנוּ אֹתֽוֹ׃
It’s a mefureshe pasuk in the Torah that Yaakov Avinu meis. You cannot argue on a pasuk in the Torah. The Gemara is an agadata.A) Agadata doesn’t mean it is false, it means we must look in the meforshim to understand what it means.
B) Many meforshim explain יעקב לא מת spiritually, others explain it physically.
C) When you have a seeming question on a Gemara or Rishon, you don’t need to disregard the vort. You can just ask. Maybe you’ll get an answer, maybe not.
Rashi/Rif/Etz Yosef/Iyun Yaakov[/Artscroll] definitely knew of this posuk, yet said what they said.D) Your exellent question stands even if you learn יעקב לא מת spiritually: The fact is that Gemara calls Yaakov לא מת, and Rashi on Chumash (and Tosfos in Gemara) proves it from the fact that the posuk doesn’t use the word מיתה regarding Yaakov, so how can it say מת אביהם!?
E) Ramban (who doesn’t necessarily interpret the Gemara physically) is bothered by the same question as you!
He answers:
ויגוע ויאסף. ומיתה לא נאמרה בו, ואמרו רבותינו יעקב אבינו לא מת, לשון רש”י. ולדעת רבותינו, הרי יעקב הזכיר מיתה בעצמו הנה אנכי מת והיה אלקים עמכם. ואולי לא ידע הוא בנפשו, או שלא רצה לתת כבוד לשמו. וכן ויראו אחי יוסף כי מת אביהם, כי להם מת הוא, או שלא ידעו הם בזה כלל.
“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: 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.”In other words, the brothers “saw that there father died” because that is indeed what THEY SAW!
As Rashi write on Gemara, they buried him because TO THEM he seemed dead. But really, he was alive.
This also fits with Rashi’s pirush in Chumash on כי מת אביהם, that they FELT their father’s death because of how Yosef was treating them.
This has nothing to do with if Yaakov is truly alive, rather with the perception of the brothers.Philosopher, in general, maybe try asking instead of attacking.
Yaacov opening his eyes is in Sotah 13a. If you read Sotah 13a and you read there the meforshim on how it says Yosef was zoche to bury Yaacov and talking a lot about the topic, you see that Yaacov was actually buried.
No one is disputing that Yaakov was buried. It’s literally in the question posed to R’ Yitzchak, and it doesn’t bother him, because he’s still supported by מקרא אני דורש.
Yes, it says Yaacov opened his eyes and laughed when Eisov’s eyes fell out, and it’s something we can’t understand without the meforshim, but in no way does it prove that Yaacov was buried physically alive
Tosfos in Taanis uses that Gemara as another proof that Yaakov is alive (יעקב אבינו לא מת . . כדמפרש בסוטה גבי מעשה דחושים).
Some meforshim (those who DISAGREE with Rashi/Rif etc.) argue that Tosfos was only commenting on the הוא אמינא of the Gemara.
But if you learn Tosfos based on Rashi/Rif’s pshat, Yaakov opening his eyes is definitely a proof that he was physically alive.To recap:
The Lubavitche believe that:
1. Their rebbe is physically alive
2. Their rebbe is running the world
3. Their rebbe is everywhere
4. They can pray to their rebbe and he’ll help them
5. Their rebbe never makes mistakes (I wrote it in present tense because they believe he’s still alive and so to this day he doesn’t make mistakes just like he never made mistakes when his physical body was still seen with their physical eyes in 770…Yes, even now when he’s buried alive and can’t move, or maybe he can move in his kever (it’s a very complicated situation, only a Lubavitche can understand it), he is still not making any mistakes.Avodah zora, avodah zora, avodah zora. Shame on those who believe this ideology. Shame on those who don’t speak up against it. Shame on those who know the Lubavitche ideology but still eat food with their hechsher and daven in their shuls.
Qwerty that is a very good vort that Chava conversing with the nachash was a mistake. She was probably trying to “clarify” the situation as well. Yes, that is the wrong approach. I do not deny that i always fall into this trap of trying to talk logic with brainwashed people -it doesn’t work. Indeed, I cannot dissuade Menachem Shmei who is now arguing with a b’ferisha pasuk that says clearly that Yaacov died. First he argued that Yaacov wasn’t buried. So I proved it says he was buried. So then he said Yaacov was buried but he’s buried while still alive. Now a bring him a posuk in the Torah which says Yaacov that Yaacov died and he is still arguing with me.
From here on, for me the topic on this thread about “Yaacov lo mes” is closed.
To philosopher
Your points are spot on, but I’ll just add one thing. The same Lubavichers who make these claims will say the opposite in other post(s.) if that suits their agenda. They have no shame because they don’t believe that Hashem exists. Last year I was arguing online (VIN) with this Lubavicher who was trying to convince me that the Rebbe runs the world, “How do you explain Tzaddik Gozeir Vhashem Mikayem?” he asked. I answered, “How do you explain Hashem Echad, Veain Od Milvado?” Let’s do our best to ignore anything said by the stooges. Hashem’s seal is Emes and so He despises them. BTW, they also believe, as Yankel Berel stated, that their dead Kofer is god. DaMoshe is angry at me because of the tone of my rhetoric. When dealing with idolaters we are enjoined to be as vicious and/or sarcastic as possible. They are Hashem’s enemies and their end is coming.
qwerty to me: I ignored your question above because of its stupidity
Ah, it’s a stupid question. In case anyone has forgotten what the original question was, here it is: Does the Rif hold that Yaakov Avinu is still alive? Couldn’t be more stupid, right?
but now I’ll respond, “I don’t answer questions from Christians. Philosopher theorizes that you’re Chabad. She may be right, but even if you aren’t you are now a supporter and Rabbi Akiva said that a supporter of idolatry is an idolater.”
I’m a supporter of Chabad because I agree with Menachem that according to Rashi and others Yaakov Avinu is still alive?! Note: that has nothing to do with Chabad theology, but who cares? When you are cornered you come out attacking even if what you’re saying makes no sense at all! And the fact that you daven with the ‘idolaters’ is fine. It’s just when someone disagrees with you that he is an idolater. One rule for the goose and one for the gander.
You claim to learn hours each day, but you have clearly displayed that you have no understanding of Torah. All you can do when faced with an issue is spew invective and hatred. I believe you claim you’re a dentist. I’d hate to sit in your dentist’s chair, Marathon Man.
Btw I now know that you are a Catholic because both you and the Pope reject totally Rashi’s opinion about Yaakov Avinu. That’s the logic you use, so it’s only fair to use it against you. Btw do you refrain from eating meat on Fridays?
And one other thing – which you will probably not answer because I am in agreement with a Lubavicher on one issue – what is the source of the above statement of Rabi Akiva? It may be that I have never heard of it or simply have forgotten it, but at any rate I would like a source, please.
To recap:
The Lubavitche believe that:…What is this a recap of? All the angry thoughts floating around your mind?
Actually, a proper recap of this thread would be:
Lubavitchers (and any other unbiased Jew who knows how to learn Torah) believe that:
Hashem performs miracles.
Rashi/Rif etc. aren’t nutjobs, ch”v.
If a posuk seems to contradict a Gemara, the Gemara shouldn’t be disregarded.
The chachamim opposed Yoshke and his new religion even during his lifetime (and executed him for it -Rambam).
Being part of a different derech than someone else doesn’t mean you’re obligated to attack any Torah that they quote.
It isn’t necessary to misinterpret one meforash in order to make him fit with an opposing one.
A challenge posed to Jews by a Christian antisemite is quite insignificant.
Artscroll Shas wasn’t written by Lubavitchers.
It’s okay to research something and look into the reasons and sources before attacking it as being false.
A Torah debate should mostly be about discussing ideas, not throwing derogatory statements and nicknames at the opponent.
Concluding every bombastic, soon to be refuted statement with a “Checkmate” is a lousy strategy.There are probably some more.
@ menachem
You claimed that according to the Rambam. The problem with Christianity is not מסית ומדיח, rather only that Yoshke was killed.
==========
Wrong .
Never claimed that.I will reiterate what I said –
RAMBAN is in Sefer havikuach . We know j is not mashiach because the promises of our nevi’im did not materialize during his lifetime.
RAMBAM is in hilch melachim . When a candidate for mashiach dies in war and did not bring about the promises of the nevi’im we know that he is not mashiach.Both do not say that’s xtianities’ ONLY problem . Pashut to any straight-thinking person that there are more problems.
They say clearly, however, that someone who dies without finishing the business , is proven not to be mashiach.Hence the logical and simple conclusion , not refuted by anyone on this thread:
THE LATE LEADER OF HABAD IS A MASHIACH SHEKER.
That is simple clear logic at work. Nothing more,
@Menachem
Daniel did not start the ge’ula process, Therefore, he could still be considered as a potential candidate. [if there will be a private thiyat hameitim].Daniel never started. Therefore, he never failed. And therefore, he could still [at least according to one pshat in sanhedrin] be a candidate for mashiach.
But, As RAMBAN and RAMBAM point out, starting the ge’ula process and then,
dying & leaving unfinished business, equals failure.Failure equals sheker.
Thats how we know now that j is a mashiach sheker.
Thats how we know that bar kohba is a mashiach sheker.
Thats how we know now that shabtai tzvi is a mashiach sheker.
Thats how we know now that the last leader of habad is a mashiach sheker.They are all -equally- meshichei sheker.
Are the other possible disqualifications ? Yes.
For example the j personality and his actions, or shabtai tzvi’s conversion to islam, [or other possible problems with the personality of habads leader.]The point RAMBAM and RAMBAN are discussing is : unfinished business.
Which is as clear as day disqualifying the late habad leader from being mashiach.
So clear is this , that [for the umpteenth time, again] habad itself [pre 94] considered this so axiomatic, that they were prepared to go so far, to the extent of building a new castles-in-the-sky theology , on this basis, proclaiming to all and sundry that their leader simply cannot die [!].So, to our question : is the late leader of habad a mashiach sheker ?
The answer can only be:a resounding ‘yes’.
All of klal yisrael, besides the majority of habad hasidim, know this answer.
They feel it in their bones.To the real Jews
I think you’ll find this interesting. The FJJ devotes a page to Rabbi Miller each week. It presents questions and answers from his famous Thursday night shiurim. About a year ago this was one of the questions, “Why do Lubavichers think they’re better than other Jews? He answered, “Every Jewish group should think that they’re the best. That they learn the most etc.” Clearly, the person who asked the question was attuned to the Chabad attitude that they are the “Master Race of Judaism” an idea that Schneersohn picked up from Hitler. This query was posed in 1975 so we see that Chabad didn’t become a problem just because of the Rebbe’s death. As for why Rabbi Miller gave that answer, I won’t speculate.
@menachem
To recap
your changing of topics and [deliberately] ignoring the points the other side is making, serves as an indictment of your position.
I would have thought that if you would have a on the point rebuttal, you would not keep it a secret , right?
Seems like we can use the klal of shtika ke hoda’a ….THE LATE LEADER OF HABAD IS A MASHIACH SHEKER.!!
Or in qwerty ‘s parlance, a certain word starting with C…
.To ARSo
I’ll answer your question, but with one proviso. Are you the same person who beautifully attacked Chabad last year in Menachem Shmei’s thread?
To the group of real Jews
I spoke to a Rav yesterday and he clarified the position I took last week. As stated Rambam’s approach is to eschew the phantasmagoric. Therefore we are enjoined to look for Hashem in the rational world. This Rabbi added the following, Hashem can and has transcended natural law, however we only say that this happened when we have clear-cut proof to that effect. Therefore if a Rishon said the following, “For Yaakov to be alive after 2000 years plus violates natural law, but I have definite proof that it is factually true then if no other equal authority challenges this we would have to accept it” If however, Rishonim are making ambiguous statements then no, we don’t dismiss Rambam. And, of course, adding to the equation is that Chabad has a Negias in the matter. If they can con people into believing that Yaakov is actually alive it allows them to sell the garbage that the Kofer is also alive. Any way you slice it, the question is closed unless you’re a lying, psychotic Lubavicher.
Philosopher,
I cannot dissuade Menachem Shmei who is now arguing with a b’ferisha pasuk that says clearly that Yaacov died.
I am not arguing with that posuk. Rashi/Rif/Etz-Yosef/Iyun-Yaakov SEEM to be arguing with that posuk, and Ramban (whom I quoted) ASKS this question, and ANSWERS why it’s not a contradiction.
Of course, you IGNORE my answer to your question.
You clearly prioritize hate over classic limmud haTorah.First he argued that Yaacov wasn’t buried
In which post? Date, time, post number?
If you can’t find it, will you admit that you’re a LIAR? You LIE to slander fellow Jews? Just as you LIED about the Rif?
(P.S. If all of these are mistakes instead of lies, I apologize for accusing you of lying, as I expect you to apologize for mistakenly misquoting me and misquoting Rif)
Qwerty
About a year ago this was one of the questions [to Rabbi Avigdor Miller], “Why do Lubavichers think they’re better than other Jews? He answered, “Every Jewish group should think that they’re the best. That they learn the most etc.” Clearly, the person who asked the question was attuned to the Chabad attitude that they are the “Master Race of Judaism”
And clearly, Rabbi Miller, who answered the question, was attuned to the fact that followers of every derech should feel that their derech is the best, or else they should switch to a different derech, as I have written in the past.
And clearly, Qwerty is more satisfied with the question than the answer, because the question gives him another opportunity to express his hate for a holy Jewish sect.
Yankel,
You clearly haven’t understood my point.
I stated that I am not getting into the משיח מן המתים debate, I haven’t voiced ANY opinion on the matter.
I did voice an opinion on the statement of a Christian antisemite that the fundamental issue that Jews have with Christianity is משיח מן המתים.
I maintained that the fundamental issue is the religion itself, which is the only explanation for why the chachamim rejected Yoshkeh while he was still alive, and even killed him.
In response, you wrote:
“How can you ignore Ramban and Rambam ?
The reason we know that j is not mashiach is because he did not effect the nevuot about yemot hamashiach IN HIS LIFETIME !
He doesn’t say because he was a meisit umadiah , [which he very well may have been]”In fact, the opposite is true (according to the Rambam, who I was discussing. Ramban is another discussion):
According to the Rambam, the problem we know about Yoshke is specifically that he started a horrible religion that was completely against the Torah.
That’s why he was killed in beis din, as the Rambam writes there. He goes on to describe why it’s ridiculous to say that Yoshke is moshiach, but he doesn’t say that it’s because of his death. His death was not a reason for beis din to kill him, obviously.
I know what the Rambam writes about the killing of Ben Koziba, and that is a different discussion, unrelated to Christianity, which I will not go into.
P.S. Here is the Rambam, for the third time:
Hilchos Melachim ch. 11:
אַף יֵשׁוּעַ הַנּוֹצְרִי שֶׁדִּימָה שֶׁיִּהְיֶה מָשִׁיחַ, וְנֶהֱרָג בְּבֵית דִּין, כְּבָר נִתְנַבֵּא בּוֹ דָּנִיֵּאל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר “וּבְנֵי פָּרִיצֵי עַמְּךָ יִנַּשְּׂאוּ לְהַעֲמִיד חָזוֹן וְנִכְשָׁלוּ” (דניאל יא, יד). וְכִי יֵשׁ מִכְשׁוֹל גָּדוֹל מִזֶּה, שֶׁכָּל הַנְּבִיאִים דִּבְּרוּ שֶׁהַמָּשִׁיחַ גּוֹאֵל יִשְׂרָאֵל וּמוֹשִׁיעָם, וּמְקַבֵּץ נִדְחֵיהֶם וּמְחַזֵּק מִצְוָתָן, וְזֶה גָּרַם לְאַבֵּד יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּחֶרֶב, וּלְפַזֵּר שְׁאֵרִיתָם וּלְהַשְׁפִּילָם, וּלְהַחֲלִיף הַתּוֹרָה, וּלְהַטְעוֹת רוֹב הָעוֹלָם לַעֲבֹד אֱלוֹהַּ מִבַּלְעֲדֵי ה’.
“Jesus of Nazareth who imagined himself to be the Mashiach and was executed by the court was also alluded to in Daniel’s prophecies, as ibid. 11:14 states: “The vulgar among your people shall exalt themselves in an attempt to fulfill the vision, but they shall stumble.”
Can there be a greater stumbling block than Christianity? All the prophets spoke of Mashiach as the redeemer of Israel and their savior who would gather their dispersed and strengthen their observance of the mitzvot. In contrast, Christianity caused the Jews to be slain by the sword, their remnants to be scattered and humbled, the Torah to be altered, and the majority of the world to err and serve a god other than the L-rd.”Philosopher,
In case you’re wondering where I clearly answered your “question” that Rashi/Rif etc. seem to argue with a posuk:
See my post from September 12, 2:31pm #2314383
To philosopher
It’s human nature to assume that all people are basically the same. You therefore fell into the Shmei trap assuming that he’s interested in the truth. Many years ago I read that German and Austrian Jews who were brought to the camps showed off the medals they won in the first war. They thought it would save them Obviously they were dead wrong. Shmei is exactly the same. He doesn’t care about any valid arguments that we make. When he agreed with BA(Benedict ARSo) I couldn’t figure it out. Now we know it’s more Chabad fraud. DaMoshe wants me to treat these vermin like Heilege Yidden. They are Amalek. Nuff said.
Menachem Shmei’s response to my recap of Lubavitche beliefs (and his evasion to answering my direct questions to him on the other thread regarding his beliefs) is a response that dodges what he truly believes in.
If Lubavitche who believe the rebbe is running the world and believe in all other things I mentioned in my recap wouldn’t think deep down that there’s something wrong with those beliefs they’d be open about their believing in the things listed in my recap. On the other hand, if they actually don’t believe in what i wrote in my recap then they’d say that openly and also explain that whatever ive read in Chabad articles written for Lubavitche and videos ive seen by Lubavitche “rabbis” are fringe beliefs, not the mainstream. Instead, Menachem Shmei and the Lubavitche I spoke to on another site do not deny that they believe in these things, they don’t admit it either, they just try to divert attention from directly answering what their beliefs are and instead they try to manipulate Torah sources to make it seem as if the Torah sources support their beliefs, which they themselves can’t admit clearly to the public that they believe in, but the “sources (supposedly) admit it for them” …Very dishonest, but that’s the only way they can claim, at least to themselves, that their “beliefs are legitimate”.
yankel berel: Daniel never started. Therefore, he never failed. And therefore, he could still [at least according to one pshat in sanhedrin] be a candidate for mashiach.
But, As RAMBAN and RAMBAM point out, starting the ge’ula process and then,
dying & leaving unfinished business, equals failure.I may have missed some quote that was cited before I joined the discussion, but where does it differentiate between someone who starts the process but doesn’t complete it, and someone has never started it, with the former being rejected as a candidate for Mashiach and the latter still valid? It would indeed seem from the Rambam that Bar Koziba “started” the process, but as far as I can tell it doesn’t say that he was rejected for that reason. Rather it was because he was killed. Perhaps he says it somewhere else, but not in Hilchos Melachim. (I can’t discuss what the Ramban says as I don’t have the source.)
As to qwerty, I find you absolutely disgusting!
Look through all my posts on numerous earlier threads and you will see that I am virulently anti-Lubavich in more ways than you have ever known. But to spout filth and garbage, and say that the LR (whether you like him or not) adopted the ideas of H yemach shemo, is beneath all levels of contempt.
Do us all a favor and ask Rav Dovid Feinstein, or his son-in-law, or Rabbi Plutchok, whether they would agree with that statement. I dare you!
And your logic in your vitriolic posts demonstrate that you have no logic at all. Rav Avigdor Miller was asked why Chabad think they’re the best. He answered that every group should think that about themselves. So you see it as a problem, where RAM says it isn’t, and you won’t “speculate” as to why he said that. Is it at all possible that he meant it about all groups?
But you won’t answer that, will you, as you never answer my questions with any decency? You’ll just attack me for being a Lubavicher and an associate of idolaters while you are the one who davens (takes communion?) in their houses of worship!
I’m not a talmud chuchem but I dutifully checked in the Gemarah, on alhatorah and on safaaria what the rif says on yaacov lo meis. There is nothing on the rif’s commentary on yaacov lo meis, not in the gemarah, not on safaaria not on alhatorah. Neither is there anything on safaaria in the iyin yaacov on yaacov lo meis. I cannot believe that these two sites that bring the entire talmud and rif’s entire commentary and the safaara which bring the entire eyin yaacov would leave out what they say on yaacov lo meis. Therefore, i was a little suspicious of yaacov’s shmei link to a barely readable copy of the gemarah and commentaries. But not being familiar with learning, as I mentioned I am a female, I didn’t say anything about my suspicions. But as yaacov shmei bought it up again I will voice my suspicions on the source he links.
As I said, I couldn’t find anything in the sefer itself, not on safaaria, not on alhatorah what the rif says on that gemarah. This was highly suspicious to me. Neither could I find on safaria in iyin yaacov anything on yaacov lo meis. Again, this is highly suspicious to me. Going back the menachem shmei’s link, it is titled “Ein Ya’akov – Part B-3 (RA-Kidoshin) ” how can it be titled iyin yaacov on “kidoshin” when the copy of the page shows the gemorah “taanis daf h”?
I had my suspicions on who runs the site “Hebrew Books”. Sure enough, when you google “Hebrew Books” you see a major part of their library are Chabad texts. When I googled “hebrew books is a chabad organization” it comes up that they partnered with Chabad…
I’m not going to make any accusations but I will ask why is there the rif and ayin yaacov (barely readable) commentaries on the gemarah taanis 5b on the words “yaacov lo meis” only on a Chabad site?! I asked before and I ask again, if anyone has another, non-Chabad, link to the rif’s and ayin yaacovs commentary on “yaacov lo meis” please link it. Thanks.
To yankel berel
As I told philosopher, there’s no point in dealing with Shmei. You’d have a better chance of getting through to the concentration camp commandant. The analogy of Chabadiam and Nazism is.striking. In each case the adherents are slavishly devoted to their leader.
To the new and disproved ARSo
I can’t ask Rav Dovid what he thinks because he was Niftar. You probably assume that East Siders communicate with their dead Rabbis like Chabad does but you’d be mistaken. Let me quote Rabbi Plutchok, “The Rebbe’s gaavah was so enormous he convinced himself he was god. “A second quote, “Every thing you(referring to me) say about Chabad and the Rebbe is absolutely true. Rav Dovid’s son in law is also in lockstep with my views. As I said recently I am a Yirei Shomayim. I would never say these things if I had any doubt of their veracity and if my Rabbinim disagreed with me.
Philosopher,
You are a laughable ignoramus. You have no idea how to learn a meforash, yet you have the audacity to attack those who can. You refuse to accept words directly out of Ein Yaakov because it is on a site that has Lubavitch seforim!
I had my suspicions on who runs the site “Hebrew Books”. Sure enough, when you google “Hebrew Books” you see a major part of their library are Chabad texts.
Well, hate to break it to you: Otzar Hachochma also has Chabad seforim. Over 10,000 of them.
Any seforim store you go to probably has Chabad seforim.Now, feel free to throw out the entire Torah because it can all be traced back to some sort of association with Chabad.
After all, that’s what you have been doing this entire thread: Attacking classic Torah ideas just because they were quoted by a Lubavitcher.
You and Qwerty have reached levels of hate and insanity that haven’t been reached before in the CR.
Any normal person would take the time to fact check something to know if it’s true before attacking it out of ignorance.
Going back the menachem shmei’s link, it is titled “Ein Ya’akov – Part B-3 (RA-Kidoshin) ” how can it be titled iyin yaacov on “kidoshin” when the copy of the page shows the gemorah “taanis daf h”?
🤣🤣
There are several mesechtos in one volume of Ein Yaakov.if anyone has another, non-Chabad, link to the rif’s and ayin yaacovs commentary on “yaacov lo meis” please link it
From the YWNCR rules: “Links are generally not approved. Exceptions are: Links to articles and other features (e.g. Coffee Room topics and posts) on YWN, and links to pages of a sefer on hebrewbooks.org.”
The CR must be run by Chabad, run away quick!!!
I cannot believe that these two sites that bring the entire talmud and rif’s entire commentary and the safaara which bring the entire eyin yaacov would leave out what they say on yaacov lo meis.
Obviously you couldn’t find it on those sites, because neither of those sites carry the Rif on Ein Yaakov, nor Iyun Yaakov or Etz Yosef. They didn’t “leave out” any lines.
Neither could I find on safaria in iyin yaacov anything on yaacov lo meis
Again, there is no Iyun Yaakov on Sefaria.
I love how you trust the Reform-run Sefaria, but you are suspicious of the Hebrewbooks pdf of the Vilna edition of Ein Yaakov, because Hebrewbooks has Chabad seforim on it.philosopher, without being too offensive, perhaps this is the reason that Chazal said that Gemoro should be restricted to men, and not women. Nothing against women, by the way. My wife is a woman, and lehavdil my mother a”h was also a women. Coincidentally so are my daughters and a number of my grandchildren B”H. But I am old-world, and I believe that this type of discussion should be kept to those who can, and are encouraged, to learn gemoro.
In answer to your inability to find the Rif, it seems from what you wrote in your post that you have a misunderstanding. The Rif on the gemoro is Rav Yitzchak Alfasi who was one of the early Rishonim. The Rif on the Ein Yaakov is a Rav Yoshiya Pinto of the 17th century. He will likely be found only on the Ein Yaakov, although I can’t be sure of that. He will DEFINITELY not be found in any regular edition of Shas.
As to Sefaria – a word of warning. I can’t remember where, but I have seen it quote xian sources in relation to their beliefs, and not to refute them. So although it is likely not relevant here, just be careful with that site.
(I just googled Sefaria and christianity and it came up with some “questionable” material.)
To ARSo
You’re so deranged that you’re making insane accusations. I never said you’re Chabad. Rabbi Dovic Hollander, you probably heard of him, told me the following, “Don’t try to understand a Tasha, because you aren’t a Rasha.” If you gained some composure you’d realize how close I am to so many great Rabbis. There are two reasons. First we show each other the utmost respect . They know I’m a Johnny Come Lately in Torah but my writing skills are a match for anyone and they love my weekly Diver Torah. But the second reason is more important. I say what I mean and I don’t change my position unless I’m proven wrong. Shmei paid you a compliment and you did a 180 so that you’re now defending the Christians. Hashem sees everything. But at this point it’s questionable if you still believe in Him. Rabbi Miller said that Emunah means loyalty. Baruch Hashem philosopher and Yankel berel are true to the cause, but you’re a traitor. If you had a brain you’d be very afraid .
Philosopher
You’re doing a great job. When Shmei is reduced to name-calling his end is near. Again make believe he doesn’t exist because in Hashem’s eyes he’s yemach Shmei
To philosopher
Mark Twain wrote, “When you keep your mouth shut I only think you’re stupid, but when you open it, you remove all doubt.” I can’t believe that Benedict ARSo is now playing the worthless women card. Elke Bentley just finished Shas. She started at 16 finished at 18..She also attends Harvard. The problem with ARSo is that he’s so angry it’s made him a raving lunatic. Don’t you think it’s time he was checkmated?
My understanding is that sefaria has curated material that they organized and also ability for users to upload their own material. The latter is of course, buyers beware. If you read a sugya on their site, it is clear what is what.
To philosopher
I would add that Benedict ARSo should also be excluded from the Bes Medrash. Look at his quote, “Perhaps this is the reason that Chazal said that Gemoro should be restricted to men and not women.” If you say it’s restricted to men don’t I know that women are excluded? So we add idiot to your resume. Or maybe you should exclude Lubavitchers because liars and idolaters have no share in Hashem’s Torah
Chazal, plural, didn’t say not to teach gemora to ladies, I believe one in gemora did: r Eliezer… and then Beruria learned from 100 teachers, so at least 100 were OK with it.
I once suggested to a rav to have a shiur on eyn Yaakov for women. He refused, “I can’t teach gemora to women “. When I mentioned that I share content of his gemora classes with female members of my household, he had no problem with that. So, reluctance seems to be due to public image and maybe not for everyone.
To ARSo
Hey bigmouth. If you question that I’m telling the truth go to the Five Towns and look up Rabbi Plutchok. Ask him his opinion of Chabad. Then tell him you can prove from a Siyum in the Rif that Yaakov Avinu is still alive. He’ll fit you for a straight jacket.
Menachem shmei and arso, I’ve said clearly, I’m not a talmud chochem, I’ve said clearly I’m a woman. So as I’ve said clearly, please link the iyin yaacov to yaacov lo mes from a different source. I’m not taking a source that partners with Chabad as valid. Don’t link it, just point to it if it’s not allowed on the yeshiva world. Safaria has the iyin yaacov and as I’ve said before, I wasn’t able to find it there. So refer the page where it says on Sefaria or anywhere else. I never, ever said it’s not written in at all, I asked for a link because i wanted to see it in context and its not readable on the link Shmei gave.
The fact is that with all the “I’m a woman and can’t learn”, it is Arso who claimed that it says in taanus 13 that yaacov laughed when eisov’s eye fell out. Which was wrong of course and me the not talmud chochem woman pointed you in the right direction where it written, in Sotah 13a. But more importantly, I wasn’t going to take from you an out of context quote just “because you are a male”, I’m not letting you tell me what it says and where it says because it’s false. Just as false as Shmei claiming that “Rashi said Yaacov lo meis literally” is false. Just like shmei claimed that taanis 5b “proves” that Yaacov was buried alive when it clearly says in taanus 5b that Rav Yitchak quoted a posuk from yermiyah , it does not say at all, in any way shape or form, that yaacov was buried alive.
I’m very open with the sources I quote from, where I quote it from. There are two meforshim, the rif and iyin yaacov on the page of menachem’s shmei’s link. I knew very well that the rif on the iyin yaacov was from the 17th century and the rif on the gemarah is the from the 11th century. However, despite your laughter, the rif from the 11th century is ALSO a commentary on the gemerah just not on taanis 5b. Seeing the seperate commentaries of rif and iyin yaacov on the same page the the Gemorah on page of Shmei’s link is what i wanted clarified and read in context, if there were such commentaries exist. And that is one of the reasons, besides that it’s not readable, that I asked for a different source. I still find it interesting, OK downgraded from suspicious, that I was not able to find it anywhere only on a non-readable copy from Shmei’s Chabad-affiliated link.
Just because you two are male does not give you two an excuse to ignore
1. a befereshe posuk in Vayechi that the brothers of Yosef saw that their father died.
2. Misinintrepret CLEAR words from the Chumash, gemarah and other meforshim
3. Ignore the fact that only Hashem runs the world, He is the only one you are allowed to pray to, He is the Only One who is every and never made nor never will make mistakes. To believe all this about the rebbe is idolatry.
Since you two are men and ou know better thna me, the non-talmud chuchem woman, you would think that you’d know better not to make your own misinterpretations on Chumash and Chazal.
Sorry, I made a mistake in my last comment to Arso and Menachem Shmei regarding the Rif from the 11th century not commenting on taanis 5b. I meant him not commenting on “Yaacov lo mes” in 5b but he does comment on taanus 5b.
@menachem
That’s strange – you have an opinion about everything under the sun , and on mashiach min hameitim , not ?I quote RAMBAN and RAMBAM .
RAMBAN is sefer havikuach [part of kitvei haramban mosad rav kuk helek 1, page 315-316], where he clearly states that j is proven not to be mashiach since he did not realize all the prophesies of tanach in his lifetime.
RAMBAM is hilch melachim perek 11 halaha 4 : “if mashiach succeeds, is victorious in battle over the nations and builds the beit hamikdash ,gathering all Jews to EY, then we know that he is mashiach . If, however he is not successful or he is killed , then we know for a fact that he is not the one which the torah was talking about.”
The late leader of habad was not successful in building the b’h nor in gathering the Jews to EY and did not realize the prophesies of tanach – hence we know that is not the one the torah was talking about.
[There are other reasons why the late leader of habad is disqualified, but the discussion here is about RAMBAM and RAMBAN.]
Daniel who according to one pshat in sanhedrin seems to be qualified as a candidate, never started the ge’ula process , never was proclaimed as mashiach, so never failed the test of kiyum nevu’ot hatanach.
If the rbsh’o will be mehayeh him and he will start the ge’ula and not fail the test of kiyum hanevu’ot hatanach, then he could fit the bill.
Simple.
To make it clear – I do not care about j .
He is NOT THE ISSUE here. the issue here is the late leader of habad.
We are only using the candidacy of j to discuss the candidacy of habads leader.
If RAMBAN says that j is proven as mashiach sheker because of his failure to realise nevu’ot hanevi’im, the same applies to all other wannabe’s who fail to realise nevu’ot hanevi’m .
RAMBAM specifically addresses the wannabe’s . And how we should evaluate them . They have to pass a simple test.
Did they build the B’h , or not.
If they did not, they are out. They are not mashiach.So, according to both, RAMBAN and RAMBAM, your leader is not mashiach.
Period.[Thats besides other potential problems, not discussed here.]
Menachem:
Why feed into the ego of this overpaid tooth shiner that can’t understand Torah at the level of a child?
I hope that all of QWERTYs children become Lubavitchers, and they laugh about their fathers mesorah.
@lostspark
its childish to concentrate on the messenger.
Concentrate on the message.Menachem shmei and arso thought that I didn’t know the difference from the rif and the rif on iyin yaacov and that made them feel like they won the debate. I clearly said in one of my previous posts which they missed and which I’m too lazy to look up now which number it is, that I do not have a copy of the iyin yaacov on me. I said that because i knew that it’s not in gemarah . What I was looking for in Gemara is if the rif’s (yes, the one from the 11th century) wrote on yaacov lo mes. Maybe my second post where i repeated a request if theres a link to the rif’s commentary on yaacov lo meis or the iyin yaacov’s commentary on yaacov lo mes was confusing and didnt differentiate the two, I don’t know and can’t can’t be bothered to look at it again, but whatever the case it’s irrelevent to the fact that neither Yaacov Avinu nor the Lubavitche rebbe is buried alive.
What is relevant is whether it was the Tzedoikim, the Early Christians who were Jews, or the Christians and Messianic “Jews” today, the Keruim, Shabsi Tzvi and his followers, and all kinds of groups in history who tried/try to prove from Torah sources that their beliefs are true but in reality are contradictory to Toras Moshe M’Sinai, they all veered off from True Path eventually and so will Chabadians who believe that their rebbe runs the world and you can pray to him and all kinds of a”z beliefs.
Qwerty,
When Shmei is reduced to name-calling his end is near
When Philosopher is reduced to invalidating the Vilna Ein Yaakov because its PDF is on a website that also has Chabad seforim, what does that signal?
Philosopher,
Don’t link it, just point to it if it’s not allowed on the yeshiva world. Safaria has the iyin yaacov and as I’ve said before, I wasn’t able to find it there.
Check out any Ein Yaakov with meforshim. Unfortunately, I haven’t found one online.
Have someone borrow one from any Beis Midrash.I’m not taking a source that partners with Chabad as valid.
I’m not sure what this rings of more: hate or stupidity.
Hebrewbooks is simply a database with pdfs of seforim.
It is shocking to see you freely quoting text from the Reform Sefaria, yet you are wary of pdfs on Hebrewbooks because of how much you hate Chabad.a befereshe posuk in Vayechi that the brothers of Yosef saw that their father died.
For the third time: Ramban explains why the pshat that I quoted from Rashi/Rif/Iyun Yaakov/Etz Yosef does NOT contradict the posuk.
I QUOTED the Ramban earlier. What is your response to that?Why do you keep repeating the same questions that I clearly answered already?
I spent time explaining the issues with your question from the posuk of כי מת אביהם, yet you completely ignore it and keep repeating like a broken record.Misinintrepret CLEAR words from the Chumash, gemarah and other meforshim
Misinterpreting Chumash/Gemara means explaining it differently than the meforshim.
I, however, quoted the meforshim. What could be the issue with that?If you claim that I understood Rashi in a crazy way, are you prepared to say the same about Artscroll which I quoted before?
If yes, what was THEIR agenda for “twisting” Rashi’s pshat?P.S. Again, here is Artscroll Taanis 5B fn. 18:
“Since this verse proves that Jacob is still alive, we must conclude that Jacob only appeared to be dead to those who embalmed him (Rashi). Other commentators explain Jacob’s immortality not as a prolongation of physical life but as a form of continued spiritual existence (see Maharsha).”Yankel,
@menachem That’s strange – you have an opinion about everything under the sun , and on mashiach min hameitim , not ?
If you scroll through my posts, you’ll see that I rarely voice my opinion on Chabad matters here.
I am not naive enough to believe that I can convince people to become Lubavitch on an adversarial online forum.
What I do try to do is defend clear cut Torah ideas that are being challenged by עמי הארץ.
For example:
1. I never tried proving or convincing anyone that the Rebbe is a novi.
I did argue that Torah does not negate the concept of nevuah nowadays.2. I never tried to explain what it means עצמות ומהות ווי ער האט זיך אריינגעשטעלט אין א גוף, nor did I try to prove that this applies to the Rebbe.
This is a complex topic that could take long shiurim with much background to understand (I referenced to a shiur of Rabbi YY).
I did argue that it’s ridiculous to passel a gadol for saying something that is hard to understand, while there are so many tzaddikim throughout the generations who made similar statements.3. I never said anything about the Rebbe being alive.
When someone posted, in her ignorance, that no meforash understands יעקב לא מת literally, I argued that this is clearly the opinion of Rashi (as understood by Maharsha and Artscroll), Rif, Iyun Yaakov and Etz Yosef.4. I never said anything about the Rebbe being Moshiach.
I did argue that the fundamental issue with Yoshke is something other than משיח מן המתים.Unfortunately, some posters here seem to have been blinded by their hate, to the point of being incapable of having a normal Torah dialog.
Always Ask, thank you. There were many women who learnt Gemarah, as you point out Bruriah, also the grandmother of the Maharshal, the wife of the Netziv, the wife of Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer and others. I am not saying it is women’s tafkid to to learn Gemarah and i dont encourage my daughters to do so (not that they are inclined to do so in any case), but it should be the worst thing a frum woman does these days… so many frum women are singing and dancing on social media which are public platforms, not dressing tzniusdig, etc being immersed in the goyishe culture and materialism that are of far greater consequences than a woman arguing a bit on the Gemorah.
Qwerty, you wrote:
“I spoke to a Rav yesterday and he clarified the position I took last week. As stated Rambam’s approach is to eschew the phantasmagoric. Therefore we are enjoined to look for Hashem in the rational world. This Rabbi added the following, Hashem can and has transcended natural law, however we only say that this happened when we have clear-cut proof to that effect. Therefore if a Rishon said the following, “For Yaakov to be alive after 2000 years plus violates natural law, but I have definite proof that it is factually true then if no other equal authority challenges this we would have to accept it” If however, Rishonim are making ambiguous statements then no, we don’t dismiss Rambam. And, of course, adding to the equation is that Chabad has a Negias in the matter. If they can con people into believing that Yaakov is actually alive it allows them to sell the garbage that the Kofer is also alive. Any way you slice it, the question is closed unless you’re a lying, psychotic Lubavicher”Indeed, ambiguous verses are part of Tanach too. All these thousands of years klal Yiroel knew how to study Torah. But some groups and individuals try to use Torah to give legitimacy to their idolatrous ideology so they’ll ignore when the posuk or chazal say things clearly and misinterpret things that seem ambiguous to “prove” their claims even though their beliefs clearly contradicts the Torah. It is easy to misinterpret things when its taken out of context. Within context it cannot be misinterpreted. Because, for example, when we read the entire parshas vayechi, how Yaacov took his last breath, the brothers of Yosef saw that their father died” etc. you know when the Rashi says Yaacov lo mes that it could mean many things but not that Yaacov is physically alive…but the Lubavitche disregard that it clearly says that Yaacov died because it doesn’t serve their purpose just like Christians will point to a verse out of context and claim that it proves that their religion is true even though every part of their religion, from Yoshke being the messiah to believing that God can be a physical being, their entire religion contradicts the Torah and yet they try to use Tanach as “proof” that their religion is legitimate…
qwerty: I can’t ask Rav Dovid what he thinks because he was Niftar.
My apologies. I was thinking of Rav Reuven.
But my challenge still stands in regards to Rav Dovid’s son-in-law and Rabbi Plutchok. I challenge/dare you to ask them whether it is appropriate to say that the LR got his view from H yemach shemo. If I don’t hear from you that you have asked them, and you don’t supply their exact reply, I will not believe anything you say in their names.
You probably assume that East Siders communicate with their dead Rabbis like Chabad does
That was a good one!
qwerty, in your latest self-praise you state “As I said recently I am a Yirei Shomayim.”
So now we know that you are not only not-arrogant, humble, that you learn for many hours every day and don’t waste any time, but that you are also a yerei Shomayim! The thing that immediately came to mind when I read that was that you have proven the statement in Zohar Hakadosh (3:193b) סימן דלא ידע כלום שבוחי – The sign that someone knows nothing is that he praises himself.
You certainly know nothing on a Torah level if you reject a Rashi and other meforshim based on what your alleged Rabbi allegedly told you about the Rambam. Every kid in a yeshivah high-school knows that that is not how the Torah works.
But then again, you pray with idolaters, so what can we expect from you?
qwerty to me: I never said you’re Chabad
I’m pretty sure you did!
I can’t believe that Benedict ARSo is now playing the worthless women card. Elke Bentley just finished Shas. She started at 16 finished at 18..She also attends Harvard.
Give me a minute… I’m trying to figure out what you are proving… Oh, I get it. You don’t accept the statement of Chazal or the Halocho that women should not be taught gemoro. Fair enough. I assume you got that from your alleged Rabbis. Did they call it “the worthless women card”, or is that the invention of the oh-so-humble, oh-so-non-arrogant, oh-so-yerei-Shomayim, oh-so-great-writer, qwerty?
And right after writing that “When Shmei is reduced to name-calling his end is near” you call me a raving lunatic, which is not the first epithet I, and others, have been gifted by you.
You are most definitely a Johnny-come-lately to Torah (more likely a Johnny-not-coming-to-Torah-at-all), but your arrogance, hypocrisy and warped logic seem to know no limits.
Finally, don’t forget that according to your quote of Rabi Akiva (for which I requested a source) by davening with idolaters you too are an idolater!
philosopher, notwithstanding your beliefs about Lubavich and avoda zara, don’t you think it’s time for you to dissociate yourself from the ramblings of qwerty?
qwerty: I would add that Benedict ARSo should also be excluded from the Bes Medrash.
Do you mean Bes Medrash, as you wrote, or the place where YOU daven, which by YOUR definition is a beis avoda zara?
Look at his quote, “Perhaps this is the reason that Chazal said that Gemoro should be restricted to men and not women.” If you say it’s restricted to men don’t I know that women are excluded? So we add idiot to your resume.
Following that piece of superb logic, please add “incredible lamdan” to you long list of self-praise.
If you wanted to really pick on what I wrote, you should have said that the way I wrote it I mistakenly implied that it is not restricted to women! And what I should have written is that it is exclusively the domain of men and not women. But I’ll be melamed zechus and assume that at the time you were probably too busy trying to contain the rabid frothing of your mouth.
Always_ask, no, not all of Chazal said not to teach Torah to women, but that is the halocho as paskened both by the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch.
(A dishonest person – not mentioning any names at the moment – could attempt to answer that in all cases it is dealing with teaching one’s daughter Torah, and that it doesn’t apply to other women. But that would be disingenuous. Clearly there was no question about the impropriety of teaching other women anything at all, and the case of the daughter was the only imaginable case.)
qwerty to me:Hey bigmouth. If you question that I’m telling the truth go to the Five Towns and look up Rabbi Plutchok. Ask him his opinion of Chabad. Then tell him you can prove from a Siyum in the Rif that Yaakov Avinu is still alive. He’ll fit you for a straight jacket.
Great answer! You make a disgusting statement that the LR learnt his view from H yemach shemo, and when I challenge you on it you tell me to go and ask the Rabbi who allegedly approves of all the garbage that you write. You then follow it with apikorsus by making fun of a valid interpretation of a statement of Chazal!
Let me be abundantly clear: if Rabbi Plutchok says, as you say he would or does, that Rashi is wrong in his interpretation, and that only the Rambam is right, then he is going against the klal of שבעים פנים לתורה. I had never heard of Rabbi Plutchok until you started quoting him, so I googled him. I find it very hard to believe that he is an apikorus like you are (on the other hand, if he prays with you in a Lubavich prayer-house, he must be an idolater).
Btw you do realize that unfortunately there is no cure for rabies, don’t you?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.