- This topic has 1,105 replies, 32 voices, and was last updated 3 days, 3 hours ago by .
-
Posts
-
philospher: 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
In my very first post on this thread – September 1 REPLY #2310514 – I quoted the above gemoro with the correct source in Sotah. I also quoted it a few days later in another post. In one later post I made a typo and said it was in Taanis. So I’m sorry to correct you here, but you are not the one who enlightened me that it was in Sotah! Let’s fact it, typos happen.
philosopher: 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.
Indeed being male does not give me or anyone else an excuse to ignore an explicit possuk, but it does mean that as a male I, and probably the majority of others on this thread, have had a yeshivah background and know that you can’t cite a possuk against Rashi at any time and certainly not when Rashi is explaining the gemoro!
Furthermore, you should have asked a much stronger question, but not on us, on Rabi Yochanan. How can he say יעקב אבינו לא מת when the possuk you cited seems to say that he did? Moreover, why did Rav Nachman object to the statement only on the grounds that Yaakov was mourned, embalmed and buried? Shouldn’t he have objected on the grounds of the possuk that you keep on citing?
These are all strong questions dealt with by the meforshim who DO NOT reject Rashi’s interpretation. So please desist from citing that possuk as some sort of proof agains Rashi c”v/
2. Misinintrepret CLEAR words from the Chumash, gemarah and other meforshim
If anyone is misinterpreting here it is you, but based on your misunderstanding of how one deals with pesukim, divrei Chazal, Rishonim and Acharonim. And that is why I say that only men – and let me add, MEN who have had a decent yeshivah background (you know who I am excluding) should be dealing with these matters. It’s not misogynistic. It is merely something which Chazal and the poskim themselves iterate.
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.
BH nothing to do with me. Possibly to do with some/many Lubavichers.
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.
See above. I am not making my own interpretation c”v. I am merely quoting Rashi and other meforshim.
What I don’t understand is why none of you have addressed what is apparently (I haven’t seen it inside) a clear statement in Artscroll that Rashi holds that Yaakov did not die. Is Artscroll now also a book of apikorsus? I would wager that both you and qwerty have made use of Artscroll, and that there is a good chance that you do so on a regular basis
yankel berel, perhaps I wasn’t clear enough earlier.
You wroteDaniel never started. Therefore, he never failed. And therefore, he could still [at least according to one pshat in sanhedrin] be a candidate for mashiach.
As RAMBAN and RAMBAM point out, starting the ge’ula process and then, dying & leaving unfinished business, equals failureMy argument with the above is that you write that the Ramban and the Rambam reject a dead person being Mashiach ONLY IF that person started the process and died leaving it unfinished. Therefore, Daniel who died without having started the process of geulah could be resurrected and be Mashiach.
But you don’t cite a source for that!
It seems to me that you came to the conclusion that there is this difference because the Ramban and the Rambam reject a dead person’s candidacy, while the gemoro in Sanhedrin, according to one explanation of Rashi (Are we allowed to quote Rashi nowadays in this thread, or have certain fanatics ruled him persona non grata c”v?) allows the possibility that Daniel is Mashiach. But that gemoro is not something that is brought lehalocho by the Ramban or the Rambam, and we don’t even know how they interpreted that gemoro. Don’t forget that even Rashi has an alternative explanation which does not allow Daniel himself to be Mashiach.
Therefore, the simple pshat in the Ramban and the Rambam is that someone who has died cannot be Mashiach, regardless of what he achieved in his lifetime. This would then, apparently, include Daniel.
Lostspark: Why feed into the ego of this overpaid tooth shiner that can’t understand Torah at the level of a child?
I object! How do you know that he is overpaid?
I hope that all of QWERTYs children become Lubavitchers, and they laugh about their fathers mesorah.
I object to both parts of the sentence:
1. I hope they don’t become Lubavichers,
2. I hope they totally reject their father’s mesorah (mesorah?! you mean meshigassen!) but have pity on him and don’t laugh.Hello
Is there a problem with my post ?philosopher: 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
With all due respect, you have just demonstrated why women – and anyone with a non-yeshivah background – should not be discussing Torah, as what you wrote is 100% incorrect and possibly מגלה פנים בתורה שלא כהלכה!
Anyone who for whatever reason they have, even because they ‘found’ a possuk that apparently contradicts Rashi, says that Rashi does not explain יעקב אבינו לא מת literally, is either an am haaretz, an apikorus or mentally deranged Rachmono litzlan from all of those.
To ARSo
Rabbi Plutchok is about as far from an Apikorus as one could be. I stand by ever thing I said about him. Go visit him. I can’t give you his phone number because I have no Rishus. Instead of calling me name find out the truth, but you never will because it will make you rethink your position. Btw thanks for lauding my joke. It was pretty good. Maybe there’s hope for you
Nu …
Am still waiting for any reaction re RAMBAN and RAMBAM’s psak that a wannabe mashiach who fails the test of realizing the relevant nevu’ot during his lifetime-
is a Mashiach sheker …..@Arso
You wroteDaniel never started. Therefore, he never failed. And therefore, he could still [at least according to one pshat in sanhedrin] be a candidate for mashiach.
As RAMBAN and RAMBAM point out, starting the ge’ula process and then, dying & leaving unfinished business, equals failureMy argument with the above is that you write that the Ramban and the Rambam reject a dead person being Mashiach ONLY IF that person started the process and died leaving it unfinished. Therefore, Daniel who died without having started the process of geulah could be resurrected and be Mashiach.
But you don’t cite a source for that!
It seems to me that you came to the conclusion that there is this difference because the Ramban and the Rambam reject a dead person’s candidacy, while the gemoro in Sanhedrin, according to one explanation of Rashi (Are we allowed to quote Rashi nowadays in this thread, or have certain fanatics ruled him persona non grata c”v?) allows the possibility that Daniel is Mashiach. But that gemoro is not something that is brought lehalocho by the Ramban or the Rambam, and we don’t even know how they interpreted that gemoro. Don’t forget that even Rashi has an alternative explanation which does not allow Daniel himself to be Mashiach.
Therefore, the simple pshat in the Ramban and the Rambam is that someone who has died cannot be Mashiach, regardless of what he achieved in his lifetime. This would then, apparently, include Daniel.
=================================================
You are right .
just due to the klal of afushei plugta lo mafshinan, I Wasn’t happy to force RAMBAN and RAMBAM against this apparently valid pshat in sanhedrin, which forces the obvious hiluk I made regarding the difference between someone who started and someone who did not….Lostspark, it’s childish to concentrate on the messenger.
Concentrate on the message.Yankel,
I completely agree.
Philosopher,
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
Actually, they used pesukim to prove that תורה שבעל פה is false ch”v, exactly as YOU have done!
I, in the other hand, am defending the holy meforshim of תורה שבעל פה.
To philosopher
You made a very important point about Tanach being written ambiguously and I’d like to expand on it. The Gemara in BK says that man is a searcher. The Diyuk is that he isn’t necessarily a finder. Hashem wants us to keep looking. When the Midrash tells us that Yisro studied every form of AZ it was meant as an encomium. He never stopped looking. Let’s contrast that with Chabad. The Gemara in Cheilek 111a says that events at the final redemption will mirror what occurred at Yetzias Mitzrayim. This is anathema for Chabad because the Rebbe rejected this Gemara. I once heard a Lubavicher say over the Gemara. First he said the accepted Pshat then he added, “We know that this Pshat is wrong because there’s a Rashi in Devarim which says that Hashem will take each Jew out of Golus.” So here’s the point. The Rashi in question says Hashem will take the Jews out one by one., but it doesn’t say everyone. Now if Chabad said that it’s possible to learn this Pshat, I could hear it, but that’s not what they say. What they say is that the Rebbe ‘s Kefirah is the only Pshat. You keep on learning. Hashem far prefers your Torah then the garbage from liars like Shmei and close minded jerks like ARSo.
Arso, I dont care that you learnt in yeshiva. There are many men who learnt in yeshiva and don’t know how to learn. You are not automatically right just because you are a male, sorry.
You claim “Indeed being male does not give me or anyone else an excuse to ignore an explicit possuk, but it does mean that as a male I, and probably the majority of others on this thread, have had a yeshivah background and know that you can’t cite a possuk against Rashi at any time and certainly not when Rashi is explaining the gemoro!” Why would you cite a posuk against Rashi? You indeed dont do that. You cite a posuk to try to get someone else to see that his misinterpretations of Rashi is wrong. Like in this case where Yaacov lo meis. Rashi never contradicts posukim and therefore when you try to dispute a meforeshe posuk (but yet you use pesukim when you want to “prove” that you are right) because you think that Rashi disputes it, you are learning it wrong. Rashi EXPLAINS the posuk, he does so by commenting on the wording of that particular posuk. When Rashi is talking about why WHEN IT SAYS WHEN YAACOV EXPIRED IT DOESNT SAY THAT HE DIED he is talking about that particular posuk not the others where it does say that Yaacov died. And therefore, when Rashi says Yaacov lo mes, it does not mean that he was buried alive! You have to learn within context!
YOU are asking a good question as you write “Furthermore, you should have asked a much stronger question, but not on us, on Rabi Yochanan. How can he say יעקב אבינו לא מת when the possuk you cited seems to say that he did? Moreover, why did Rav Nachman object to the statement only on the grounds that Yaakov was mourned, embalmed and buried? Shouldn’t he have objected on the grounds of the possuk that you keep on citing?” It is not I who is asking this question because I know that meforshim know the Torah through and through and they knew whatever it says in Parshes Veyachi regarding Yaacov’s death and NO MEFOIRESH CONTRADICTS PESUKIM IN THE TORAH, they EXPOUND on the Torah. If Tanach, Chazal and meforshim are learnt within context you do not arrive at the conclusion that Rashi and Rav Yitchok thought that Yaacov was buried alive. To arrive to that conclusion means that you learnt it out of context or to try to use Torah as “proof” one’s own ideology is the truth.
The Torah has 70 faces which may seem to contradict each other if not learnt and understood correctly.
To the group
Menachem Shmei and ARSo are constantly demeaning Philosopher and yours truly by calling us ignorant and arrogant. Ignorant in Torah as we concede, and arrogant in that we deign to argue against such self-impressed luminaries. One can imagine that their ancestors were equally bombastic so let’s play out the following. A fellow arrives in the Bes Medrash some two thousand years ago. He doesn’t know very much and he asks a lot of seemingly childish questions. Shmei and ARSO senior complain to the Rosh Yeshiva to throw out the newcomer but their pleas fall on deaf ears. We all know the rest of the story. That “interloper” was Rabbi Akiva. Last Shabbos I came to shul(not Chabad. I don’t go there on weekdays because they start too late). I had a question for one of the Rabbis, “I left a piece of paper in my pants that I’d like to look at on Shabbos. Are my pants Muktzeh because they have money in them?” He told me they’re not Muktzeh and spent ten minutes explaining his reasoning..Later that day I returned for Mincha and the Rabbi thanked me. You know I liked your question very much and we spent our Shabbos meal discussing it. This is how a Jew acts. Not like Shmei who calls philosopher an ignoramus or ARSo who says she’s a shiksa for learning Gemara. (Of course Benedict ARSo now condones idolatry because he believes in anything and anyone who’s against me) All the Rabbis with whom I associate act like this. Their constant encouragement helped me advance. Now let’s consider Shmei. He’s a member of the Chabavich sect. They consider themselves the kings of Kiruv yet he maligns philosopher because, in his psychotic mind, she misunderstood Pshat in a Rishon. Surely a capital offense. Is this the attitude of a Kiruv worker? That’s a rhetorical question. By definition Chabad doesn’t do Kiruv since they don’t believe in Hashem. They try to put Tefilin on male Mechallels and give Shabbos candles to female Mechallels all the while hoping to indoctrinate them into the cult.
BTW, my reference to Safaria is not my endorsement of them. I have read somewhere that they mistranslated a word with a woke translation. I don’t remember what the word is and I haven’t come across it.
To philosopher
Look how beautifully we get along. We respect and listen to each other’s opinions. Unfortunately Shmei and ARSo are always in attack mode. This is because they know their positions are indefensible. Let me clarify something. I’m from the LES but I no longer live there. However I spend an occasional Shabbos in the neighborhood. The main shul in the community is the Bialystoker. On Shabbos a certain Rebbitzen gives a class for about a dozen women. She’s exceptionally knowledgeable, and no one looks askance at her. Baruch Hashem on the LES no one pays attention to labels. All denominations of Jews get along with each other. ARSo is playing the woman card to push you off. I have him trapped now because he “dared” me to ask Rabbi Plutchok for his views..I obviously know what Rabbi Plutchok holds.because he’s been my Rav for over a decade. I think it’s time to checkmate ARSo which is the proper fate for anyone who chooses to associate with a primordial serpent and idolater instead of a real Jew like myself.
Menachem Shmei has resorted to lying about me about me not believing in Chazal c”v. I find that hysterical because it’s so far from the truth.
1. I have said that Chazal do not argue on the pesukim, they expand and explain what the pesukim mean but they do not ever contradict the Torah Shebischav. The Torah Shebischsav is the ultimate Truth, so is Torah Shebal Peh the ultimate truth.
2. I have said that many people and groups tried/try to use Torah sources to “prove” that their false ideology is true by taking pesukim or Chazals or meforshim out of context which they use to try to “prove” that those out of context verses “prove” that their foreign ideologies are the “truth”.
And I can prove that what I said is the truth because it’s not me who believes that a human being rebbe runs the world, that you can pray to him, that he’s everywhere, that he never made/makes mistakes…it’s Menachem Shmei who believes that and that is because he doesn’t learn to understand the Torah, he tries to use the Torah to “prove” his idolatrous beliefs are based on Torah sources.
Nu,
1] Am still waiting for any reaction re RAMBAN and RAMBAM’s psak that a wannabe mashiach who fails the test of realizing the relevant nevu’ot during his lifetime-
is a Mashiach sheker …..2] Am equally waiting for an explanation of habad post on a truck of a picture of their rebbi with the inscription god right next to it …
Lostspark?
Menachem ?
CS ?
Sechel ?It is eerily quiet …….
Qwerty,
The Gemara in Cheilek 111a says that events at the final redemption will mirror what occurred at Yetzias Mitzrayim. This is anathema for Chabad because the Rebbe rejected this Gemara.
I already proved that you ignored most of that page in Gemara which argues with that opinion.
Rav Yochanan said that Hashem is not happy from such words.
How dare you, a tiny ant who admits to not knowing how to learn, attack a gadol b’Yisroel for saying something that YOU didn’t understand in your ignorance, and I already clarified it to you!?let’s play out the following. A fellow arrives in the Bes Medrash some two thousand years ago. He doesn’t know very much and he asks a lot of seemingly childish questions.
Qwerty, I completely agree with you that it would be wrong to throw this person out. One should listen patiently and answer his questions.
What if, however, someone barges into the Bais Midrash and starts arguing that the meforshim don’t know what they’re talking about ch”v, and that a certain Gemara seems to contradict a certain posuk, and the rishonim are nutjobs ch”v.
Would it be wrong to call him an ignoramus?
This is the difference between a humble ignoramus who wants to learn, and an arrogant ignoramus who thinks they are always correct in their attacks against talmidei chachamim, despite not knowing how to learn Torah.
qwerty, I have absolutely no intention of calling anyone. I have challenged you numerous times and you ignore my challenges.
So, until you write that you have directly asked Rabbi Plutchok
1. Whether it is ok to say that the LR got his “master race” idea from H yemach shemo, and
2. Whether it is UNEQUIVOCALLY WRONG for anyone to say that Rashi (and others) explain יעקב אבינו לא מת literally,I will not take anything you say seriously, as by your admission you daven with idolaters, and as far as I understand you are an apikorus. You also lie incessantly, as you now claimed that I called philosopher a shiksa! I will therefore only skim what you write, if at all.
Note, we are not at all arguing about the impossibility of the LR being Mashiach. That is not the issue here at all. He can’t be. But you feel the need to misinterpret Rashi et al to do so, while I don’t.
And as to philosopher’s posts re Rashi. Sorry, but you are so off the Torah mark that you are not worth arguing with. Once again, if a man with a yeshivah background would cite pesukim to reject Rashi’s pshat, he would be either a gross am haaretz or an apikorus. You, on the other hand, are merely dabbling in areas for which you are not qualified.
There are many areas where I am not qualified, and I avoid – possibly unsuccessfully at times – to avoid dabbling in them. Gemoro, Rishonim and how to deal with questions is not your area, and I am advising you to stop your incessant claims which fly in the face of the Torah.
Philosopher,
You asked a beautiful question from a posuk, but instead of searching for an answer, you made your own assumptions that led you to misinterpret meforshim.
Your question has already been asked and answered by the Ramban, as I have posted earlier and will post again:
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!”
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 Yaakov’s children.Philosopher, have you asked any talmid (yes, you even get that wrong, as it’s not talmud, which you have written countless times) chochom whether you can prove that Rashi CANNOT be taken literally because there is a possuk that contradicts him? Try it, explain your issue here, and see if he agrees. Make sure also to show him the Rif on Ein Yaakov and the Artscroll footnote. And then let us know the answer.
Your post ‘rebutting’ Shmei is so weird, because you have now labeled yourself the defender of the faith by not knowing how to learn and understand Chazal.
Tell me, what does the passuk והיה הבכור אשר תלד יקום על שם אחיו המת mean LITERALLY, and what do Chazal say it means? How can Chazal ‘misinterpret’ c”v a possuk? (I know it’s not a perfect example, but it’s enough for someone who thinks they know how to learn Torah sheb’al peh but really don’t.)
philosopher > Safaria is not my endorsement of them. I have read somewhere that they mistranslated a word with a woke translation.
You need to look at where translation comes from. Some of the meforshim, I think, might be amateur translations by volunteers. Gemora text itself is Steinsaltz translation.
Arso > 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.
Right, I was just discussing gemorah. There are enough postings on YWN about this issue in general. The reason I am mentioning gemorah specifically – it reviews foundational issues and presents multiple views that are applicable. As, for example, Maharal discusses – Bavli gives us a method to apply Toah to different times and situations (we discussed this also here). Later poskim, however authoritative, may not always present all views that are not applicable to other times and cultures. As this is obviously an issue that depends on the society, then you need to start with analyzing gemora, not just look up Sh’A. I am not trying to argue for one conclusion or another. Maybe you think B’Y is exposing girls to too many chazal or maybe you think women should be paskening for other women, in any case you need to start your analysis from the Gemorah.
anyway, I am just trying to divert this insane topic to some saner ideas.
To the group
Menachem Shmei claims that he answered my assertion that the Rebbe is a Kofer because he rejected the Gemara in Cheilek. Here’s the problem. The Rebbe rejected the Gemara without any reference to it. A Lubavicher taught me the Rebbe’s Sichah on the subject and there’s no mention of the Gemara at all. Rather he wrote as follows, “In the Haggadah it says, we tell the wicked son that had you been there you wouldn’t have been redeemed, but the Diyuk is that in Yemos Hamoshiach you will be redeemed.” Total nonsense. Then we have that Chabad Rabbi who rejected the plain Pshat because he claims to have a Rashi which contradicts the Pshat. Finally Menachem Shmei contradicts the Pshat by stating that R Yochanan disagreed. With it. So we have these 3 stooges who all reject plain Pshat because it goes against Schneersohn’s agenda. Why make up three different forced explanations. So Shmei will answer that the three approaches compliment each other. Good. So why can’t Chabad agree as to whether the Rebbe is alive or not. And why can’t they agree as to whether he is Moshiach or will be Moshiach. The Vilna Gaon said that the simplest answer is the truth. Chabad makes everything up. Last year when ARSo was in his right mind he argued forcefully and correctly that before Gimmel Tammuz there was no suggestion of Moshiach coming from the dead in CH. A day after Gimmel Tammuz part of Chabad, changed it’s mind. This is a made up religion which stinks from its head. That would be their god in a box. Checkmate.
For clarification, I’m sure that if the discussion was Menachem’s belief in the LR and Mashiach, I would disagree with everything he wrote. But Menachem – and I don’t care what his hidden agenda is – is arguing about the way you, qwerty and philosopher, misinterpret Chazal, Rishonim and Acharonim based on your am haaratzus, and in that I am fully in agreement with him.
Qwerty,
So we have these 3 stooges who all reject plain Pshat
Who are the stooges exactly?
Are you (ch”v) referring to Rav Yochanan, Resh Lakish, Rav and Rav Kahana, all of whom differ from the view of Rava that you keep quoting (as I taught clearly and at length in my post from September 5, 9:54am)?
Or are you referring to the Maharal and Yaavetz who say that even Rava shouldn’t be taken literally?
Or are you referring to the (((Lubaaaaavitchers))), because you hate them, even when they side with all the aforementioned Torah sources?
And then YOU claim to be on the side of Torah? Preposterous!
To ARSo
So in addition to being a traitor and a male chauvinist pig you’re also a moron. I’ve told you that everything I say I either heard from Rabbi Plutchok or I checked it’s veracity with him. So now I’m supposed to ask for his opinion. He calls himself a strict Maimonidean which means that he holds that Hashem never violates natural law. I’m not telling you to agree with him, I don’t agree with him o100 percent on that point. I just mentioned him to show you that there are great Rabbis who reject your stupidity. Menachem Shmad accepts that Yakov Avinu is alive because it fits his agenda, but only a numbskull like you also believes it. I challenge you to name a non Chabad Rabbi who takes that Chazal literally. I will Bli Neder contact him to verify that it’s true
To ARSo
“I’m sure that if the discussion was Menachem’s belief in the LR and Moshiach I would disagree with everything he wrote.,” Please explain why you would disagree with him. I’m sure he has Chazal to back him up.
To always
It’s also Halacha that one doesn’t learn Kabbalah until he’s forty years old and has mastered Nigleh. That hasn’t stopped Chabad from encouraging children to study the esoteric. The phony ARSo will excuse that because he’s afraid to anger his new Bestie Menachem Shmad.
Arso, you seem very excited to constantly be busy that I’m a woman and I’m not a talmud chuchem, i should ask a talmud chuchem, i dont know how to learn, and you are a man and you went to yeshiva… again and again. It seems like you have an inferiority complex that makes you feel good if you repeat something you think will “put the other person in their place…”
Anyway, talking about talmidei chachumim, I’ve heard different shuirim on Rashi on Yaacov lo meis by talmidei chachmim and they gave different explanations, not that his body is alive but that a part of his soul lives dormant in his body, that he lives through his descendants and other explanations. So perhaps you will pasken that those who gave these shuirim are amei haratzim and apikorsim c”v because they said that “not that it means that Yaacov is physically alive” but that it means something else?
Perhaps you should be the one asking talmidei chachumim if Yaacov was buried alive.
Qwerty, thanks for sticking up for me but I want to clarify that menachem shmei and arso linitially laughed at me for thinking that I thought the Rif from the 11th century and the rif from the iyin yaacov was the same person which was not the case. That gave them more ammunition to ridicule me that I “didn’t understand how to learn”… according to them that is… I disagree with their interpretations of the pesukim and meforshim regardless of their smug attitudes. Not that I’m saying I’m a talmud chuchem, but those two clowns certainly are not.
Yankel berel, you are waiting for answers you won’t get.
Regarding Yaacov Avinu being physically alive Menachem Shmei can argue non-stop. But Menachem Shmei is eerily quiet about the Lubavitche beliefs that the rebbe is running the world, that they can pray to him, that he’s everywhere, that he never made/makes mistakes (remember he’s still physically alive so he is still not making mistakes)…
Just the same, Menachem Shmei will not answer on the Ramban’s and Rambam’s psak on a moshiach sheker not fullfilling the prophecies during their lifetimes and how it applies to their moshiach sheker because he’s afraid to tell you that he believes that his rebbe is still physically alive. He knows when he will “sound like a legitimate talmud chachum” and when he will come off looking stupid…
This is a crucial part why Lubavitche NEED their rebbe to have been buried alive because if he is still physically alive his “nevuah” can still come true.
Here is a test for the mods:
Rumor has is Shach was well versed in the works of a certain mad Austrian painter yimach shemo hence his aversion to the Lubavitcher Rebbe. I didn’t hear this directly but a big Rav said it! It explains the litvish hashkafa until late to be an elitist, until ChaBaD showed up and everyone decided Kiruv was the only way to maintain baal habatim. Do you think bochurim from brisk, volozhin, and slaboka put Tefillin on disenfranchised yidden before the Rebbe?
I’ve noticed those will no Kabbalas ol tend to judge others to make themselves feel better about their short comings. It’s easy to try and make ChaBaD look bad when you don’t amount to anything. This entire thread is proof of this.
Call me a child, it’s a compliment compared to the gnats that post in this forum.
To Menachem Shmei
You mocked my recent post calling for honesty in the thread and implied that I’m a liar. Please provide an example of a lie I’ve told. Give post number date and time.
To the group
Something else to consider. My Chabad Rabbi said that Gehinnom no longer exists. The Rebbe eliminated it when he became god. It was one of his campaign promises. Therefore according to Chabad a Jew can sin and he faces no consequences.
To the group
Don’t be surprised by Lostsparks rant. From 2003 -2009 I attended a YI whose Rabbi was and is militantly Chabad. I used to speak at Shalosh Seudas. One Shabbos I decided to say something from the Gaon. I began by saying that he was the greatest Rabbi of the last 300 years. The Rabbi exploded, “Let me quote the Rogatchover Gaon, people think that the Vilna Gaon was a Gaon. Feh. There was only one Gaon, the Baal Hatanya.” This Rabbi also put down the Chofetz Chaim. I never heard them insult Rav Moshe but they tell a number of stories in which.he accepted the Rebbe as his superior.C’V.
Qwerty,
I challenge you to name a non Chabad Rabbi who takes that Chazal literally
Rashi, according to Artscroll (is Artscroll Chabad?). Rif. Iyun Yaakov. Etz Yosef.
Menachem Shmad (sic) accepts that Yakov Avinu is alive because it fits his agenda
I have no opinion on the matter. Why should I mix in to a machlokes of rishonim about the living state of Yaakov Avinu? אלו ואלו דברים אלקים חיים. I never took a side, and anyway, who am I to take a side between such great giants?
Lostspark,
Call me a child
I will:
You are being a child.Taking revenge on someone saying horrible things about your Rebbe by attacking their gadol is childish.
[Though I can’t say I wasn’t tempted to try that a few times to test the mods. I feel like there is a new mod is some sort of free speech absolutist, or just very lazy (which may explain 3 days with no posts earlier this week).]
You mocked my recent post calling for honesty in the thread and implied that I’m a liar. Please provide an example of a lie I’ve told. Give post number date and time.
Oh, Qwerty. You’re a funny man sometimes.
Here’s what you wrote: “I enjoy healthy debate but both sides must play by the rules. These are the rules, AFAIC, complete honesty and respecting the opposing viewpoint as well as the opponent are required.”
I responded to that: “Qwerty, thanks, I laughed so hard when I read this! 😄”
Because I DID laugh! And I think anyone else who follows your posts would laugh along.
Now I am obligated to provide EVIDENCE for my laughter!? What a clown!
To the group
Yemach Shmad takes duplicity to a new level. I wrote, “These are the rules AFAIC complete honesty and respecting the opposing viewpoint etc. To this Shmad wrote, “Qwerty thanks I laughed so hard when I read that ” Now there was nothing funny in that statement. If Shmad laughed it’s because he felt my statement was hypocritical. Therefore he must believe that I’m a liar and I don’t show respect to my opponents. As for the latter part that would be correct I don’t show respect to lying idolaters like Shmad, psychos like Lostspark and dirty traitors like Benedict ARSo. On the other hand, I am quite respectful to always even though we’re not on the same side. Now what’s left is for Shmad to address his insinuation that I’ve lied. He won’t because he knows I never lie. So to Menachem Shmad checkmate. To Benedict ARSo. I’m waiting for an answer or to see how you try to squirm out of the question.
qwerty I don’t take your posts seriously at all because of what you have said and the fact that you refuse to ask your alleged Rabbis whether it is ok.
Furthermore, you have still not supplied a source for your statement that Rabi Akiva said whoever sides (or perhaps supports, I don’t remember exactly) an idolater is an idolater. I told you that I am not saying that there is no source, but I don’t know of one which is why I asked for one.
Finally, you continue to pray with idolaters, which BY YOUR DEFINITION makes you an idolater. So why should I take you seriously.
And btw I think you’re a sad case that you have to keep on telling us how so many different Rabbis like you.
As to philosopher, sorry, you have no idea how to learn, but despite that you won’t stop writing stuff that is close to, if not outright, apikorsus. You and qwerty refuse to deal with the fact that the Rif, Artscroll and others all say CLEARLY that Rashi holds that Yaakov Avinu is alive. I don’t give a hoot how many wonderful shiurim you have heard on the topic, until you admit that there are choshuve opinions who say that according to Rashi, Yaakov Avinu is still alive, you are learning on the level of someone who has never opened a gemoro.
To the group
I knew that my comparing the Rebbe and Hitler would raise some eyebrows but I won’t back down. Rabbi Sacks said that the Rebbe studied Hitler and said that he wanted to kill every Jew I’ll save every Jew. Sounds nice, but it’s just a sound byte. The Gaon said that everything a person says is a lie. What that means is people say what they think others want to hear. That’s why politicians tell their constituents that they’re going to clean up corruption and you know the rest. The Rebbe studied Hitler for two reasons. First he wanted to copy him and create a Chassidus of brain-dead followers. Mission accomplished. Next he wanted to conquer the world. Shmuel Boteach wrote a piece about 12 years ago in which he advocated razing 770 and replacing it with an international think tank. He said, “This will allow us to fulfill the Rebbe’s dream of global domination. When I discussed this with Dr. Berger he said that the Rebbe often spoke about conquering the world. Then we have the Chabad song From 770 we are marching out on to victory there is no doubt. One by one nations we are conquering. Then we have the Rebbe’s dream. When he was three or four he had a dream in which he was king of the world. Now the Shmei’s of the world will tell us that the Rebbe wanted to conquer the world with Torah. No one with a brain is buying it. As the Gaon said ,”The simplest answer is the truth. When the Rebbe announced in 1962 that he’s god clothed in human form, it was his coming out party as ruler of the universe.
qwerty: I’ve told you that everything I say I either heard from Rabbi Plutchok or I checked it’s veracity with him.
So either he said that the LR got his idea for the master race from H yemach shemo, or you have checked it with him and he agrees with it. Is that correct?
Yes or no pretty please.
To the group
This fellow gave a Yahrtzeit Kiddush for his mother last Shabbos. The Rabbi said that he never met the woman but he knows her because she must be like her son(he’s a great guy.,) We can say the same thing for the Rebbe. The 3 Stooges in this thread reflect perfectly on him.
@philosopher
Menachem Shmei will not answer on the Ramban’s and Rambam’s psak on a moshiach sheker not fullfilling the prophecies during their lifetimes and how it applies to their moshiach sheker because he’s afraid to tell you that he believes that his rebbe is still physically alive. He knows when he will “sound like a legitimate talmud chachum” and when he will come off looking stupid…This is a crucial part why Lubavitche NEED their rebbe to have been buried alive because if he is still physically alive his “nevuah” can still come true.
====================
It may be as you say that this their motivation [whole or in part]
but it is not going to help them , for the simple reason :
When RAMBAN and RAMBAM say that there is an objective test for a wannabe mashiach to assume the mantle, they mean what they say.Wannabe’s have to TESTED .
They have to PASS .
Passing means ACTUALLY building the B’H and gathering all Jews.
Not hiding behind some worthless ‘not dying claim’.This claim is worthless because this can be employed by any wannabe, from j to sh’ts to ….
It is clear that RAMBAN , using j’s failure as proof to disqualify him , considered realization of nevu’ot hanevi’im as a necessity PRIOR to any disappearance/ hiding/whatever/dying.
Lack of tangible results , result in automatic eternal disqualification.
So the ‘Lo Met Business’ has , when considered carefully , no ‘fringe benefits’ whatsoever.@lostspark
It is RAV Shach.
Not because he is “my” godol, and am asking for common courtesy, but because there happen to be some halachot of kvod talmid haham which you happen to be bound to, as the bottom line stays … you are Jewish.
Even if qwerty seems to have a problem with that.@philosopher
As continuation of my previous post, RAMBAM equally mandates a TEST for any wannabe mashiach. A test which he can either fail or pass.
If the ‘Lo Met Business’ guarantees a pass, then the test is worthless.
Per force, that RAMBAM and RAMBAN need a positive and tangible result , in the here and now.Otherwise, the mashiach claim is PROVEN to be a FALSE CLAIM.
.
So, we can safely state : the late habad leader/rebbi is a FALSE MASHIACH.
.qwerty > It’s also Halacha that one doesn’t learn Kabbalah until he’s forty years old and has mastered Nigleh.
Yes, I was eager to hit forty and then … I discovered that there is so much left in Nigleh, I’ll let those who don’t understand Nigleh spend their time on Kabbalah … If you saw my posts defending Chabad actions, they relate to their practical work. What kabbalistic paths it took them to care about so many lost neshomos is between them and their rebbes.
To Benedict ARSo
Do you still want to be on Shmei’s team? Well as far as Hashem is concerned you’re accepting what Lostspark said. You better think long and hard as RH approaches. Hey coffee addict was also angry at me but he wished up and realized who the real enemy is. It’s your call dude.
Menachem,
I would like to ask you a question (according to Rashi et al in the plain and pashut sense)
We say תורה צוה לנו משה מורשה קהילת יעקב the word מורשה (according what I heard at least) is that it means inheritance (and because we say קהילת יעקב it’s understood from יעקב) how can an alive person give over an inheritance, inheritance is only done after death?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.