- This topic has 117 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 6 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Another example
at the end of vidui on Yom kippur we say “..Mah shechatasi lefanecha mechok berachamecha harabim aval lo al yidei Yissurim….”“I’m glad there is someone else here who realizes it.”
Im fairly certain everybody realizes that.
“not if you understand what being judgmental means and doesn’t mean”
Im looking forward to your explanation that saying other posters “are…not very bright,…” Isnt judgmental.“Joseph wrote that we should daven to be killed al kiddush Hashem. He did not write that we should daven to have a misah meshunah. ”
Um, by definition being killed is a misah meshunah
“Are you trying to say now that you think that dying al Kiddush Hashem has to be a misah meshuna? You wrote above that you didn’t think so.”
Youve made the same mistake a few times now. Dying and killed are not synonyms. Please dont use them interchangeably.
To be clear a person can die al kidush hashem without a misah meshunah. A person cant be killed Al kidush Hashem (or any other reason) without amisah meshunah.
We arent talking about dying al kidush Hashem so I conceded the point (without even fully knowing what it means). As to what he means youd have to ask DY, Id be happy to share mu understanding if he is unavailable to comment.“I wasn’t trying to defend his position”
you are. you are reinterpreting his position and a tefial. I dont understand why
As to his person. Yes I get that, and while a good mailah. Frankly you are being a bit naive.“And for that, someone needs to find a reliable source that explains it.”
I didnt look at mefarshim, though Im sure there are many. how about e was trying to console his talmidim for whom it mustve been quite traumatic to have to watch.
Put it htis way (and granted this is conjecture) if in the middle of the torture the Romans had said would you like to go home, dos anyone seriously beleive he wouldve said no thanks I ve been waiting for this.
I brought Rabbi Chninya Ben Teradyon as an example.
Im not sure how Joseph understands the terrible calamity that befell Chananya Mishael and Azarya, as well as Daniel when they were deprived from dying al kidush HashemThat is a good example, I think. Your earlier post is not moderated yet, so I can’t comment on it (and I realize this is probably a continuation).
I still think the only really good proof would be a source that explains the Gemara. The examples thus far seem to be more like supports than out and out proofs. If there was a reason to understand the Gemara the way that Joseph is, one could find a way that this doesn’t contradict the Gemara, such as by saying that dying al kiddush Hashem is a different category, like I did by the Y’hi Ratzon.
Is a misah meshuneh any death not from natural causes? Or perhaps only a painful death? I’m not sure how much you can be medayek, but in R Chaim Kanievsky’s letter to the Yifrach, Frankel, and Shaar families, he uses the term “misah meshuneh al kiddush Hashem”. If every instance of being killed al kiddush Hashem was a misah meshuneh, those words would be superfluous.
Your examples of a hypothetical reprieve for R’ Akiva, Chananya Mishoel and Azarya, and Daniel, are all poor examples, since the alternative would be continuing to live, but that wasn’t the discussion.
“Several posters who mentioned that they “caught on to the truth” as you put it.”
In other words you have no answer to what you were answering to?
“And in so doing, inadvertently proved me right!”
By telling you that you are misjudging Joseph they are proving you right that he is really who you think he is?
DY
How have you been? Its been a whileI just noticed this. Thanks for asking. B”H terrific. I have a lot to be thankful to the Ribono Shel Olam for.
Thank you for that answer. It definitely makes sense. The only problem/shortfall with her response that she wouldn’t explain if it is indeed as you assume it (and I am assuming it is) is the assumption that the mods are making assumptions as opposed to stating facts.
“Several posters who mentioned that they “caught on to the truth” as you put it.”
“In other words you have no answer to what you were answering to?”
You are confused about what that was in response to. You said that no one has “caught on to the truth”. I simply stated that several people have.
You still (three times in?) haven’t said what it is that several people have caught on to , you just insist that they have. My point was just that you seem to want to contradict me even when you may be unclear what I am commenting on.
DY
I think that diyuk is weak at best.
At any rate the example Joseph gave with R’ Akiva certainly involves a misha meshuneh
I agree that those examples were poor examples for the reason you mention,
but at the same time then, this whole discussion is a poor discussion. Since why not hope when that time comes to die al kiddush Hashem they leave you alone and you can go on living. Afilu cherev munach al tzavarecha you still hope for salvation you dont say great time for kiddush Hashem.
It is hard to imagine the scenario where the person is dieing anyway and people come to kill him al kiddush Hashem i guess in that limited instance Joseph would make sense ( though hed still be wrong as seen if not for my examples from davening)Bottom line, do you agree with Joseph?
LB – that was great!! I just wrote my own response, but you covered some points I left out. And those may have been the most important ones.
Thank you!
” If every instance of being killed al kiddush Hashem was a misah meshuneh, those words would be superfluous.”
I don’t think that’s true. He may have wanted to stress either how horrible or how much of a kiddush Hashem (probably both) their death was by adding the words misah meshuneh.
“You still (three times in?) haven’t said what it is that several people have caught on to , you just insist that they have. My point was just that you seem to want to contradict me even when you may be unclear what I am commenting on.”
Since the comment was made to me in response to my post, the obvious assumption is that it was based on my post and was meant to be understandable in and of itself without further explanation.
So what is it that several people have caught on to?
How would mods factually know a poster’s intentions, without making assumptions?
conversations, emails, phone calls, texts, lunch dates, shabbos meal meetings, third party through relatives or friends…
Since why not hope when that time comes to die al kiddush Hashem they leave you alone and you can go on living.
The point he is making is that when it’s time anyhow, one should hope to die al kiddush Hashem.
R’ Akiva said he was always waiting for the opportunity to give his life for kiddush Hashem. He actually tried to run away from the Romans, though. There is a seeming contradiction, but it really isn’t. We don’t try to die, we try to live, yet we (should) hope to die al kiddush Hashem. There is indeedba dichotomy between what we put efforts towards and what we desire, but that is what Hashem wants from us.
I don’t really think Joseph said anything incorrect; the arguments and examples brought against him are all against what seems to be implicated in his words, (but really isn’t), but not against what he actually said, which is basically the gemara.
I just want to add that although it’s an interesting discussion, I think we need to focus more on living al kiddush Hashem before we can focus on hoping and waiting to die al kiddush Hashem.
I’ve never heard of another such version.
Thank you, DaasYochid.
Moshe and Aron did not have a problem with it.
What DY said.
Of course, that is not evidence it does not exist. Most people on this planet have never heard of me, yet I exist. I think.DY
“but not against what he actually said,”My arguments were mostly against what he said.
Here is his exact quote that stared this all: “We all should hope that we, like Rabi Akiva wished for himself, when our time to leave this world arrives we should be killed al kiddush Hashem.”“which is basically the gemara.”
There is no Gemara that I know of that says we should all hope for that. And even R’ AKiva as you point out tried to avoid it too. Rashi brings the midrash that When Moshe Rabbeinu Saw Aaron’ death he said I want that. He didnt say let me get killed al kiddush Hashem.“I just want to add that although it’s an interesting discussion, I think we need to focus more on living al kiddush Hashem before we can focus on hoping and waiting to die al kiddush Hashem.”
+1
In conclusion,I think thats what made me so uncomfortable about his position (and why I ma certain he doesnt actually mean it, although it is an interesting discussion)
We are a religion of Life. Ubecharta bechaim, Vechai bahem. The things we daven for over and over are chaim. chaim aruchim, chaim shel shalom etc, Zachreinu lechaim melech chafets bachaim, melech chafetz bamisah al kiddushc hashem. There are (Few) examples I gave where we daven specificly not to have suffering or nisyonos (like R’ Akiva had). There is not a single Tefila that Ican think of where we ask for the opportunity to be killed AL kiddush Hashem. There si no source that says we should hope for that. The gemara in question does not say that and does seem to imply that. It sounds like Comforting anguished talmidim, and yes to focus on the positive even in that terrible situation that R’ Akiva tried to avoid and would have avoided if he could. H couldnt avoid it so he accepted it with Ahvava. As we would hopefully do IF R”l we had no choice. But if we had a choice we would avoid being killed al Kiddush Hashem..
I dont think this kind of death focus is a healthy focus and is not part of our religionMy arguments were mostly against what he said.
I don’t think so.
And even R’ AKiva as you point out tried to avoid it too.
Right. Not a stirah, as I said.
We are a religion of Life. Ubecharta bechaim, Vechai bahem. The things we daven for over and over are chaim. chaim aruchim, chaim shel shalom etc, Zachreinu lechaim melech chafets bachaim, melech chafetz bamisah al kiddushc hashem. There are (Few) examples I gave where we daven specificly not to have suffering or nisyonos (like R’ Akiva had). There is not a single Tefila that Ican think of where we ask for the opportunity to be killed AL kiddush Hashem.
Right. Not a stirah, as I said.
There si no source that says we should hope for that. The gemara in question does not say that and does seem to imply that. It sounds like Comforting anguished talmidim, and yes to focus on the positive even in that terrible situation that R’ Akiva tried to avoid and would have avoided if he could. H couldnt avoid it so he accepted it with Ahvava. As we would hopefully
He said he waited his entire life for the ability to demonstrate “b’chol nafsh’cho”.
But if we had a choice we would avoid being killed al Kiddush Hashem..
Right. Not a stirah, as I said.
I dont think this kind of death focus is a healthy focus and is not part of our religion
It’s not a focus on death. It’s a focus on the fact that our lives were given to us by Hashem for the purpose of serving Him, to the extent that if He asks us to give it up, we will be able to do so b’ahavah. That’s why it’s not a stirah to live our lives to serve Hashem, because that is why he gave us our lives, and at the same time, to yearn to to demonstrate that fact by giving up our lives should that be what He asks of us.
“But if we had a choice we would avoid being killed al Kiddush Hashem..
Right. Not a stirah, as I said.”
This IS a direct stirah to what Joseph said.
This is my point of Contention. He said “We all should hope that we, like Rabi Akiva wished for himself, when our time to leave this world arrives we should be killed al kiddush Hashem.”to which I say NO! if we had a choice we would avoid it we hope we are not killed al Kiddush Hashem.
I grant if given no choice we should accept it (that wasn ever the argument). But We hope NOT to be killed al kiddush Hashem.
In fact even when the killer is killing us. We STILL hope to get out of it afilu cherev munach al tzavarecha….
Again if no choice we accept it , Veahavta es Hashem ….bachol nafshecha afilu hu notel es nafshecha. (note: Not hallevai shehu notel es nafshecha r”l). But until faced with that position R”l we hope (and arguably daven) that it never comes.
Joseph said the exact opposite of the aboveDY
“He said he waited his entire life for the ability to demonstrate “b’chol nafsh’cho””Yes but he didint mean he wanted to be killed al kiddush Hashem, since he tried to avoid it. He meant if he couldnt avoid it he accepted it “Bchol nafsho”
Trying to avoid something is the textbook stirah to wanting something.“because that is why he gave us our lives, and at the same time, to yearn to to demonstrate that fact by giving up our lives should that be what He asks of us.”
Not a stirah, as I said. (in fact I said that almost verbatim)
The sole question is should we hope He asks it of us. (This is the discussion. Not what would our reaction be IF R’l it were asked.)
I see no source that says WE should hope he asks it, I see several sources that say we dont. And I dont find the source that says R’ Akiva did convincing .
There is a difference (As you know) between:
“yearn to to demonstrate that fact by giving up our lives should that be what He asks of us.” which I agree with and
“We all should hope that we, … should be killed al kiddush Hashem” which I don’t“But if we had a choice we would avoid being killed al Kiddush Hashem..
Right. Not a stirah, as I said.”
This IS a direct stirah to what Joseph said.
This is my point of Contention. He said “We all should hope that we, like Rabi Akiva wished for himself, when our time to leave this world arrives we should be killed al kiddush Hashem.”to which I say NO! if we had a choice we would avoid it we hope we are not killed al Kiddush Hashem.
I grant if given no choice we should accept it (that wasn ever the argument). But We hope NOT to be killed al kiddush Hashem.
In fact even when the killer is killing us. We STILL hope to get out of it afilu cherev munach al tzavarecha….
Again if no choice we accept it , Veahavta es Hashem ….bachol nafshecha afilu hu notel es nafshecha. (note: Not hallevai shehu notel es nafshecha r”l). But until faced with that position R”l we hope (and arguably daven) that it never comes.
Joseph said the exact opposite of the aboveWe should hope that we will be zocheh to LIVE our lives in such a way that it is a kidush hashem! More difficult and more important!
+1
+1. I mentioned that previously
Joseph said the exact opposite of the above
No he didn’t.
What we hope and wait for, and what we put efforts (including davening) into, are not always the same.You keep equating the two, though, which is why you need to alter the simple meaning of the gemara, and why your arguments continue to be not against what Joseph actually said, but against what you think his words imply.
ubiq, You need a Rashi on every Joseph. (Most other folks understand Joseph k’peshuto.)
DaasYochid is my Rashi.
The response to that (to Ubiqiuitin’s last several posts) is that dying al kiddush Hashem can only take place by definition if a person can’t get away. If a person is not trying to avoid it, it’s no longer dying al Kiddush Hashem – it’s suicide.
So davening al Kiddush Hashem would mean davening to be in a situation in which one can’t avoid it.
The counter-argument to that is that davening is in itself trying to make it happen instead of avoiding it.
And the counter-argument to the counter-argument is that davening is different. Not running away when someone is trying to kill you is not being killed al kiddush Hashem since you are not being killed – you are killing yourself. Davening to have the opportunity to be killed al kiddush Hashem means that you are davening to be in a situation in which you can’t save yourself and you’re being killed will be a kiddush Hashem.
The counter-argument to the counter-argument of the counter-argument is that davening is not different.
I think both arguments (on this point) make sense. I agree with DY that we constantly face similar stiras in our Avodas Hashem. The main difference here though is that we are talking about davening. And we don’t generally daven for such things. And I think that is what bothering Ubiquitin and others (including myself). But I don’t think the other position is illogical – I’m just not sure it’s correct.
“Trying to avoid something is the textbook stirah to wanting something.”
That is not true. That is exactly the type of stira which I (and I think DY) was referring to.
I once heard the following D’var Torah:
In davening somewhere during Elul/Tishrei (either in slichos or RH or YK davening I think) we say: “Aneinu k’mo sheanisa l’Avraham Avinu b’Har HaMoriah” What does this mean?Apparently, Avraham Avinu was davening the whole time during Akeidas Yitzchak that he shouldn’t have to kill Yitzchak. But at the same time, the Midrash says that he did it “b’leiv shaleim”.
So we see from here that a Jew can have two opposite emotions at the same time. You can be accepting and happy about a situation at the same time that you are davening to get out of it.
This is the opposite of the “Serenity Prayer”:
“God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.”We say that they are NOT two different types of situations. The same situation can involve both accepting and trying to change it at the same time.
So it’s not necessarily a stira to say that one can daven to die al Kiddush Hashem while trying to avoid it.
The only problem in our case is that we are talking about davening to suffer. I don’t think we see such a thing anywhere else. By Avraham Avinu it was the other way around.
But that doesn’t mean that it can’t be true just because we don’t see it anywhere else. Dying al kiddush Hashem may be its own category.
On the one hand, one can argue that Avraham Avinu was davening not to have to do it. (which could prove that one doesn’t daven to die al kiddush Hashem). But on the other hand, that was killing his son and not about being killed himself. And it’s interesting that we only see that Avraham Avinu davened to not have to do it. What about Yitzchak Avinu? Why doesn’t it mention that he davened to not have to be sacrificed?
“Joseph said the exact opposite of the above”
“No he didn’t.”
Yes, he did. If I understood correctly, Ubiqutin had just said that we don’t daven to die al kiddush Hashem, and he is saying that Joseph said the opposite, since Joseph said that we do daven to die al Kiddush Hashem.
Am I correct Ubiquitin and Joseph?
I still think that my understanding of the Gemara is correct – we daven to be on the level that we would be ready and able to give up our lives al kiddush Hashem if faced with such a situation, but we are not davening to be in such a situation.
On a practical level, even if there would be a concept of davening to die al Kiddush Hashem, you would have to first be on the level of being ready to do so before the concept of davening to do so would have any meaning to it.
Since most of us are not on that level, it would only make sense for us to be davening to be on that level (as opposed to davening to actually have to do so). If someone who is not on that level of Ahavas Hashem of being ready and willing to give up his life al Kiddush Hashem goes ahead and davens to be able to die al Kiddush Hashem, there is clearly something very twisted about that, and it is coming from the wrong place (somewhat similar to what is wrong with wearing a burka).
You can’t daven to die al kiddush Hashem without first being on the level of Ahavas Hashem of being ready to die al Kiddush Hashem.
And that is the reason why I think the Gemara can’t mean what Joseph thinks it means.
I still think that my understanding of the Gemara is correct – we daven to be on the level that we would be ready and able to give up our lives al kiddush Hashem if faced with such a situation, but we are not davening to be in such a situation.
Wring IMHO on two counts.
We’re not discussing davening, we’re discussing yearning.
R’ Akiva didn’t say “when will I reach that level”, he said ” מתי יבא לידי ואקיימנו “.
The response to that (to Ubiqiuitin’s last several posts) is that dying al kiddush Hashem can only take place by definition if a person can’t get away.
I disagree. I think it can still be dying al kiddush Hashem, it’s just assur to do so.
since Joseph said that we do daven to die al Kiddush Hashem.
Where did Joseph say that we daven dmfor it?
Let’s not go crazy here. The two times I happened to agree with you today is probably equal to the amount of times I’ve agreed with you in the past six months…
It wasn’t so much about agreeing as about being able to explain. Except that I think your explanation wasn’t accurate.
“We’re not discussing davening, we’re discussing yearning.”
The Maharal says that רצון is davening But it is possible that there is a difference. Either way, this may make this whole discussion different, as you will see further in my post. Thank you for pointing that out.“R’ Akiva didn’t say “when will I reach that level”, he said ” מתי יבא לידי ואקיימנו “.”
Which may mean that you and Joseph are right.
Secon Possibiltiy (unlikely), when he said “ואקיימנו “, he could have been referring to “reaching the level”.
Third possibility (most likely)- “b’chol nafshecha” refer to “reaching the level of Ahavas Hashem”, and R’ Akiva yearned to actually be m’kayim it.Even if this what R’ Akiva yearned for, I am not sure that is necessarily what the rest of us are supposed to do.
I don’t think that we can talk about yearning to die al kiddush Hashem until we have reached that level. So I still think that what we are supposed to have in mind when we say “b’chol nafshecha” is that we are trying to reach that level of Ahavas Hashem.If you were talking about what one has in mind when saying “b’chol levavecha”, it would mean that we were talking about davening, and then it would have to apply to all of us, since it’s the meaning of the words. If you say that we are talking about yearning and not davening, that means that that is not the meaning of the words per se’, and in that case, it doesn’t necessarily have to apply to all of us. At most, it would be something to strive for.
DY
“Where did Joseph say that we daven dmfor it?”
Here: “If you want to die al Kiddush Hashem you should daven that when your time comes that that should happen.”
He did equate the two. My argument is against what he said.
Joseph
“ubiq, You need a Rashi on every Joseph. (Most other folks understand Joseph k’peshuto.)
DaasYochid is my Rashi.
Then I have kasha on Rashi since he says “Where did Joseph say that we daven dmfor it?
Can Rashi not be aware of a befeirsh Joseph
Yet Joseph says http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/how-did-rabbi-akiva-die#post-1270562LU
“You can be accepting and happy about a situation at the same time that you are davening to get out of it.”
Pshetlech aside, real people dont work that way. Wanting something and trying to avoid is a contradiction.
Perhaps that is where we disagree.“Another example at the end of vidui on Yom kippur we say “..Mah shechatasi lefanecha mechok berachamecha harabim aval lo al yidei Yissurim….”
ubiq:
Dying al kiddush hashem and having yissurim are NOT the same thing and you can most definitely have one without the other…During the holocaust, the Gedolim tried to save as many Jews as they could – they didn’t say, “Great, they get to die al kiddush Hashem. Better they should die al kiddush Hashem now than die later not al kiddush Hashem.”
There is a halacha that you can’t stand idly and watch your brother die (which is any jew) therefore if you have a chance to save them you MUST.
That being said, for a lot (not all) of the jews that died in the holocaust r”l it was without question the best thing that ever happened to them and us…That being said, for a lot (not all) of the jews that died in the holocaust r”l it was without question the best thing that ever happened to them and us…
Huh? How could you say that?
Everything that happens is the best thing that can happen to everyone. Although one does have to be careful how, when, and where one applies that so that it shouldn’t be misunderstood.
Rav Elchonon Wasserman zt’l hy’d wrote a letter, which the ksav yad is publicly available today, stating it was better for the talmidei hayeshiva to stay in Europe and face a possible physical death rather than go to America under the auspices of YU where they would face a possible spiritual death.
I know it seems strange but in the first volume of Alei Shur by Rav Wolbe zt”l (page 127) he quotes the biurei tefillah of Rav Yehonoson Eibshitz zt”l in Ya’aros Devash who writes that when one says Retzeh in Shemonah Esrei “He should very much desire to be killed al kidush Hashem which constitutes a korban olah – completely for Hashem.”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.