- This topic has 171 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 20 hours, 16 minutes ago by .
-
Posts
-
Shmei, btw, so Rashi is not saying Yaacov lo mes on the Gemorah…wow, big difference…not. You claimed that Rashi is saying something different on the Gemorah. He is not. He is saying the exact same thing. But instead of saying “Yaacov lo mes” he is saying “lo mes-he chai l’oilum” which is essentially the same thing.
The argument about both Rashis is the same-what does not dying mean and what does living forever mean. You say that Rashi means he’s alive physically and I say Rashi means that he’s alive spiritually.
You claimed that Rashi is saying something different on the Gemorah. He is not. He is saying the exact same thing. But instead of saying “Yaacov lo mes” he is saying “lo mes-he chai l’oilum” which is essentially the same thing.
If this is the only difference you saw in Rashi on Taanis then you have no idea what the entire discussion is about!
You clearly don’t even know what Rashi wrote in Taanis, and why Maharsha, Artscroll, et al understood him to mean literally.
Neville, you are a liar. I never said anywhere that that “in certain cases” rishonim can contradict pushat p’shat”. I said rishonim do not ever contradict a posuk in the Torah. That is what I said, and not just once but many times.
Aren’t you ashamed to lie like that?!
Wow, I’m contradicting 6-7 people on these threads (who are these 6-7 people- name them!)!! Isn’t that terrible! What gaaveh you have! Who are you exactly are you that I can’t contradict you?!!
I never read the Artscoll Chumash so I don’t know what they write. I have your word to take your word for it… I’m certainly not believing a liar like you.
Neville,
on what I wrote, “I said you can bring a rishon on a posuk too but they don’t contradict the Torah. They expound and explain the Torah.”
YOU said: “Yes, we all agree to this in theory.”
Lol. Really, it’s so funny. If you agree with it in “theory” why are you arguing with me about it? If you are arguing with me about it but you agree with it in theory, you’re simply a hypocrite.To save face you need to resort to blatant lies about me.
You write, “However, what you’re actually saying time and time again is that rishonim are not allowed to contradict the pashut pshat of the Torah, except in certain cases where you personally have deemed it okay because you’re comfortable with it. ”
As I said before mant times, never can a mefoiresh contradict a posuk in the Torah.You said “If it gets too eeby jeeby for you eg. dead people not actually being dead), you need to find a new interpretation to console yourself and then try to force that personal interpretation on people who were born and raised Jewish with the normative way of learning it.”
If Yaacov would be alive physically after he expired it would contradict the posuk that says that the brothers of Yosef saw that their father died. I’m saying that Rashi is saying that Yaacov is alive in a spiritual sense, that DOES NOT contradict the pushat p’shat. So your comment that “I change an interpretation of a Rishon to contradict pushat pshat when it suits me” is so completely utterly ridiculous and completely illogical.This is your funniest line yet:”…and then try to force that personal interpretation on people who were born and raised Jewish with the normative way of learning it.” I’m not forcing anything on anyone. I’m saying what I’m saying, take it or leave it.
Neville, “If I’m not mistaken, you brought up the case of Hashem’s hand elsewhere. The pashut pshat is that he has a literal hand”
I repeatedly said that everything has to be read within context, including the Chumash. You cannot take one word and one verse out of context and run with it. Therefore, when it says that Yaacov expired, was embalmed and was buried but it doesn’t say that he died but later in the parshah it does say that he died, you look at the entire parshah in context, including with meforshim, and you can learn what the Torah means to say only when everything is in context. What this means was that Yaacov’s dying was exceptional and the state he is in now is exceptional, but it does not mean specifically that he’s physically alive.
The same is with Hashem’s hand. If we know Chumash (and Nach) we know know that Hashem is not a physical Being and therefore we know that Hashem’s hand, and yes, He does have a hand, is not a physical thing, it’s a higher concept that we can’t understand.
You think that pushat pshat means that posukim are automatically teiched to mean “physical aspects/physical things” which is not the case. Only when we know the entire context, only then can we understand if the pashut pshat is spiritual or physical or even higher than spiritual when it comes to Hashem because He created the spiritual so the dimension He occupies is even higher than the spiritual.
Neville, I think you should just ignore her. She twists and turns to justify her apikorsishe view (yes, unfortunately, “playing” with Rishonim and Chazal the way she does – not to mention where she implied that Mashiach can be a woman – is apikorsus) based on her own mind, and then she continues to ignore the fact that the Ramban (in explaining Rashi) and others says clearly that Yaakov’s guf was alive.
“6 or 7 people”?! She doesn’t care whether you have the entire Anshei Knesses Hagedolah against her. She knows better!
Btw I see I was right in assuming that once you take up the argument you will be branded by the looney.
כתיבה וחתימה טובה to all (without exception)
I just read what Arso wrote. Unfortunately, even before rosh hashonah a person can say something like this, it’s simply unbelievable. I never, ever, ever said that Mashiach can be a woman. I never said it, period. That is a lie among many others that is said about me.
To be honest I don’t have a problem with people being immature here. I don’t take it personally.
But when people say things I never said that really bothers me. Dont know who you are but I’ll try to work on fogiving whoever lied about me.
Neville, There are many places in the Torah that show that God does not have a guf.
The Torah doesn’t work with “flat out” anything. Thats why with Yaacov Avinu, the Torah does not say mes when it says he expired and yet further down it does say mes because everything has a reason why things are written the way it is. I say it over and over again. I will repeat, the Torah, every verse, every word, every letter, must be learnt within context and everything has meaning.
The Torah is not meant to spoonfeed unthinking humans.
We see clearly from the Torah, that Hashem has no guf. Now of course, we need Chazal and meforshim to explain the Torah in all aspects as I’ve said that many times. That does not mean Chazal and meforshim contradict the Torah, neither with halachos nor hashkafa nor anything else. The Torah is the Word of Hashem, no one can contradict the Torah.
Hashem has no guf, that is clearly taught by the Torah. If anyone wants to see otherwise so that they have an excuse to worship avodah zora, they could. I said over and over again, it is very easy to “prove” whatever someone want the Torah to prove if they disregard the context of every letter, every word every posuk, every chapter, every parshah, the entire Torah, and quote of context.
We see from the Torah that Hashem created the world. He existed before He created the universe. The universe is physical matter and since He existed before physical matter was created, Hashem is not a physical being.
Devarim 4:39
וְיָדַעְתָּ הַיּוֹם וַהֲשֵׁבֹתָ אֶל־לְבָבֶךָ כִּי יְהֹוָה הוּא הָאֱלֹהִים בַּשָּׁמַיִם מִמַּעַל וְעַל־הָאָרֶץ מִתָּחַת אֵין עוֹד׃
Can a human being be in the heaven above and earth below at the same time?Devarim 4:15
וְנִשְׁמַרְתֶּם מְאֹד לְנַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם כִּי לֹא רְאִיתֶם כׇּל־תְּמוּנָה בְּיוֹם דִּבֶּר יְהֹוָה אֲלֵיכֶם בְּחֹרֵב מִתּוֹךְ הָאֵשׁ
A physical body has a shape, Hashem does not have a shape.There are many ways that the Torah tells us that Hashem has no physical guf. The point is, that if thinks, after reading Tanach, one can still think that Hashem has a guf, it is because they are deliberately trying to misinterpret the Torah.
You write, “I’m not going to call you an apikorus as others have, but it’s just extremely gaavadik and immature to keep acting like you have the key to all correct understanding and none of the rest of us do. ”
Lets be clear, I dont know what you or anyone was taught. I dont know who you are. Not do I care to know. Nor do i care if you believe that Rashi is saying that Yaacov lo mes means that he’s physically alive in his kever.
After arguing here sometime, I wanted to hear from someone who I know knows Chumash, Rashi, Gemorah very well. Maybe he was taught differently than you in cheder, maybe because the person who gives his daf yomi shuir is a big talmud chuchem and teaches taanus 5b very well, but he chuckled when I asked him if he believes that Yaacov Avinu is physically alive in his kever. He thinks it’s funny that people believe that. Secondly, the talmidei chachumim who I listened to their shuirim on Yaacov lo mes none of them said, or even indicated, that it means that his guf is physically alive. No, the reasons they gave what Rashi means with Yaacov lo mes were varied, but not that his guf is alive.
You, the supposed defender of Chazal and meforshim, are so riled up about me saying that Rashi saying “Yaakov lo mes” means that Rashi is saying that Yaacov himself, or Yaacov’s guf, is alive in a spiritual capacity. However, when Menachem Shmei misinterpreted what the Gemorah in Taanis is saying, misinterpreted many meforshim, you have no issue with that. You do not argue with him, you do not denounce him, you ignore his misinterpretations. I bought the exact texts of the meforshim so that everyone can see how he misconstrued meforshim, and yet you ignored it all and you are busy arguing with me non-stop about what Rashi means with “Yaacov lo mes”. The reason for that is because your anger is not l’shem shomayim. Your continuous arguing with me over the intentions of Rashi on the words “Yaacov lo mes” is not l’shem shomayim. If misinterpretations of Chazal and meforshim would bother you you would condemn Shmei. You would argue with Shmei. Your ego has become bruised because i dont agree with you, that is all that bothers you.
philosopher, I apologize! It was not you who said/implied that Mashiach can be a woman. It was Happy New Year. My mistake totally, and, as I said, I apologize unreservedly.
philosopher: We see clearly from the Torah, that Hashem has no guf.
I’m not disputing that Hashem has a guf c”v, just your statement that it is clear that that is the case from the Torah.
In Mishneh Torah Hilchos Teshuvah (3:7) the Rambam write that one who says that Hashem has a guf is a min. The Raavad argues that such a person should not be considered a min as, “a number [of people] greater and better than him [the Rambam] followed this view because of what they say in the pesukim… which confused the minds.”
ולמה קרא לזה מין וכמה גדולים וטובים ממנו הלכו בזו המחשבה לפי מה שראו במקראות ויותר ממה שראו בדברי האגדות המשבשות את הדעותSo it’s not so clear from the Torah itself.
Neville, once again you made a very valid point at the end of your last post, and you made me very jealous!
Neville,
I wrote “The Torah doesn’t work with “flat out” anything. Thats why with Yaacov Avinu, the Torah does not say mes when it says he expired and yet further down it does say mes because everything has a reason why things are written the way it is.” With the Torah first only saying expired and not mes but then later saying mes, it is not saying flat out anything about Yaacov Avinu’s death either. And yet you wrote,”“The Torah doesn’t work with “flat out” anything.” Except for when it talks about Yaakov being dead?” What the Torah says about Yaakov’s death IS NOT FLAT OUT anything, it needs to be unwrapped and studied just like everything else in the Torah. Exactly as I said, nothing in the Torah is flat-out anything, including Yaacov’s death.
You write, “However, my stake in this argument has never had anything to do with Chabad. I never really cared about that. I just came here to tell you that the way you were talking about Rashi’s pshat was extremely unsettling and was hurting your case more than it was helping. Are you asking why I’m not telling Menachem Shmei that he sounds unusual or outlandish in his arguments? Simple, because in his community he isn’t. It’s not my place to tell him how or how not to be a Lubavitcher. Within the context of his community, he seems very mainstream and normal.”
And therefore, because in Shmei’s Lubavitche community it’s OK to deliberately misinterpret the Gemorah, deliberately misinterpret meforshim, deliberately misinterpret Ramban and Rambam therefore you are busy harping on me instead of him? Is he writing his misinterpretations on a Chabad website? No, he’s writing it here. The fact that you don’t speak against his deliberate misinterpretations of Chazal and meforshim to “support” his outright idolatry is simply because you don’t care about a “Rashi being misinterpreted ” (according to you), you just care that your ego was hurt. Your constant arguing with me is not l’shem shomayim at all.
As I said before, YOU and others, are interpreting Rashi to mean that Yaacov’s guf is physically alive. No talmud chuchem and no yiras shomayim is laughing at what Rashi is saying c”v. They just find it amusing that there are people who interpret what Rashi is saying to mean that Yaacov’s guf is physically alive in his kever.
Arso,
The Raavad is talking about who is a min. I can’t answer for others why they believed what they believed.
For me it’s very clear from the Torah, that Hashem has no guf.
I mean if you have an explanation how someone can believe Hashem is corporeal from the three examples I bought then go ahead and tell me.
How can Hashem have a guf if He was in existence before He created the universe/matter was created?
How can Hashem have a guf and be in the heaven and on earth at the same time?
How can Hashem have a guf when a guf has form and it says in the pasuk that Hashem has no form?
philospher: No talmud chuchem and no yiras shomayim is laughing at what Rashi is saying c”v. They just find it amusing that there are people who interpret what Rashi is saying to mean that Yaacov’s guf is physically alive in his kever.
So they find the Or Hachayim amusing? As Lostspark quoted:
וישק לו. פירוש לו נשק אבל אין נכון לעשות כן למת אחר כי המת גדוש בטומאה וטומאתו בוקעת ועולה עד לרקיע ותפגם הנפש הנושקת אלא לו ליעקב כי חי הוא אלא דורמיטא קראתו כישן ונרדםPhilosopher could you mind explaining how the Or HaChaim is wrong in this source? Maybe you have a better understanding than he does?
וישק לו. פירוש לו נשק אבל אין נכון לעשות כן למת אחר כי המת גדוש בטומאה וטומאתו בוקעת ועולה עד לרקיע ותפגם הנפש הנושקת אלא לו ליעקב כי חי הוא אלא דורמיטא קראתו כישן ונרדם
ויחנטו הרופאים. עשה כן יוסף משום כבוד אביו כי כן משפט הנכבדים ומכל שכן גדולי המלכות, או כדי שלא יטעו בו כשלא יחנטוהו שלא מת או שמת ולא הסריח ויעשוהו אלוה כי הוא פלא בעמים המזוהמים וסובב לבלתי יעלהו לארץ קבורתו, ואם לא היה טעמים הנזכרים הדבר פשוט כי בלא חניטה לא היה מסריח, וצא ולמד ממעשה ר’ אלעזר ברשב”י כאמור בש”ס (ב”מ פד:)
או אפשר לומר כי לצד שישראל שעמדו על הר סיני פסקה זוהמתן (שבת קמו.) ולזה צדיקי ישראל מאז והלאה לא היו מסריחין אחר מותם ואפילו עיפוש הנשאר בבטן יבש ויהיה לעפר כי זוהמת הגוף היא המסרחת אוכל שבמעים מה שאין כן קודם לכן, והגם שנאמר שגופו של יעקב לא יסריח כי לא מת אבל על כל פנים עיפוש המאכל אשר ישאר בגוף האדם כנום כי ירבו לו הימים יתעפש ויסריח ולזה חש יוסף וצוה לחנוט
או אפשר כי יוסף לא ידע מסוד זה וצוה לחנוט
Arso, lostspark, the Ohr Hachayim is not saying that Yaacov’s guf is alive forever. The Torah says that at the time he expired he was not a mes and the posuk 50:1 is what the Ohr Hachayimis commenting on; it is only later in the parshah where the Torah says that Yaacov mes.
In fact, the Ohr Hachayim is saying that Yosef embalmed his father so they shouldn’t say that he didn’t die.
philosopher: Arso, lostspark, the Ohr Hachayim is not saying that Yaacov’s guf is alive forever. The Torah says that at the time he expired he was not a mes and the posuk 50:1 is what the Ohr Hachayimis commenting on; it is only later in the parshah where the Torah says that Yaacov mes.
1. You’re missing the point. The gemoro says that Yaakov Avinu was alive even after he was embalmed and buried. The Or Hachayim is just explaining what is meant by lo meis, and by extension, since he is taking the gemoro literally, the implication is that he holds that he was alive even after burial.
2. And once again, for the innumerable time, you are ignoring the Ramban who explains Rashi and the possuk which seems to say that Yaakov meis.
Neville: However, in the Chassidishe world–whether it’s Chabad, whatever group of which ARSo is a “card-carrying member,” or even those marginally on the Chassidish spectrum–you’re very, very unlikely to hear us explicitly say that we disagree with Rashi.
US! And here I was under the assumption that you were a Litvak. What a terrible accusation, and I apologise profusely!
Neville, I am Chassidish. As I said, after arguing here for some time I asked a well learnt person if he thinks Yaacov lo mes means that Yaacov is still physically alive. Well, that person is Chassidish and looks like he learnt the meaning of what Rashi is saying differently than you.
You keep on repeating over and over again about “rejecting Rashi or laughing at the Rashi”. That is simply ridiculous. Just because you interpret the Rashi (or was taught to interpret it) to mean that Yaacov’s body is physically alive (and Rashi does not explicitly say that) does not mean that others who were taught differently are “rejecting Rashi or laughing at Rashi”.
Arso,
1. The Ohr Hachayim’s commentary is not on the Gemorah, it is on the Torah. It has no shaychus to the Gemorah. (And you had laughed at me on the other thread for not learning in yeshiva…lol)
2. I bought the entire text of the Ramban on the other thread. It says absolutely NOTHING about Yaacov lo mes meaning that Yaacov’s guf is alive. In fact, the Ramban gives another explanation for Yaacov lo mes entirely.
Gosh its been a while since I was on here. Hi everyone!
I have a question for Neville. Please clarify what you believe to be the mainstream orthodox position of of the Rashi under discussion
Are you saying that when Rashi says Yaacov Avinu Lo Meis he means:
1) Alive like in a guf sheini dak to which he transitioned to without being taam misa
or
2) Alive, as in not subject to conditions associated with being dead (ie not decomposing, not being mitamei) but the Neshama is exclusively in the Olam HaNeshamos and the Guf exclusively stays here (ie the kesher is severed)?
or
3) Alive, as in not subject to conditions associated with being dead (ie not decomposing, not being mitamei) and the Nishama is in the Olam HaNeshamos while retaining a kesher with the Guf (comparable to sleep)?
or
4) Alive like in the same exact body (skin, muscle, organs, bones) with the same physical needs (air, food, water)?
or
5) None of the above
Non political, you addressed your questions to Neville but I would like to respond to your post.
I do not believe that there is a “mainstream Orthodox position” of that Rashi despite Neville’s insistence. I have listened to a few Yeshivish/Litvish ( I dont know what they call themselves as I am Chassidish) rabbis talking about Yaacov lo meis and NONE said that it means that Yaacov’s body is alive. I have read a few articles written by Yeshivish/Litvish Rabbis and in NONE of the articles did it say that Rashi means that Yaacov’s guf is alive. My husband is Chassidish and he also was not taught that that Rashi means that Yaacov’s guf is alive.
What I’m saying here does not reflect on Chassidim in general, but as a Chassidishe myself, I know that in some Chassidishe circles they think it’s my way or the highway.
Neville,
You wrote: “As I mentioned earlier, you seem the most insistent out of all of us in wanting to say that you fully agree with Rashi.”
Nope, I dont care if you believe that Yaacov’s guf is alive. It doesn’t make you an apikorus if you believe that Rashi to mean that Yaacov’s guf is alive, if thats what you were taught. However, I often cannot not respond an argument, unfortunately. But really I shouldn’t anymore. I said what I have to say and that’s it. It only really bothers me that the Lubavitchers use that INTERPRETATION of the Rashi as “proof” that their rebbe can “also be alive after being buried”.
You wrote: “So, I won’t say this person is rejecting Rashi since that bothers you, but at the very least he is rejecting the other meforshim who do interpret Rashi our way (some even arguing on Rashi). It’s a pretty big chiddish to make unless he has sources to back it up.”
That is an absolutely ridiculous thing to say. But if you feel that way, well, it applies even more so to you. You are rejecting the meforshim that say that Yaacov is alive spiritually. Since i highly doubt you bothered reading the meforshim that were discussed on the 2 threads, not including the Rashi which we dont agree on the interpretation, the fact is that whatever other mefoiresh they bought up and I looked at the source, NONE of them said that it means that Yaacov’s guf is alive. Maybe there are meforshim that say that Yaacov is alive physically, i didnt see them. But you are rejecting not only those meforshim that say that Yaacov is alive spiritually, you are also rejecting a posuk in the Torah which says that Yaacov died which is worse than “rejecting” meforshim!
philosopher to me: 1. The Ohr Hachayim’s commentary is not on the Gemorah, it is on the Torah. It has no shaychus to the Gemorah. (And you had laughed at me on the other thread for not learning in yeshiva…lol)
First, what you wrote is absolutely ridiculous! Do you think the Or Hachayim just made up his pirush based on his own understanding – like you, unfortunately, seem to? Both he and Rashi on Chumash quote the gemoro of Yaakov Avinu lo meis, and the Or Hachayim is explaining how that works in line with the pesukim?
Second, I didn’t laugh at you for not having learned in a yeshivah. Aderaba, had you learned in a yeshivah I would indeed have laughed at you because women are not meant to. In fact I didn’t laugh at you at all. On the contrary, I think it’s sad that someone who has no men’s-yeshivah background gets involved in these discussions and tells all of us who have had a men’s-yeshivah background, how to interpret Chazal. You really should desist, because you write things that just don’t make sense when taken in full context!
“It has no shaychus to the Gemorah.” How can anyone with any yeshivah background say that after looking up the Or Hachayim, who writes on the preceding passuk: “והוא מאמר רז”ל (תענית ה ב) יעקב אבינו לא מת “. Gee! Keep away from these discussions because you are just proudly showing off your ignorance. You may have noticed that there is not one man with a yeshivah background on this list – at least none that I can recall; correct me if I’m wrong – who agrees with you about the Or Hachayim or Rashi’s shitah. Doesn’t that say something, or are you too blindly arrogant – sorry, but that’s the only way I can understand it – to admit that you’re out of your depth?
2. I bought the entire text of the Ramban on the other thread. It says absolutely NOTHING about Yaacov lo mes meaning that Yaacov’s guf is alive. In fact, the Ramban gives another explanation for Yaacov lo mes entirely.
Oh come on! Not again! The Ramban concludes with what you have just written, but he starts with Rashi – which was, and is, the point of this discussion – and he understands Rashi, as we men with yeshivah backgrounds do, that according to Rashi Yaakov Avinu did NOT physically die. He was embalmed in some form, and buried while still alive. Leave us alone with quoting sources that may be Torah miSinai but are not relevant to what Rashi holds.
Check again and find one post of mine (or I believe of anyone else’s) where I say that it is universally accepted that Yaakov Avinu literally did not die. I, and all the others, have written explicitly that that is Rashi’s view, together with a number of Acharonim. So please, please, please stop quoting sources that don’t tell us what Rashi holds!
Sorry, but I still think it would be better if you stuck to whatever you are good at, and I’m sure there are a number of things. Discussing Torah sheb’al peh with men is NOT your forte!
Neville: Wow, I guess qwerty is the only true Litvisher left on the CR
Yes, I am a card-carrying member of a known chassidic group (it would be a little too arrogant even for me to say simply, I am a chossid), and I do not have the most overwhelming love for Litvaks, but I must be mocheh on your insult to the Litvish oilem by asserting that that looney is a member!
Here is a full text of Ramban. The Ramban is explaining Rashi by explaining the Medrash that Rashi is quoting. There are places where the Ramban disagrees with Rashi,, this is not one of them.
Ramban
וַיִּגְוַע וַיֵּאָסֶף וּמִיתָה לֹא נֶאֶמְרָה בוֹ, וְאָמְרוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ (תענית ה), יַעֲקֹב אָבִינוּ לֹא מֵת, לְשׁוֹן רַשִׁ”י (רש”י על בראשית מ”ט:ל”ג). וּלְדַעַת רַבּוֹתֵינוּ הֲרֵי יַעֲקֹב הִזְכִּיר מִיתָה בְּעַצְמוֹ (בראשית מ”ח:כ”א), “הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי מֵת וְהָיָה אֱלֹהִים עִמָּכֶם”, וְאוּלַי לֹא יָדַע הוּא בְּנַפְשׁוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא רָצָה לָתֵת כָּבוֹד לִשְׁמוֹ. וְכֵן (בראשית נ’:ט”ו) “וַיִּרְאוּ אֲחֵי יוֹסֵף כִּי מֵת אֲבִיהֶם”, כִּי לָהֶם מֵת הוּא, אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יָדְעוּ הֵם בָּזֶה כְּלָל. וְעִנְיַן הַמִּדְרָשׁ הַזֶּה, כִּי נַפְשׁוֹת הַצַּדִּיקִים צְרוּרוֹת בִּצְרוֹר הַחַיִּים, וְזוֹ תְּחוֹפֵף עָלָיו כָּל הַיּוֹם, לוֹבֶשֶׁת לְבוּשָׁה הַשֵּׁנִי, שֶׁלֹּא יִפְשְׁטֶנָּה עֲרוּמָה, כְּיַעֲקֹב, אוֹ תִּתְלַבֵּשׁ לְעִתִּים מְזֻמָּנוֹת. וְיוּבַן הָעִנְיָן הַזֶּה בְּמַסֶּכֶת שַׁבָּת (שבת קנ”ב) וּבְמַסֶּכֶת כְּתֻבּוֹת (קג.):
Below I provided the full text of 3 classic mefarshei Rashi the Maharal, Maskil L’Dovid, and Divrei Dovid (Taz). All three are also explaining Rashi, not disagreeing and providing an alternative pshat.
Maharal
ואמרו רז”ל יעקב אבינו לא מת. וכך איתא בפרק קמא דתענית (ה ע”ב) – אמר ר’ יצחק אמר ר’ יוחנן יעקב אבינו לא מת, וכי בכדי ספדו ספדיא וחנטו חנטיא, אמר ליה מקרא אני דורש (ר’ ירמיה ל, י) “ועתה אל תירא עבדי יעקב ואל תחת ישראל כי אני מושיעך מרחוק ואת זרעך מארץ שבים”, מקיש אותו לזרעו, מה זרעו בחיים אף הוא בחיים, עד כאן. והרבה מן המתמיהים על זה דאיך לא מת, והרי קברו אותו, ועוד כי הקשה מן התורה והשיב ‘מקרא אני דורש’, וכי יותר קרא של נביאים מקרא של תורה, אמנם פירוש זה כי המציאות וההעדר הם שני דברים שאין להם התיחסות וצירוף, כי זה מציאות וזה העדר, ולפי זה אם נמצא שני דברים מתיחסים ביחד אי אפשר לומר שהאחד יתואר במציאות והאחד יתואר בהעדר, שמאחר שהם מתיחסים אי אפשר לומר כך, שהרי המציאות וההעדר אין להם התיחסות. וידוע כי האב והבן מתיחסים ביחד, ואם כן ראוי לומר שאם הבן בחיים שגם האב בחיים, ולא נוכל לומר שהאב מת והבן בחיים מאחר שהאב והבן מצטרפים, והמיתה הוא העדר, ואין יחוס למציאות עם ההעדר. ואין לומר כי המיתה מבטל היחוס, כי זה אי אפשר שיבטל היחוס הזה, מאחר שאין בן בלא אב, אם כן יחוס זה וצירוף זה אין ביטול לו, ומאחר שהבן בחיים גם כן האב בחיים, ואי אפשר שיהיה רק כך. ובכל אב בעולם היה ראוי לומר כך, אלא שאין הבן יש לו חיים בעצם, והחיים באדם מקרה, כי הם חיים לשעה ומיד יוסר, אבל דבר שיש לו חיות בעצמו – כמו שהם זרע ישראל – והם חיים קיימים תמידים, וכדכתיב (דברים ד, ד) “ואתם הדבקים בה’ אלקיכם חיים כלכם היום”, ודבר זה חיות בעצם. ולפיכך יעקב שהוא אב להם, ונקראו ‘בני ישראל’ במה שהוא מתיחס להם כמו האב והבן, ראוי שיהיה בחיים, כלומר כי שם ה”חיים” נקרא עליו, היינו שאמר ‘מה זרעו בחיים’, כלומר מאחר שזרעו בחיים והאב מתיחס אל הבן – האב גם כן בחיים הוא. ובב”ר (מט, ד) פרשת וירא בפסוק (לעיל יח, יח) “למען הביא על אברהם” ‘תני רבי שמעון בן יוחי אומר כל המעמיד בן יגע בתורה כאילו לא מת’. וזה מבואר גם כן, כי בעל התורה במה שהתורה היא חיים, גם אינו דבר מקרה שיוסר ממנו, ואינו כמו החיים האלו שהם חיים מקריים, לכך האב אשר יש לו יחוס אל הבן וצירוף אליו – כמו שהבן בחיים, כך הוא גם כן בחיים, והבן זה היטב.
ועוד יש בזה דבר נפלא ונעלם ודבר מה ארמוז אם תבין, וידוע כי המיתה היא קצה וסוף, ודבר שאין לו קצבה אין לו מיתה. ומפני שיעקב אין מתיחס לו קצה, כי הקצה הוא לשני גבולים שהם קצה, כי כאשר תניח ג’ נקודות זו אצל זו אין לנקודה האמצעית קצה כלל, ומפני שיעקב הוא האמצעי בין אברהם ובין יצחק, והוא השלישי המכריע ביניהם, הוא כנגד הנקודה האמצעית שאין מתיחס לה קצת וגבול, ולפיכך יעקב אבינו לא מת. ודבר זה אמת וברור מאוד על פי החכמה. ובפרשת שמות (ד, יט) יתבאר עוד מזה אם תבין אותו, כי הם דברי חכמה מופלאה, רמזו חכמי האמת ליודעי מדע. ועל פי סוד הזה נקרא יעקב “ישרון” (ישעיה מד, ב) על שם היושר, כי כל דבר יושר אין לו קצה, שהקצה למי שנוטה מן היושר, אבל היושר אין לו קצה. וזה שאמר בלעם (במדבר כג, י) “תמות נפשי מות ישרים ותהי אחריתי כמוהו”, רוצה לומר כי במה שהם ישרים – אין לישר מיתה בעצם, ונשמתו קיימת לעד – “ותהי אחריתי כמוהו”, כי אין לדבר הישר אחרית במה שאינו נוטה לקצה, והוא נשאר באמצעי שאין לו קצה. ובספר דרך חיים נתבאר עוד, כי דברים אלו הם ברורים ליודעי חכמה. והמעלה שהיה אל יעקב אבינו שלא מת – כי החיים יש להם דביקות אל השם יתברך ביותר, וזהו מעלת החיים “ואתם הדבקים בה’ אלקיכם חיים כלכם היום” (דברים ד, ד). ואם הדביקות הזה אינו לבני אדם, זהו שהחומר הוא המבדיל בין השם יתברך ובין (הגוף) [השכל], אבל יעקב נפרד מן הגוף, ויש לו החיים והדביקות עם השם יתברך, וזהו המעלה היתרה, וזה שאמר ‘יעקב אבינו לא מת’:Maskil L’Dovid
ויגוע ויאסף ומיתה לא נאמרה וכו׳ תחלה מרגיש רש״י מבחוץ למה לי כפל דויגוע ויאסף דלכאורה היינו גויעה היינו אסיפה והתירוץ לזה שכן מצינו בשאר צדיקים שיש ב׳ לשונות הללו ועוד אחרת דהיינו מיתה כמו ויגוע וימת אברהם וכו׳ ויאסף אל עמיו ויגוע יצחק וימת ויאסף וכו׳ וכן בדין כידוע לי״ח בסוד הפירוד דגויעה היא על הנפש התחתונה שבו הנפרדת והולכת לג״ע התחתון ואסיפה היא על נשמתו העליונה היא העולה לג״ע העליון ומיתה היא על זוהמא דיסודות דעשיה שבו המתעכלת בקבר וכל צדיק דעלמא יש בו קצת זוהמא ומעתה מקשה רש״י וא״כ למה לא נאמר ג״כ ביעקב מיתה כמו בשאר צדיקים ומשני יעקב אבינו לא מת פי׳ שלא היה בו שום שמץ זוהמא כלל:
Divrei Dovid
ויגוע וכו’, יעקב אבינו לא מת.. בפ”ק דתענית (דף ה:) מקשה, על זה וכי בכדי חנטו חנטייא אמר ליה מקרא אני דורש אתה וזרעך מה זרעך בחיים כו’, נראה פירוש מאמר זה שדקדק לומר יעקב אבינו דר”ל הזכות של הצדיק שהוא בחיים עם בני דורו הוא הגנה והצלה להדור יותר ממה שהוא אחר מות הצדיק, כי בחיים צריך הוא ג”כ להגנה וההגנה ההיא יש לה כח גדול לשמרו מכל צרה ממילא נצולים גם בני דורו עמו, משא”כ באחר מותו שא”צ להגנה אלא להדור לחוד והם אינם כדאים לזה על זה אמר יעקב אבינו ר”ל זכותו שתגין עלינו לא מת, וההגנה היא גדולה כ”כ כאילו עדיין בחיים, ועל זה הקשה וכי בכדי חנטו וכו’, פירוש ממ”נ אם החונטים ידעו שהוא חי למה חנטוהו ואם היו סוברים שעל הזכות קאמר דלא מת והוא גדול עדיין אם כן למה ספדוהו שהרי לא אבדו כלום במיתתו דזכותו קיים כאילו עדיין חי. א”ל מקרא אני דורש פירוש אני יודע שזכותו כאילו חי אבל החונטים לא ידעו זה, וכ”ת מנין לי לומר דבר חדש מה שלא ידעו החונטים לזה אמר אני דורש את המקרא אבל החונטים לא ידעו מקרא זה שלא היה בימיהם אותו הפסוק בכתב (כנ”ל נכון בפירוש מאמר זה):
והאמת יורה דרכו
Arso, Don’t fardey me a kup. I am
Arso, now I see how you could agree with Shmei.
1. So first of all, on the other thread you and lostspark started quoting the Ohr Hachayim from וישק לו and onward which is not commenting on that posuk being the source of the Gemorah. The Ohr Hachayim commented on the posuk being the source of the Gemorah in the previous comment ויכל יעקב which you didn’t quote . Now, the Ohr Hachaim is NOT commenting on the Gemorah. He is commenting that this posuk in the parshah is the source of the Gemorah. This commentary as well as the next, is as I have said earlier, is talking of the time he expired where the posuk does not say mes. Here is where the Ohr Hachayim says that this is the source of the Gemorah.
Yaacov mes appears later in the parshah not at the time he expired. The Ohr Hachaim is commenting on the time he expired which at that time death has not taken possession of him. Nowhere does the Ohr Hachaim write that Yaacov’s guf is alive forever. We are talking about the time he expired. In fact, in his commentary after וישק לו the Ohr Hachayim is saying since Yaacov’s guf didn’t become putrid he embalmed his father so that the Egyptians shouldn’t say that he didn’t die.
ויכל יעקב לצוות וגו’. הא למדת שלא על יעקב נאמר (קהלת ח’) ואין שלטון ביום המות שהיה הדבר ברצונו וברשותו עד שכלה לצוות לבניו כרצונו ואז ויאסוף רגליו וגו’ והוא מאמר רז”ל (תענית ה:) יעקב אבינו לא מת, שאילו שלט בו המות לא היתה לו שליטה עד עת יחפוץ לאסוף רגליו, וצא ולמד מה שאמרו ז”ל בפי’ פסוק (קהלת פ”ח) ואין שלטון שאין מי שיתלה אונקלומא וכו’:
ויכל יעקב לצוות, Jacob finished commanding his sons, etc. This verse teaches that Jacob was an exception to the rule proclaimed by Solomon in Kohelet 8,8 that on the day someone dies he is no longer master over his spirit. Jacob was in full control of all his senses when he made all these arrangements. Only after having concluded all he wanted to say, ויאסוף דגליו, he gathered his feet into the bed, etc. Here is the source of the statement in Taanit 5 that “our father Jacob did not die.” If death had taken possession of him, he would not have retained control long enough to be able to put his feet back into his bed. Midrash on Kohelet 8,8 explains that on the day of death a man cannot say to the angel of death: “wait for me until I have concluded my business and then I will come.”2. The Ramban bought what Rashi is saying but is not commenting on what Rashi is saying whatsoever. He wrote his comment which absolutely does not say anything about Yaacov’s guf being alive forever. You are simply cooking up a whole cholent on the Ramban’s words. His commentary on HIS conclusion is very clear.
You wrote: “Gee! Keep away from these discussions because you are just proudly showing off your ignorance”. I’ll say what i think and you can think what you want.
Neville > is the only true Litvisher left on the CR
Lita had a lot of learning and contemplative nature, but not much of luxuries and attractive external culture. No wonder, (true) Litvishe approach is not popular in this country. Even in Lakewood (where the lake does look like Lithuanian lakes, so this is possibly why first Litvakim settled there and attracted R kotler) – an insider wrote decades ago that the place is “litvishe rebbeim with hunarishe students”//
Philosopher
I addressed my question to Neville because he seems to be claiming that the mainstream orthodox approach to how to understand the Rashi under discussion is that Yaacov Aveinu is physically alive. I was just hoping to clarify what he meant by “physically alive”. I even made the question multiple choice 🙂
Even though the question was initially addressed to Neville, I would be very interested to know how Arso would answer it as well.
I jumped in on the this conversation because עולם הפוך ראיתי
@ Lostspark
The Or HaChaim you quoted is saying that Yaacov’s guf was not m’tamei and will not be subject to decomposing. Did anyone on this or the other thread claim otherwise. Specifically, did someone make a positive claim that Yaacov’s guf was m’tamei and was subject to decomposing that you felt the need to quote this Or HaChaim to set them straight?
Neville, you are unwilling to say you are disagreeing with Rashi because never said that Yaacov’s guf is alive forever.
You are also disagreeing with a pasuk in the Torah.I dont reject any meforshim.
It’s really weird that you don’t want to reject what you claim is the supposed “mainstream Orthodox approach” to the Rashi (which contradicts a posuk in the Torah) while at the same time being OK to with rejecting meforshim you don’t agree with.
You wrote, “When did I ever pretend that I did? I’ve basically just been giving you social advice. I don’t think I’ve ever gotten involved in the lomdush side of this whole shmooze.”
So on the basis of your social advice I have to accept what you claim is the supposed “mainstream Orthodox approach” to the Rashi (that contradicts a posuk in the Torah) and reject meforshim that say that Yaacov lo mes means that he, or his guf, is spiritually alive. Yes, that makes so much sense.Non Political is still waiting for an answer on his multiple choice comment regarding the supposed “mainstream Orthodox approach” to the Rashi. I am also awaiting a response, I am curious in what capacity you believe that Yaccov is physically alive.
philosopher, your long post once again missed the point and I’m tired of explaining to you nicely where you are mistaken. So let this be the last time, unless you have something new to say.
To write that the Or Hachayim in this passuk is not continuing with his explanation of the previous passuk, shows an absolute lack of understanding of how meforshei haChumash work. He is dealing with the pesukim in light of the gemoro that Yaakov Avinu lo meis even though he was embalmed and buried. Sorry, but you should really keep out of Torah sheb’al peh discussions between men who, although they might not be absolute geonim, but they have had years and years of a yeshivah learning background.
As to the Ramban, everybody here (that of course does not include the looney, as he is definitely not totally all there or all here) agrees that the Ramban starts by explaining Rashi, which he understands literally as we men do. Then he offers an alternative pshat. The Maharsha, by the way, does exactly the same. He explains Rashi literally, then disagrees respectfully. Only you and your the rabbis and talmudei (sic) chachamim that you allegedly ask hold differently. And I declare without reservation, if they say that Rashi does not mean it literally, not only are they not talmidei chachamim but they are not even talmudei chachamim.
Non Political, I didn’t reply to your multiple choice question for a very simple reason (aside from the fact that it wasn’t addressed to me).
As I, a physically-bound human, cannot understand what it means to be alive and buried, I don’t want to choose as to what is the exact explanation.
Btw in Bava Basra 58a, which we learned a few months ago in Daf Yomi, it is clear from the story there that the Avos are alive in Me’aras Hamachpelah. OK it’s aggadata, and there are various opinions about how literal one is to take aggadata, but it does say that there.
@ Arso “The Ramban bought what Rashi is saying but is not commenting on what Rashi is saying whatsoever”
Do you even learn Ramban? How can you write the above with a straight face? Then you write that a women can’t know the right pshat in Rashi / Ramban.
@ Philosopher
I don’t think you have to worry about the 5-6 CR Rabbi’s who disagree with you. The The Gur Aryeh (Maharal), The Maskil L’Dovid and Divrei Dovid (Taz) certainly did not learn Rashi like them (Obviously neither did the Ramban).
Philosopher to me (and sorry I missed it until now): The Raavad is talking about who is a min. I can’t answer for others why they believed what they believed.
The Raavad is saying that someone who believes Hashem has a guf is NOT a min because there were people who were “better and greater” than the Rambam (!) who believed that Hashem has a guf because they misinterpreted the pesukim. So clearly it cannot be 100% clear from the pesukim that Hashem does not have a guf.
For me it’s very clear from the Torah, that Hashem has no guf.
Yet the Raavad says that it isn’t. So who should I believe?
How can Hashem have a guf if He was in existence before He created the universe/matter was created?
I could give you two plausible answers (even though I don’t believe in either of them):
1. He had a guf even before all other matter was created.
2. He created himself a guf at some very early stage.How can Hashem have a guf and be in the heaven and on earth at the same time?
I don’t understand why that rules out a guf.
How can Hashem have a guf when a guf has form and it says in the pasuk that Hashem has no form?
Which passuk please? I’m not saying there isn’t such a passuk, but I just can’t recall it. So please supply a source.
The final line is that the Raavad says that great people believed Hashem has a guf based on a misunderstanding of the pesukim. So are you just going to disregard the Raavad and say that it is impossible to say so?!
>> For me it’s very clear from the Torah, that Hashem has no guf.
> Yet the Raavad says that it isn’t. So who should I believe?Raavad in this case. Sometimes, you need to suspend your current culture when reading old sources. Rambam lives in monotheistic and philosophical Islam era, Rabman in Christian with their own religious claims. Some of the gaonim they are responding to lived in Persian culture … So, what is clear to you, may not be obvious to them. Similarly, what is clear to Rambam, might not have been clear to those gaonim.
Think of any simple theorem you (hopefully) encountered in math and physics – most of them are proved in the textbook in 2 pages, but it took years for original discoveries.
Arso as you say “Sorry, but you should really keep out of Torah sheb’al peh discussions between men”. I’m not arguing or discussing this anymore with you, think what you want. Believe that Yaacov is alive in his kever forever, believe that’s what Rashi is saying. Who cares.
Believe what you want. I believe that Yaacov is not physically alive in his kever, that Rashi is not contradicting a posuk in the Torah and i have not seen a mefoiresh saying that Rashi is saying that Yaacov’s guf is alive forever.
I did supply the posuk regarding Hashem not having a form. I’m not looking it up again, you can go back in the thread if you wish to see it.
I’m not going to argue with you regarding what you see in the Torah. The Christians also “see” corporeality of their gods in the Torah.To say that God had a guf before the universe was created is so incredibly dumb because a physical guf is very limiting, the brain is limiting, the eyes are limiting, a being that can be contained in a guf cannot be היה הווה ויהיה, a being in a guf is not infinite, Hashem is infinite.
The third of the Rambam’s 13 principles of faith says that Hashem has no guf. The Rambam writes that when a person doubts [any] foundation among these foundations [i.e. his thirteen], he has left the community, denied the principle [i.e. God], and is called a min and a epikores and a cutter of shoots, and it is an obligation to hate him, and of him it is said “shall I not hate those who hate You, God”
You are just arguing for the sake of arguing with me. Why are you doing that? After all, you say I should “you should really keep out of Torah sheb’al peh discussions between men” so you shouldnt be arguing with me.
I don’t think you have to worry about the 5-6 CR Rabbi’s who disagree with you. The The Gur Aryeh (Maharal), The Maskil L’Dovid and Divrei Dovid (Taz) certainly did not learn Rashi like them (Obviously neither did the Ramban).
You haven’t been following the long discussion until now.
To summarize:
Rashi on Vayechi is quite ambiguous, and can probably be understood either way.
Rashi on Taanis however is simply understood to mean that Yaakov is physically alive, since he explains the Gemara that the only reason why Yaakov was embalmed and buried is because “he SEEMED dead, though really he was alive” (נדמה להם שהוא מת אבל חי הוא) [– as OPPOSED to other meforshim who hold that Yaakov was embalmed and buried because he was physically dead].
Maharsha understands Rashi this way (which is why he says that Rashi’s pshat is דוחק, and gives his own pshat). Artscroll understands Rashi this way (I’ve quoted the footnote many times). Rif to Ein Yaakov, Etz Yosef, Iyun Yaakov and Ohr Hachayim all clearly hold that יעקב לא מת is literal, and ויגוע means that Yaakov was in a deep state of sleep.
[None of the meforshim that you mentioned (גו”א, משכיל לדוד, ד”ד) quote Rashi on Taanis (נדמה להם), rather they are being mefaresh Rashi on chumash. Even if you were to find a meforash who interprets Rashi on Taanis to mean spiritual, that is definitely not the פירוש הפשוט of Rashi there, as I have shown in the previous paragraph.]
The answer to Philosopher’s question (that later it says that the sons saw כי מת אביהם) is obvious after reading the Ramban: The possuk is only writing about how Yaakov seemed to the sons’ perspective — they looked at Yaakov and say כי מת אביהם, which doesn’t necessarily reflect on the reality.
This answer of the Ramban solves the issue from this possuk for all the opinions in meforshim, including the literal interpretations. Ramban’s own opinion (which seems to be cryptic and not clearly fitting with either interpretation) is irrelevant to this point.
ARso
Regarding the Raavid that you are quoting
I think what Philosopher did was to trade on the (by now universally) accepted position that Psukim ascribing hagshama to the Borei should not be taken literally then proceeded to show from other Psukim why that position is compelling. Of course, if someone had a mistaken commitment to interpreting all Psukim and Agados dealing with hagshama literally they would have to resolve the Psukim she cited accordingly. The Raavid says such a person is not a min. That does not mean her proofs from the Psukim are not compelling.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.