- This topic has 58 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 3 days, 13 hours 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)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.