- This topic has 171 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 1 week ago by .
-
Posts
-
Non Political: So according to Rashi, as the Ramban understands him, the above psukim can’t be proof texts that he died. Of course, that does NOT mean that he understands Rashi as saying that he is literally alive or buried alive.
Your statement regarding the Ramban’s understanding of Rashi’s view is totally irrelevant to this part of the discussion, which centered on philosopher repeatedly quoting the passuk as proof that Rashi CANNOT mean that Yaakov Avinu is literally alive.
As I – and Neville in the past – have pointed out, philosopher has ignored our references to the Ramban, and that is why we find it extremely difficult and frustrating to deal with her arguments.
Non Political, those pesukim are proof that Yaacov Avinu died and the the Ramban and Rashi are not disputing the pesukim.The shevatim are much greater and smarter and holier than us and knew much more than we can comprehend. Certainly they did not make a mistake when they saw that their father died. They did not bury him alive. He died a physical death.
The Ramban’s understanding according to Rashi is that the brothers perhaps didn’t know that his nefesh was still attached on some level to his guf. The fact is that Rashi is not saying his guf itself is alive. As i said many times, alive forever can mean many things, including that Yaacov’s nefesh is still attached to his guf even if his guf is not physically alive. Many meforshim and the gemorah, say different thing on Yaacov lo mes, none, including Rashi, say that Yaacov’s guf itself is still physically alive.
@ Arso
You wrote: You are assuming that he is suffering because you imagine yourself being buried alive. But as it would clearly be miraculous for Yaakov to be alive even after he has been buried for some time, I think it would be fair to assume that Hashem ensured that he was not suffering.
You wrote: I don’t think it’s fair to assume that Hashem does things he is not on record saying he does. You don’t have a single unambiguous source for the proposition that we should interpret Rashi / Chazal as saying that Yaacov is alive in the full physical sense of the word. You have many sources that say clearly not like that.
You wrote: she has been referred to that Ramban, and ignored it, so many times!…In fact, I just saw that she does it again in the very post that immediately follows the post of yours that I just quoted! How are you going to justify that?
I am going to wait to read her response to my question (if she wants to respond). I think her primary issue is that one cannot use that Ramban to justify the position that Rashi holds that Yaacov is alive in the full physical sense. She is certainly right about that.
You wrote: I don’t think she is worth arguing with because she bases her “Torah” understanding on her own prejudices and misunderstanding.
That is not my impression.
@ Arso
On second thought, after re-reading what Philosopher already posted I see there is really no need for additional clarification. I’ll break down for you what I think she is saying step by step:
1) the Pasuk says Yaacovs sons saw their father died
2) Ramban expains that according to Rashi they didn’t know that he didn’t die
3) At this point Philosopher asserts that it is not reasonable to understand this as meaning that he was still completely physically alive in that he was breathing and had a heartbeat but somehow they missed this.
4) Then she asserts furthermore such a position would contradict the Pasuk because the Torah says that they saw he died so clearly they must have seen sufficient indication of death. So what she is saying is that the way you are proposing to understand Rashi according the the Ramban would contradict the Pasuk.
5) She then sums up that Yaacov’s body died [meaning no heartbeat, no breathing], however per Ramban’s explanation of Rashi, the shevatim may have not know or realized that Yaacovs nefesh is still attached on some level to his body and because of this he is alive forever.
Correction in post to Arso
“You wrote: I don’t think it’s fair to assume…..”
“You wrote” is a typo here. My response to what you wrote starts with “I don’t think it’s fair to assume…..”
NP: I think her primary issue is that one cannot use that Ramban to justify the position that Rashi holds that Yaacov is alive in the full physical sense.
I don’t know why you are putting words in her mouth that she clearly is NOT saying. She refuses to accept that according to the Ramban the passuk saying the Shevatim saw that Yaakov had died does not contradict Rashi’s statement that Yaakov did not die, as she keeps quoting that passuk as “proof” that Rashi CANNOT mean that Yaakov did not die.
How can you defend her citing that passuk as proof when the Ramban says it is not a proof?
NP to me: You wrote: I don’t think it’s fair to assume that Hashem does things he is not on record saying he does. You don’t have a single unambiguous source for the proposition that we should interpret Rashi / Chazal as saying that Yaacov is alive in the full physical sense of the word. You have many sources that say clearly not like that.
??? I said nothing of the sort!
@ Arso
“??? I said nothing of the sort!”
The words “You wrote” in the beginning of the phrase was a typo. The post was my response to the the following,
Here is what you did write: But as it would clearly be miraculous for Yaakov to be alive even after he has been buried for some time, I think it would be fair to assume that Hashem ensured that he was not suffering.
To this, I responded: I don’t think it’s fair to assume that Hashem does things he is not on record saying he does. You don’t have a single unambiguous source for the proposition that we should interpret Rashi / Chazal as saying that Yaacov is alive in the full physical sense of the word. You have many sources that say clearly not like that.
NP, are you a close friend or related to philosopher? You explain her words to mean things that she does not say and did not mean. Why?
Arso wrote : “NP (wrote): I think her primary issue is that one cannot use that Ramban to justify the position that Rashi holds that Yaacov is alive in the full physical sense.”
I don’t know why you are putting words in her mouth that she clearly is NOT saying. She refuses to accept that according to the Ramban the passuk saying the Shevatim saw that Yaakov had died does not contradict Rashi’s statement that Yaakov did not die, as she keeps quoting that passuk as “proof” that Rashi CANNOT mean that Yaakov did not die.
How can you defend her citing that passuk as proof when the Ramban says it is not a proof?”
I am saying exactly what Non-Political wrote I am saying. In fact, that exactly sums up what I’m saying over and over again. And I’m saying again, Arso is arguing simply for the sake of arguing!
I am indeed saying that the Ramban is NOT saying that the passuk saying the Shevatim saw that Yaakov had died contradicts Rashi’s statement that Yaackov had not died. He is not saying it contradicts the pesuk(im), Arso is saying that. Rashi inot saying that Yaacov’s guf did not die, he is only saying that Yaacov did not die. He is not explaining, like the Gemorah and other meforshim, including the Ramban ,what Yaacov lo mes means. The Gemorah and meforshim explain “Yaacov lo mes” in a spiritual sense, even the Ramban who says the brothers werent aware that hes alive explains “Yaacov lo mes” in a spiritual sense. I do NOT have to “accept” others INTERPRETATION that what Ramban says to mean that Rashi is specifically talking about his physical guf. I dont have to “accept” their INTERPRETATION that Rashi means his guf is alive because neither the Ramban is saying it on the Rashi, nor Rashi himself, is saying his guf is alive. None of the meforshim say his guf is alive. The Ramban is simply saying that the brothers didn’t realize that Yaacov’s nefesh was still attached to his guf after the guf’s physical death.
Sorry, philosopher, but you’re backtracking and also wrong.
1. You most definitely did say that Rashi can’t be saying that Yaakov Avinu was alive because the passuk later says that his sons saw that he had died. And when we repeatedly cited the Ramban’s resolution to that problem, you totally ignored it… and you then repeated your “proof”.
2. The Or Hachayim and the Rif on the Ein Yaakov both say that he was alive, but that he was immobile and in a faint-like situation. Not that there was some vague sort of connection between his body and his neshamah.
While you are not abusive like another poster whom I stopped reading quite a few weeks ago, you don’t argue fairly and you change your stance to suit whatever seems to you to be a winning view. I therefore find it very difficult, and frustrating, to continue this discussion with you.
NP: I don’t think it’s fair to assume that Hashem does things he is not on record saying he does.
As far as I can tell, you are addressing my claim that Hashem would have ensured that Yaakov not suffer if he is buried alive. I think that is obviously the case, and that it does not need a source. At any rate, you can’t use an argument that Yaakov would be suffering to disprove a pashut pshat in Rashi.
You don’t have a single unambiguous source for the proposition that we should interpret Rashi / Chazal as saying that Yaacov is alive in the full physical sense of the word.
Rashi, Rashi according to the Ramban’s understanding, the Or Hachayim and the Rif on Ein Yaakov.
Arso, i told myself that i will not respond to you anymore but i simply cannot not respond to your lies. Once again you lie. I said over and over and over again that Rashi saying Yaacov is alive does not mean that his guf is alive. I NEVER EVER said that Rashi “can’t be saying that Yaacov Avinu was alive”.
You are a shameless liar and it’s disgusting.
In every single post I spoke about this I said that Rashi is not saying that Yaacov’s guf is alive physically rather he is saying he is alive in a spiritual sense. I said that in EVERY SINGLE of my posts. Now you shamelessly lie and say that i said that Rashi said that Yaacov is not alive?!
I have responded about the Rif and few posts earlier. Obviously I don’t agree with your conclusion that the Rif on EY means that Yaacov Avinu was buried alive and i wrote why.
I have NOT changed anything I said. I repeated the same thing from the first post I posted on this topic. Then you tell me I don’t argue fairly?!
@ Philosopher
“I have NOT changed anything I said. I repeated the same thing from the first post I posted on this topic”
והאמת יורה דרכו
You know what, philosopher, don’t respond to me anymore. I’m sick of your changing your views when you are stuck in a corner, and I reiterate, it’s not your fault that you are a woman, but you just don’t understand the derech halimud that men are taught.
Btw, just for the record. I may have made mistakes – although in this case I did not as you definitely changed your view – but I haven’t lied.
Unbelievable, unbelievable. I can never understand how people can lie. Some people can lie even when the reality is black on white, the written proof is readily available. Someone who can say, at this point where I’ve reiterated my opinion NUMEROUS times, that I said that Rashi cant be saying that Yaacov Avinu is alive, is extremely dishonest.
Arso disgustingly wrote, “You know what, philosopher, don’t respond to me anymore. I’m sick of your changing your views when you are stuck in a corner, and I reiterate, it’s not your fault that you are a woman, but you just don’t understand the derech halimud that men are taught.”
I’m not stuck in a corner at all. Arso is stuck in the corner and projecting it on me. My numerous posts on this thread and on the other thread are PROOF that i said the ENTIRE TIME, from my first post, that Rashi saying that Yaacov is alive means in a spiritual manner, he is not saying that his guf is alive. I have also said many times as well, that perhaps Rashi means that Yaacov’s nefesh is still attached on some level to his guf, but again, that doesn’t mean that Rashi is saying that Yaacov’s guf is physically alive. But never ever, have i said that “Rashi can’t be saying that Yaacov is alive”.
Saying that “it’s not your fault that you are a woman, but you just don’t understand the derech halimud that men are taught” does not change the fact that you are lying. And I don’t know what derech halimud he was taught but one cannot interpret a meforesh based on 2-3 words “that prove one’s point” while ignoring what the mefoiresh says in its entirety.
Arso wrote, “Btw, just for the record. I may have made mistakes – although in this case I did not as you definitely changed your view – but I haven’t lied.”
You definitely did lie.OK. I’m done with discussing this with philosopher. And I commend Neville for his ‘research’ on philosopher’s past posts where she shows how she deals with Rishonim.
I stand by what I said. Women should not be getting involved in these topics. Not because they are dumb or stupid, but because they don’t know how to discuss them.
It’s really unfortunate that frum people can hold the Torah in such little regard as to think our great Sages contradicted any posuk in the Torah.
Even if one was taught that Yaacov’s guf is alive one cannot say that Rashi is contradicting a posuk in the Torah (not that im agreeing that Rashi is saying that Yaacov’s guf is physically alive).
@ Arso
You wrote: “it’s not your fault that you are a woman, but you just don’t understand the derech halimud that men are taught.”
You have made a claim that no meforesh makes, mainly that Yaacov is physically alive in the sense that his body was still animated when he was buried. It’s nice that you want to understand the OrHaChayim and the Rif this way, however, as a man with a Yeshiva background you should be able to read these mefarshim and recognize that they do not say this explicitly. The “derech halimud men are taught” should have given you sufficient analytical skills to see that your claim is interpretive.
@ Neville
I don’t understand where you are coming from here
You wrote: Here are some examples of Philosopher invoking her “proof” by bringing a posuk to argue on rishonim, something that is not done in frum circles:
Example 1: “I am saying that Rashi does NOT CONTRADICT any posuk in the Torah, period. Therefore, if it says in the Torah that the brothers of Yosef saw that their father DIED, Rashi who knew Torah better than you, did not mean to say what you are saying he is which is that his GUF was alive.”
Example 2: “When you want to have a Talmudic discussion you can bring a rishon. But to say that the comment that Rashi is making on a pasuk contradicts another posuk in the Chumash is absolutely ridiculous and disgusting. Rashi did not contradict the Word of Hashem.”
Example 3 “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.”None of these examples involve arguing with a Rishon. What Philosopher has consistently claimed is that the proposition that Yaacov was buried while physically alive (in the sense that his body was still animated by his Nefesh) contradicts a Pasuk. I have broken this down step by step previously. Here it is again, simplified:
1) the Pasuk says Yaacovs sons saw their father died
2) It is not reasonable to understand this as meaning that he was still completely physically alive (he was breathing and had a heartbeat) but somehow they missed this.
3) Such a position would contradict the Pasuk because the Torah says that “they saw he died” so clearly they must have seen sufficient indication of death.
To claim that she is arguing with a Rishon you would need is a Rishon who says explicitly that Yaacov was completely physically alive (he was breathing and had a heartbeat) at the time his brothers buried him. This is the proposition she (correctly) rejects.
Next
You wrote: Do you think that every time a yeshiva learns a sugya in gemara, the shiur splits into groups based on which man d’amar they’re “siding with” in a machlokes? Some meforshim say one way, some they another. It’s irrelevant which ones make more sense to a random Joe Shmo posting on the CR in 2024. You need to just get over the fact that not all meforshim are going to make sense to you all the time.
She hasn’t “sided” with any of the meforshim cited in the above discussion (Ramban, Or HaChayim, Rif, Maharal, Maskil L’David, Taz). She did (correctly) disagree with Arso’s interpretation of the Ramban, OrHaChaim, and Rif. She even went to the trouble of explaining exactly how she understands what the Rif wrote. Now, you are certainly welcome to disagree with how she understands the Rif (I don’t) but that doesn’t justify a claim that she is “taking sides”.
@ Philosopher
“It’s really unfortunate that frum people can hold the Torah in such little regard as to think our great Sages contradicted any posuk in the Torah.”
I don’t think it’s fair to say that Arso and Neville are holding the Torah in little regard. It’s clear from their posts that they don’t think that the Sages contradict a pasuk.
NP, do you see yet how she has a crooked way of learning? Once again she says that Rashi can’t mean that Yaakov is alive because the passuk says that his sons saw he had died, and Rashi can’t be arguing with a passuk. But – as we have said so many times that it’s getting annoying – this is exactly what the Ramban addresses AND RESOLVES!
As I wrote, I don’t intend to argue with philosopher any more because it’s a waste of time. But you, NP, should at least see how her method of deciding what Rashi must be saying is twisted.
And to address your claim that there is no meforash who says that Yaakov is physically alive, there is the Or Hachayim and the Rif who both say that he was in a type of comatose state. And your terminology “in the sense that his body was still animated when he was buried” is so vague that I can’t agree or disagree with it!
If by animated you mean that he could move, the gemoro in Sotah says that he did when Esav was killed. True, he wasn’t yet buried, but Rav Nachman’s question on the statement that Yaakov Avinu lo meis was also on the fact that he was embalmed and mourned, not just on the fact that he was buried.
So what do you mean by that statement?
Btw – and I think this was mentioned before, but it was also before you joined the discussion – why did Rav Nachman only have a problem with the fact that Yaakov was embalmed, mourned and buried, when this is just a “physical” problem. Why didn’t he bring philosopher’s ‘proof’ that Rabi Yochanan was wrong because the passuk says clearly that Yaakov’s sons saw that he had died? Or is it only Rashi who can’t possibly be arguing on a passuk, but an Amora can?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.