- This topic has 112 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 11 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
ROB, you’re comparing taking an aggad’ta figuratively to arguing with Chazal’s values. The two are not the same.
The “modern invention” of daas Torah is saying that gedolim are infallible.* Whether we extend this to Chazal’s knowledge of science is a separate issue.
Taking our values from our gedolim, however, has never been a question in our mesorah, especially the hashkafos found in Chazal.
*Attributing such a view to the masses is for the most part a fallacy. Many believe that talmidei chachomim have greater wisdom and insight than lay people, but few think they’re infallible.
rob: One can deny the supposed infallibility of the Gedolim and yet understand the infallibility of Torah Sheba’al Peh. There is a massive difference between saying that a Gadol can’t know why HKBH did things and saying that Chazal couldn’t one.
DaasYochid: well, we are a lot closer in thought than originally expounded. Of course, we learn from our Rebbeim and other Gedolim-whether in behavior or learning, it is part of our DNA, (Aseh lecho Rav). I was responding originally to Sam2’s assertion that all of torah shebaal peh is infallible. On that, I think there is a difference between halocho- clearly, we accept the dinim of the mishne and gemoro, although this gets diluted as we descend the generations- and between hashkofo (still, a very imprecise and nebulous subject) and aggadata- with all its pitfalls in understanding what is being said and its relationship with reality.
DY: Thanks!
rob: And I think saying such a thing costs you your Chelek in Olam Haba. The only potential cases where we can say Chazal were wrong are medicine and science (if you hold that Chazal could be wrong on those; but I think the vast majority holds that that’s a valid Shittah).
Let me be clear. I don’t know if the Tur Shimon story happened. I don’t even think that I care. In a sense, it’s irrelevant. Whether the city existed and that’s what happened or not doesn’t matter. What matters is that Chazal say it happened and give a reason. That reason is part of Torah Sheba’al Peh. It could be that Chazal made up a city to teach us this lesson. But that doesn’t matter. The lesson is still part of Torah Sheba’al Peh. You can deny the story ever happened. But you cannot dismiss the lesson of it. Doing that falls under Mach’chish Magideha.
No, ROB, I’m afraid we’re worlds apart. I would never ch”v challenge Chaza”l as you have.
T613, you’re welcome.
Sam2- you will have to show me which part of torah I transgressed to claim that I lost my chelek in olam haboh. Torah shebaal peh extends throughout all generations-including ours, my point is that it only applies to halacha, not any other matter. There are numerous examples that midrash and agaddata are not to be taken literally.
DaasYochid- if you feel we are worlds apart- so be it. I don’t see where I ‘challenged’ chazal. Actually, all I originally said that it was a very harsh penalty for “Tur Shimon”, as the trasngression was (almost) minor and the Jerushalmi needs elucidation. Actually ,I believe that “Tur SHimom’ did exist and was destroyed (please not ,Sam2) and I only questioned the assessment of the punishment. And clearly, a new halacha (ball playing0 cannot be learned fro mthat.
SO, to both of you- you will have to explain how my understanding of agaddate differs from many other rishonim and acharonim who clearly said that agadatas are no to be taken literally.
DY: What about me? How close does my last paragraph come to being worlds apart? It might be a relatively unique view of Chazal, but I definitely think it’s a legitimate one (as opposed to rob’s, which is not legitimate at all).
well, I sent a constructive reply to Sam2 but the it has not been published. Cannot bother to repeat it.
Sam, there is definitely some Chaza”l which is allegoric, I just don’t know if you can say it about a gemara with clear halachic implications. Would you say it about the Hahu Gavra gemaras?
We should probably apply Pascal’s wager to these inyanim, don’t you think?
Would you say it about the Hahu Gavra gemaras?
Did I hear my name being called? 🙂
ROB, Sam, DY: Ayin Nedarim 20B, and Amaimar’s statement. Just because the Chachomim said something was or should be doesn’t make it Halachah Pesukah. And sources do make a difference.
P.S. Even though the Gemorah there says that we don’t Pasken like the Rabannan, they are still called “Malachei HaShareis”, and it is not a slight to their Kavod that we don’t follow them.
ROB, your response has now been published.
DY: Of course I do. That’s the part where I say it’s irrelevant if it happened or not. Chazal say it, so as far as we’re concerned we treat it like reality.
ROB: Yes, but you are backwards. You can say the story was allegorical as long as you keep the lesson. You are throwing out the lesson but keeping the story. That, without a doubt, falls under Mach’chish Magideha.
DaasYochid:I know very little and would never question a maamar chazal. However, it is difficult for anyone to pinpoint why there are punishments. This is why I never suscribed to the satmarer shittah on the Holocaust.I am not sure why using the word “disturbing” is so…disturbing! Nonetheless, when you say we can never challenge matters of “hashkafa’ coming from chazal- no one can challenge matters that deal with “Ikrey hadas” and certainly not on halacha. Yet,even you may admit that what is written about science, animals, physical functions are not always accurate. Is that “hashkafa”?
Sam2- we are bound rigidly by certain clasifications when it comes to halacha. Mishneh, gemoro, geonim, Rishonim and acharonim. But this is for halacha. When it comes to so-called hashkafa, we see that the Rambam’s views were not accpeted by his contemporaries and even acharonim (see the Gro, for example) and you would be very surprised when you see what some perushim al hatorah by various commentators (Ibn Ezra,Rabi Avrohom be Horamabam, Abarbanel)say. Very drastcially different than the accepted versions.
To ask questions about matters of logic, hashkofo, physical matters is permissible. To dispute matters of halacha of previous rishonim is out of bounds.
usse a hard boiled egg instead of a ping pong ball, this way you are going to eat the ”egg” and not waste time for no reason
ROB, if Chaza”l identified the reason for a punishment, we don’t question it. You’re practically bringing them down to your level when you say that if you don’t know the reason for punishments, then they must not either. I don’t see how that that’s not kofer b’divrei Chaza”l.
I happen to subscribe to the view that Chaza”l didn’t err in science; as the gemara itself says about this inyan, ??? ?’ ??????.
I just don’t think you can call it kefirah to hold otherwise if the Pachad Yitzchad (Lapronte) did so, although we don’t pasken like him.
DY: Can I ask, if you hold that Chazal didn’t err in science, what do you do with Pesachim 94b? Also, what do you do with the Gemaras that are obviously against what we currently know (half-mouse half-dirt, salamanders, etc.)?
Sam, the Sugya in Pesachim is a far cry from a scientific conversation. We all watch the sun going down, and they just felt compelled to say that it goes up? Why is there a Chachmei Yisroel opinion in the first place? The Jews had to set up their own observatories? (Besides, from our perspective it goes North, which is considered up as Rashi explains by the Meraglim IIRC). Also, the old excuse is that they got their science from the Goyim — although they neglected to ever mention that fact, and “Tanya” is hardly an allusion to a contemporary Goy. How does that square with this Gemara?
The salamander is a Mesora. It says it about Chizkiyahu. I’m sure you aren’t saying they made things up. Slifkin mentions in his book that there is a type of newt that can survive a fire for some time by oozing a jell. He then goes on to disregard that and says that he feels like an athiest in doing so. Let’s not confuse what the Rishonim mention with the status the Gemara gives it.
The mice might be about half decomposed mice or it can be about something from hearsay that they decided to discuss. I don’t claim that they knew all science. But their Torah is true and what they were Mekabel from Braysos or derived from them is true.
The medicine Gemaros are indeed what they heard from local travelling merchants. That is acually not followed. The Gemara in Avoda Zara says already that an Amora tried one of them and it didn’t work. Another merchant gave him different advice that helped.
This is what Rav Shrira Gaon is talking about when he says that they are not our doctors. They decided to include contemporary medicine Letoeles Harabim. These are not (at face value, at least) a Kabalah.
You can even find where they Paskened a certain Shayla based on a doctor’s Tevias Ayin, but not a Halacha Ledoros.
DaasYochid: form the questions of Sam2 and the words of HaLeivi–even though they may differ from what I said- you can see that there is plenty of questions on “maamaorei chazal” that do not deal with halacha. As I said, halacha clearly cannot be challenged- on other matters,such as medicine and science, I differ from whay you say.I am not even sure if chazal themselves suscribed to your view that all what they said was infallible. The grey areas are “hashkofo” and -at times- aggadata. On that ,you see that many rishonim differed on the gemoro’s and midrashs interpretations. (see Rabbi Avrohom ben HoRambam in this week’s parsha on Yaakov Ovinu’s struggle with the angel..).
Where do yo udraw the line at fully accepting a previous dor’s views? (not in halacha). Gemoro? Geonim? Rishonim?
ROB, I’m not sure what you saw in my words, but do you believe there will be diamonds double our hight Le’asid Lavo?
HaLeiVi: I don’t know what I think about these things, but I do feel comfortable saying that Chazal could have accepted the scientists of their generations. After all, many of the same supposed “errors” they made were shared by their contemporaries. And R’ Shlomo Zalman held that way, so you’re not in bad company if you do. I don’t think it’s an untenable view.
Sam, there are kashyas, but that particular gemara never really bothered me because l’maskana they agreed.
DY: That’s more of a problem, then. How could Chazal be Chozer if their original Shittah came from a Mesorah from Sinai/Torah Sheba’al Peh? How could they have been wrong in the first place?
It seems clear from that Gemara that, at the very least on some level, Chazal trusted their contemporaries and/or did their own form of scientific research to discover physical realities, and not that they had a Mesorah from Sinai for them.
Oh, and HaLeiVi: I think the Artscroll Gemara in Mi She’achazo in Gittin says that Chazal had a Mesorah on the Refuos as well and the only reason they don’t work nowadays is either Nishtaneh HaTeva or that we don’t know the precise translation of all of the Aramaic words in them. I don’t remember if or who they quoted that from.
Sam, who mentioned Mesora? When the Gemara learned from a Mishna that honey is not from the body of the bee, that wasn’t a Mesora. That was Limud Hatorah and Okimta. The Maskana is what’s important. That is Torah Shebal Peh.
Some things are Mesora and some things aren’t. The Gemara tells us where things come from. When it is from a Braysa they tell us and when it is from Karchei Hayam they tell us, and disregard it at times.
Rebbe Eliezer taught Rebbe Akiva in one instance 300 Halachos on Koshir Keshu’in, which was a fraction of what he was Mekabel. Many facts come along with such a big Kabalah. They did not study future science, but the Ben Ish Chai says that they knew certain things because of the Sod, but not necessarily did they know geography.
I’m aware of that approach about the medicine Gemaros. It might be from Rebbe Akiva Eiger. That is the mainstream view of most Bnei Torah. I am merely suggesting that there is a very big difference between those and other Sugyos, and that Rav Shrira Gaon was referring to these Sugyos since it is in fact one place where they actually did get it from their contemporaries.
When Amorraim spoke they weren’t speaking off the top of the head. They weren’t sharing theie musings. Rebbe Yochanan says in Shabbos about the Pasuk, Emor Lachachma Achosi At, that you may only say something when it is as clear to you as the Issur of marrying a sister. Rebbe Yochanan also famously scolded a Talmid for having a hard time believing a Drush that he derived from a Pasuk.
Mikra Ani Doresh is the final word. Rebbe Meir almost had Rebbe Gamliel removed from his post with a Drasha from a Pasuk.
DY: That’s more of a problem, then. How could Chazal be Chozer if their original Shittah came from a Mesorah from Sinai/Torah Sheba’al Peh? How could they have been wrong in the first place?
I don’t know why ??? ?’ ?????? would need to be from a mesorah; Hashem has many ways of revealing things, whether through experience, speaking to contemporaries, drashos, sevaros or Ruach Hakodesh. The only guarantee is that the end result, as stated in Mishnah or Gemara, is accurate.
Daas Yochid,
Wonderfully put. I translate Ubriso Lehodi’am that He makes it His business to let them know.
DY: That doesn’t answer the issue. If it’s Sod Hashem Lireiav, how could it be wrong?
Sod Hashem Liyreiov doesn’t mean He tells them every sod, but He does tell them the facts needed for a correct psak. If they figured it out through their own science but got it wrong, He sent the chachmei ho’umos as shlichim to give them the right information.
You don’t need to ask a kashya from chachmei ho’umos; if individual members of Chaza”l were infallible, how could there be a machlokes amongst them in these inyanim?
The teirutz is the same; it’s not that individual chachomim are infallible; as great as they are, they’re still bosor vodom. Hashem, however, doesn’t let them err when it would cause an error in halacha.
DaasYochid: How far do you extend your blanket assertion that Gedolei Yisroel cannot be wrong? (This is what you are essentially saying). Geonim too? Rishonim too? how about today’s generation?
ROB, Tannaim and Amoroim.
DY: That’s interesting. How do you respond to killing a louse, then? Because microscopic eggs don’t count as being Pareh V’ravei? Some other Teretz?
I don’t know if I really have a Shittah in this Inyanim. I don’t think I have to. R’ Schachter and R’ Shlomo Zalman hold that Chazal relied on their sceintists, so I do get upset when people call that Shittah K’firah. But I don’t know if I subscribe to any particular one.
Sam, as I said, there are kashyas. Lice has been debated, well as other cases, with multiple teirutzim (one along the lines of what you said, that “??? ????” doesn’t translate to scientific male/female reproduction). How far you’re willing to stretch to accept a teirutz depends on your version of emunas chachomim.
Where is R’ SZ”A quoted on this?
Found on Hidabroot:
A: ????? ?????? ????? ?? ??? ??????? ??? ???. ????? ??? ??? ????? ???”? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ?? ???? ????? (??? ?? ??, ?) “????? ????? ??? ????”, ?? ????? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ????? “????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ????”! ????? ???? ???? ????? ??”? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ?”???? ??? ?????? ???? ?????” – ????? ??”? ???? ??? ???? ??????? ?????? ??????? ?????! ?????? ????? ????? ????? ????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ?????: “???? ?? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ????? ???, ?????? ?????? ????”. ??? ????? ?? ?????? ????? ???? ???”? ???? ??????? ??????? ??????? ???? ????? ?? ??????, ????? ???? ??????? ???? ??????? ?????? ?? ??????? ????? ?????? ?????? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ???? ????? ???? (??? ??? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ?????), ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ???????? (???, ?, ?) ????? ????? ????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ???.
????? ??? ?????? ?? ????, ????? ?????. ???? ??????? ?????? ????? ??? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ??????, ?????? ??? ??? ????? ??? ???? ?? ???? ????? ????. ?????? ?????, ????? ????? ?? ???? ????? ???? (??????, ??, ????) ???? ???? ????? ?????? ????. ????? ??, ???? ?????? ???????? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ??? “??? ????”, ???? ?? ?? ?????? ????? ?????? ????.
????? ???? ????? ??????? ????? ?????? ????? ??: ?????? ??? ?????? ????? ???? ??????, ?????? ?????? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ????? ????. ????? ??? ???? ?????: ??????? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ?? ?? ?????, ?? ???? ??? ?? ???? ??? ????, ??? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ?????. ????? ??? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ????, ????? ?????? ??????, ???? ?????? ???????? ???? ??????? ?? ??????? ????????, ?? ??? ??? ?? ???? ??? ????.
?? ?? ?????? ???, ???? ?????? ?? ?? ??? ?????? (???? ???? ???????? ????? ????? ???) ??? ????? ???????? ?? ???? ????? ????. ????? ???, ???? ?????? ?? ???? ?????, ??????? ???? ?????? ?”???? ?????” ???? ??? ?????? ??????? ?????? ????? ????? ???? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ??? ???? ??? ?????. ?? ??, ????? ??? ?? ????? ???? ?????? “????? ?? ???? ????? ????” (?? ????? ??”?, ???? ???? ????? ?? ???? ??????: “???? ???? ??? ?????”).
????? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ???. ????? ????? (??, ?”?) ???? ??? ??????? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ?? ????? ????? ?? ??? ????? ?? ??????. ????? ????? ????? ?? ?? ?????. ????? ?????: “??? ?? ?? ??????”. ????”? ????? ?? ?????: “???? ??????? ?????? ????? ????? ?????? ?????, ????? ??? ???? ??? ??, ??? ???? ???? ????”.
??? ????? ?????? ???????? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ????? ????? ???? ???? ???, ??? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ????, ?? ????? ????? ?????? (???? ?? ?????? ??????? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ???? ??? ??????) ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????? ???????.
?? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ???????, ????? ?????? ??????? ?? ?????? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?”????? ??????” ?? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? ?? ?????? ??????.
– ????? ?????? ???? ?? “????? ??????” ???? ??? ????? ??????, ??????: ?? ???? ????? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ?????? ??? ??????.
???? ?????? (?? ???? ?-150 ???) ??? ?????? ?????? ?????? ????? ???, ????? ???? ????? ?????? ????, ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? – ??? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? (???? ??? ???? ??, ???? ??):
“???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ??? ???? ???? ????? ??, ??? ????? ???? ???????, ??? ?? ??, ??? ??? ???????? ???? ??? ?? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ??? ???, ??? ???? ???? ???? ????”. ??? ????: ??? ?????? ??????? ??? ????? ????, ??? ????? ???? ????…!
DY: I have heard R’ Schachter and several others quote it from him. I haven’t seen it inside.
That is the way I understood it as well. While it is true that some Rishonim say that they are created from sweat, the Gemara does not say that.
The Gemara actually says elsewhere (BB 74b) that everything in this world comes from male and female. The Zohar Hakadosh also says this. This Gemara can parallel the Sugya in Chulin where we say Minei Kagavli, that it grew only from the fish. We apply this to an animal that is nursing, as well.
I said earlier that we shouldn’t say about Chazal what they didn’t say about themselves. They tell us that their Mekor is from the Mishna or Braysa and Masa Umatan. They never quote outside sources or went to ask unless it was for a timely issue. The Sugya in Pesachim, on Amud Aleph, is a very good example of that; one Braysa after the next. We often see how Rav Popa or other Amoraim derive anatomy or other facts from the Mishna. The Tannaim themselves had a big Mesorah of Halachos, and some where able to Darshen certain facts from the Torah, too.
The Rishonim clearly quote outside sources and are therefore limited to that. And yet, we still know that since it is written with Ruach Hakodesh, although they assumed certain facts that they heard, we can often find the truth from within their words.
There is therefore a very big difference between the words of Chazal, who were actually careful not to accept what they heard, and the later generations when they had to turn to outside sources, as the Rambam writes.
DY: Whoever wrote that answer will have a serious Din V’cheshbon to give for his unfounded and false attack on the Pachad Yitzchak, even if he didn’t mean it.
I always thought that P’shat in the Gemara is like he said, though (based on Rashi) that it is Nivra B’guf Ha’adam and therefore isn’t P’reh Ur’veh. That raises more questions, though, for example could you then kill a wasp inside a fruit that has never left the fruit, etc.? His second answer also is obviously wrong because based on that it should be Muttar to kill any bird on Shabbos (and a Par’ush as well, which is also false). His third answer is the common one from R’ Shlomo Zalman and the Michtav Mei’Eliyah.
Daas Yochid, who wrote that?
This whole issue has nothing to do with ROB, and I think it was actually an inappropriate thread to discuss this this it confuses the two topics.
To say that your Rebbe did not know about something uninvented in his time is fine. To say that you understand Torah better than your Rebbe is not.
If you have a Kasha because something sounds like it doesn’t add up, try to find or come up with a Terutz. If you can’t, try an Okimta. My own Okimta is that even if playing ball wasn’t literal Chillul Shabbos, they has major leagues on Shabbos, which is Mechallel the spirit of Shabbos and Yiddishkeit. The Rambam warns about Shabbos and Yom Tov not to turn it into a hang out day.
Sam, it looks like the bird reference was borrowed to show how things aren’t black and white.
The thing with not being seen is not optimal. It works when you say that something that you can’t see is not Assur and was not included in the Issur of the Torah. It is quite another thing to say that if you can’t see a phenomenon then it doesn’t happen, to the extent that the one it pertains to is considered to be in another class.
The funny thing with the Pachad Yitzchok is that if Rav Yosef is wrong then we should be Meikel, not Machmir. We Pasken like the Chachamim so if there is no difference between the Kinah and other bugs we can kill them all. YIPPEEE!!
I don’t know who wrote it; I brought it because the first answer is something similar I once heard from an acquaintance of mine, and he also mentions the nireh l’aynayim pshat. I haven’t yet actually read through the entire thing.
I also didn’t like the motive the author ascrobes to the opposing view; I don’t think he knows it’s a legitimate shittah. He’s probably only heard it from kofrim.
HaLeivi: I am not sure why you mentioned in your recent comment- although I venture to say that you maintain that the disucssion of playing ball on shabbos (and the subsequent quote fro mthe jerushalmi) have nothing to do with the subsequent discussion of believeing in “mmamaorei chazal”. I agree totally- these are quite differetn subjects that, somehow, were mixed together.
As far as responding to DaasYochid- I agree with you the Tannoim and Amoroim have a special authority. The question is whether this extends to science, astronomy, medicine,etc. I dont’know whether “sod Hashem lejereiov” covers that.
HaLeiVi: If we combined 2 of the answers (that it has to be inside a separate Guf and that it is invisible to the naked eye) maybe we have a strong Teretz.
ROB, the discussion began with your assertion that Chaza”l could ch”v err in hashkofa, which is not a legitimate shittah, and then went on a tangent about Chaza”l erring in science.
The Gemara actually applies Sod Hashem Li’yereiov to the chachomim’s understanding of the physical world. See Sotah 4b and Sanhedrin 48b for two examples.
DaasYochid : I checked both gemoros you mentioned and, please forgive me, but I am rather underwhelmed by your sources. First of all, the “Sod Hashem’ answer in those instances is the third of a possible answer and secondly, in Ben Azai’s case (see Sotah 4B) if indeed, he had specific knowledge of that matter(the duration of a specific act), how come there are many other versions of this answer by a multitude of other Tannaim? Weren’t they worthy of “sod hashem”?
In any case,these examples deal with a very specific instance where the Tannah/Amorah would not have had personal knowledge of something and hence, “Sod Hashem” , so that he would know that.This is a very far cry from saying that, everywhere and every time, every Tananh and Amorah knew everything because of “Sod Hasem”.
As far as your assertion about “hashkofo”, please explain what you mean by hashkofo? I can quote you numerous examples that are labeled today as present-day “hashkofo’ and must be accepted by us,yet are in direct opposition of “maamorie chazal”. What is ,indeed, “haskofo” in your eyes?
ROB, I never claimed that every Tanna and Amora knew every sod. In fact, I clearly said otherwise. What I did say is precisely what is clear from those gemaras, that Hashem has many ways of revealing information to Chaza”l. The important thing is that they know the correct facts to pasken; it’s not important whether it’s through personal experience or direct Divine revelation.
I don’t really think it’s important to define the term hashkofa; I don’t think we should assume we know better than Chaza”l in any area.
However, if someone thinks they know better than Chaza”l the severity of punishment deserved for a particular aveirah, that’s particularly egregious.
DaasYochid; we will have to stand on our respective positions. All you see from those gemoros that- at times- A Tanna and/or Amora has insights that come from HKBH- and this – i beleive- happesn even today! Whether this translates into every position that chazal takes is problematic- see science,medicine,astronomy…etc
As far as “hashkofo” goes, we seem to have different understandings. Also, my comments on “Tur Shimon” were that it is difficult to see how a fairly small infraction broguth about such destruction, not that I know better.
“difficult to see”
That’s not the terminology you used.
DaasYochid: in my original posting, I used two words that may cause you a problem. I wrote “disturbing” (about the jerushalmi) and I also said that it was difficult to understand the punishment.
I looked up synonyns for both words and there is a wide variety of meanings, many of them referring to it as meaning inexplicable. The jerushalmi about Tur shimon is indeed difficult to understand. I am not sure how my words brought upon me your wrath and other’s wrath.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.