Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Neville: If ARSo really is saying, as you seem to suggest, that we all just randomly came to the conclusion that Rashi is saying this on our own, then I would have to disagree with him.
No way! Chas Veshalom! What I said was that although we weren’t necessarily taught that piece of gemoro by melamdim, we were taught how to translate and understand Rashi, and therefore we know what Rashi means. That’s not random.
philosopher, you really are full of yourself, aren’t you? Do you think it makes any difference to anyone that you retracted your apology. It just continues to demonstrate your self-importance when citing ‘proofs’ that all on this thread who are regular gemoro learners, and who have been through the system, have no idea how to learn a Rashi as well as you do.
Give us a break!
philosopher: At that time I didn’t know this was taught in many chedarim and yeshivas.
I think a correction is needed. I was not taught in cheder that Gemoro or that Rashi, and I doubt that Neville or Shmei were either. We were, however, taught how to approach and learn a piece of Gemoro and Rashi, and based on that we came to the conclusion that Rashi holds that Yaakov is literally alive.
philosopher, I’m not going to reiterate for the who-knows-what-number time. So to make it really short, your arguments are wrong and you DO NOT know how to learn a Rashi.
Take it of (more likely) leave it. They way you interpret the way you want to, because of your wokish reasons – as I pointed out in my earlier post – are bordering on apikorsus and megaleh panim shelo kehalacha.
I don’t intend to reply to your posts about me/Neville being a bully, or any other repeat misinterpretations of yours (although I may not always be able to resist the temptation!), but I’m still here to discuss other areas of discussion on this thread.
philosopher: your ridiculous assumptions that i have to accept your arguments because you are men and I’m a woman. That is absolutely preposterous.
Nope. Not at all preposterous. A woman, as well as anyone who has not been through cheder and yeshivah, should not argue about gemoro, Rishonim and Acharonim, with me, Neville or anyone else who is a shomer Torah uMitzvos (which I assume you are too) and has been through cheder and yeshivah and who continues learning to some degree consistently.
You seem to continue taking it as an insult, but it’s not. Just as when the gemoro says that המלמד בתו תורה כאילו מלמדה תפלות is not an insult to women, and בינה יתירה ניתנה לאשה is not an insult to men. They are statements of Chazal who knew the depths of people’s psyches and knew that there are MAJOR intellectual and emotional differences between men and women.
philosopher to Neville: nor does anyone have a right to argue pshat differently than what he, Neville, was taught in cheder…unbelievable. He’s a total bully, which as I mentioned earlier, is a result of low self esteem.
You, philosopher, have no right to decide how to learn pshat in Rashi since you did not go through the cheder-yeshivah experience. And you certainly have no right to argue with the Or Hachayim or the Rif on the Ein Yaakov. But that’s ok, you and your unmentionable colleague – and he also did not have a cheder-yeshivah upbringing – know better because you have decided to misinterpret Rashi to suit your wokish understandings (e.g. Yaakov can’t be alive in a grave because then he would be suffering).
I reiterate, it’s not your of his fault that you/he didn’t go through the cheder-yeshivah experience, but it’s also not my fault that I’m not a brain surgeon, yet it would be totally ridiculous for me to attempt brain surgery because “it’s not my fault”. You and him (If qwerty is indeed merely a him. Who knows what he has decided to be? Perhaps he has decided to be His Holiness.) should not argue with those who have had years of experience learning from melamdim who knew how to learn and knew how to teach. It doesn’t make us better than you. It makes us more knowledgeable in this field.
And you calling Neville a bully reminds me once again about the pot and the kettle.
philosophere, unlike qwerty’s posts, which I do not even read, I do read yours, but I just don’t have the patience to keep on repeating where you go wrong and minunderstand. But I will point out a few things in short.
1. When I say that according to Rashi Yaakov Avinu is alive, I mean alive in a physical sense. You said – totally wrongly – that Rashi does not hold that. So you are definitely arguing that Yaakov Avinu is not alive.
2. Yes, you are a woman, and you should not be arguing with those of us who have been yeshivah-trained from a very very young age.philosopher: Neville, I feel bad for your family members… you enjoy squabling constantly with people who don’t agree with your opinions.
How does that saying about the pot calling the kettle go again?
yashardik, welcome to the fray. Just a word of warning, don’t ever say anything that could even be construed as agreeing to the most innocent statement made by a Lubavicher on this thread – even agreeing to the state of the weather – or you will cause vitriol to be poured on your head!
The question is: why equate the Lubavitcher Rebbe zt”l with these lofty individuals?
This is the essence of the matter.As I have written a number of times on other threads here, that is a minor part of the problem. It is not equating the LR to Yaakov Avinu and Moshe Rabbeinu, it is also twisting and deliberately distorting maamarei Chazal and Rishonim to suit their agenda. For example, in Sanhedrin 98b it says that Mashiach can be someone who died (which, again as I have illustrated numerous time, can ONLY be referring to Daniel Ish Chamudos) therefore it’s ok to say that the LR will be Mashiach.
Another example, the Rambam says that Mashiach יכוף – will coerce – all Yidden to keep the Torah, but that doesn’t actually mean coerce, it means convince/encourage, which is what the LR was doing.
to me, it is irrelevant whether Yaacov Ovenu was really alive or not
It’s true that it’s irrelevant to the original/main topic of this thread, but it is still important to weed out those who have the need to interpret meforshim to fit in with their own mindset, as that, in essence, is along the same lines as the aforementioned Lubavichers.
yankel berel: I expected a serious answer …
They only question in the post of yours that I addressed was whether there were two qwertys. As I have writting a number of time, I don’t read anything that qwerty writes, so I have no idea.
yankel berel: Is it true that there are 2 different Qwerty’s on this thread ?
I knew qwerty was out of his mind, but I didn’t realize he was schizophrenic!
Neville quoting someone – I can only guess who: “A bunch of crazy people,I hope all of you DIE right now,just DIE,.you see how Rebbe lubawitz will kill you.you dont have to stop,he will STOP you.”
How on earth does this type of stuff get through? Surely there are limits.
Lostspark: Who knew that QWERTY was at a higher level of kedusha than the Rebbe. He can drag the Rebbe lahavdil through the mud with his lashon hara but at soon as I have something to say it’s not posted.
I have no idea what you’re talking about as I haven’t read any of qwerty’s posts since, I think, before Rosh Hashono. I suggest you do the same, as my menuchas hanefesh has increased manifold since I have stopped having any connection with that looney.
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?
coffee addict: Once death doesn’t disqualify Dovid Hamelech it shouldn’t disqualify anyone else
But that’s the excuse the Lubavichers use to say that their rebbe can be Mashiach! “Once the gemoro says that Daniel can be Mashiach, any dead person can be Mashiach.” And it doesn’t follow. The Yerushalmi could easily be saying that if it’s someone who died, it was Dovid Hamelech. Furthermore, the Yerushalmi (and the Bavli for that matter) mentions someone WHO HAS DIED. Not someone who will have died by the time we learn the gemoro! So it can’t be talking about anyone who has died over the last 1500 years.
coffee addict: And btw the Gemara in yerushalmi says that moshiach can come from the dead outright
Can you cite a source please? I know that in mesehcta Berachos 2:4 it tells the story of a child assumed to be Mashiach who was taken by the wind, but not that he died.
It also says that “if Mashiach if from the dead, then his name is David”, but that may mean that it is/was David Hamelech, not that it can be any random dead person who was named David.
I’m not saying there aren’t other sources in Yerushalmi, I’m just requesting citations if there are.
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.
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.
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.
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, 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?
yankel berel: Not that they are modeh al ha’emet in their hearts.
They are too far gone for that.
But that their silence is proof that they do not have any good answers.I agree with the what you’re saying there, but that is not shtika kehoda’a. It’s shtika to cut your losses.
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!
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?
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: If he is physically alive in the full sense of that concept then both of those conditions would still apply and he would be suffering.
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.
“And don’t forget that she keeps on insisting that Rashi can’t be saying that he is alive because a later passuk says he died, and Rashi can’t be arguing with a passuk. This is all despite the fact that the Ramban explains that according to Rashi the sons mistakenly thought that he died, which philosopher keeps intentionally ignoring.”
I am not sure why she used that as a proof. Maybe she made a mistake. It happens to the best of us.
Is that the best you can come up with?! She has reiterated that stance, and ignored Neville’s and my replies re the Ramban resolving the issue, MANY times, and all you can say is that “she made a mistake”?! It indeed happens to the best of us, but in this she is not the best as 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 don’t think she is worth arguing with because she bases her “Torah” understanding on her own prejudices and misunderstanding.
yb, the klal of shtika kehoda’s doesn’t apply in cases when the person who remains quiet does so because he knows that he won’t be able to convince others of his view. So if a Lubavicher is quiet in the fact of criticism, it doesn’t mean he agrees with it.
yb, I doubt you’ll get them to ever acknowledge defeat.
Non Political, you came very late into the discussion. I’m not going to ask you to read everything we wrote before you came along, but you’re not knowing what philosopher said makes a big difference.
One of the things she said was that Yaakov Avinu can’t be alive because he would be suffering there, and why would Hashem make him suffer. She also argued that Rashi does not mean he is alive. There was lots of other stuff, but those two are what comes to mind at the moment. So we (and Neville) definitely argued.
And don’t forget that she keeps on insisting that Rashi can’t be saying that he is alive because a later passuk says he died, and Rashi can’t be arguing with a passuk. This is all despite the fact that the Ramban explains that according to Rashi the sons mistakenly thought that he died, which philosopher keeps intentionally ignoring.
As to your claim that none of the mefarshim say that all conditions of being alive apply to Yaakov Avinu, look again at the Or Hachayim who writes:
חי הוא אלא דורמיטא קראתו כישן ונרדם, which to me seems clear that he’s saying that Yaakov was fully alive (and breathing!) and in a sort of comatose state.The Rif also seems to be saying the same thing: כי נתבטלו כחות התנועה ויאסוף רגליו אל המטה ויגוע כאיש שנתעלף ומוטל כאבן שאין לו הופכין
Non Political, please explain how the following does not indicate a cavalier attitude to Rishonim.
Rashi – a Rishon – says that Yaakov Avinu did not die. That would seem to contradict the passuk that says that the Shevatim saw that Yaakov had died. The Ramban – another Rishon – notes this problem and resolves the issue by saying (clearly according to Rashi) that they thought that he had died, but they were mistaken. This is all explicit in the Ramban.
philosopher has written numerous times that Rashi cannot mean that Yaakov literally did not die, because the passuk says that the Shevatim saw that he had died.
It has been pointed out to her that the Ramban resolves this problem, but philosopher continues to ignore that and claim – numerous times – that Rashi could not possibly be contradicting a passuk.
Google defines “cavalier attitude” as “having an unconcerned or disdainful attitude about important matters”. If philosopher continues to ignore the resolution provided by the Ramban, she is displaying a cavalier attitude to Rishonim.
Non Political, as I have written in the past, I have no idea what it means to be alive after being buried. Perhaps Yaakov could see, hear and talk; perhaps he couldn’t. The gemoro in Sotah 13a tells how Yaakov Avinu opened his eyes and laughed or smiled. But that may have been a once off.
At any rate, I don’t know whether option 1 or option 2 of yours is what is meant by Rashi et al.
philosopher, nice of you not to deign to answer questions that ignorami such as myself and Neville ask. Well done. You’ve said your point that certain points are ridiculous, and we have to just accept that because you clearly know what you are talking about. After all, you say so yourself, period.
Well I don’t know about Neville, but I see virtually no logic at all in any of the arguments that you “checkmate” (is that copyright?) us with.
And Non Political, I definitely see philosopher having a cavalier attitude to Rishonim, starting with her writing countless times that Rishonim can’t argue with a passuk, and thus ‘proving’ that Yaakov Avinu died, despite it being pointed out to her countless times that the Ramban explains that according to Rashi the Shevatim believed that Yaakov had died even though he hadn’t.
Non Political, sorry, but I don’t recall you paraphrasing the Rif in English. But regardless, here is exactly what he wrote in the original Lashon Hakodesh, and it clearly says that Yaakov Avinu was alive (I would highlight the relevant section, but I suspect that since it is in Hebrew the direction may be reversed, and thus messed up. So instead I’ll just say that the most relevant part starts with the words ומה שנקבר ונספד and ends with כי כל עוד נפשו בו.)
אמר הכי אמר רבי יוחנן יעקב אבינו לא מת דהא לא כתיב מיתה ויגוע וימת כדכתיב באברהם ויצחק אלא ויגוע ויאסף לומר שכח הנפש נשאר בגופו של יעקב ולא נפרדה הנפש מעל הגוף ואף על פי שהוא אמר אנכי מת ואלהים פקוד יפקוד וגו’ לא ידע מה שיהיה וחשב שגם הוא ימות ותפרד הנפש ממנו כדרך כל הארץ והקש’ לו א”כ בכדי חנטו חנטייא שכיון שהנפש היתה דבוקה בגופו אין לחוש מרמה ותולעה כי הנפש משמרתו כמו שנפש החי משמר את בשרו שלא ירחוש וכן למה נספד ונקבר דהא עיקר הקבורה היא כדי שיתעכל הבשר אבל בהיות הנפש אדוקה עם הגוף אין שם עיכול בשר א”ל מקרא אני דורש הנני מושיעך מרחוק ואי לאו הקישא הוה אמינא דאע”פ שמת יעקב אמר הנני מושיעך מרחוק לפי שכשיש צער לישראל האבות מצטערים בקבר ובעת גאולתם יהיה תשועה מוצאת ליעקב אבל מהקישא דמקיש הוא לזרעו ילפינן דאף הוא בחיים כי כל עוד נפשו בו קשורה בגופו ומה שנקבר ונספד הוא כי נתבטלו כחות התנועה ויאסוף רגליו אל המטה ויגוע כאיש שנתעלף ומוטל כאבן שאין לו הופכין והם לא ידעו כי כל עוד נפשו בו ולכך חנטוהו וספדוהו ויקברו אותו מכ”מ בשעת הגאולה קרינן ביה הנני מושיעך מרחוק באחרית הימים לך תשועה מוצאת בגאולת בניך שהרי אתה חי בנפש ומה זרעו בחיים אף הוא בחיים
philosopher, I don’t enjoy arguing with you at all. In fact, it frustrates me no end. You keep on interpreting my (and others’) statements incorrectly, it seems unintentionally although I can’t be sure, and you also keep on ignoring sources that don’t suit you.
First, in relation to Yaakov Avinu, you write once again in no way do we HAVE to INTERPRET that Rashi is saying that Yaacov is physically alive and the pasuk said he died and no one can contradict a posuk in the Torah.
The Ramban tells us how according to Rashi the passuk is NOT contradictory even though Rashi holds that Yaakov Avinu did not die! How many times are you going to argue that Rashi can’t mean that Yaakov is alive because it contradicts a passuk. Again, am I meant to take your word for the way to learn, or will you give me permission to rely on the Ramban.
Furthermore, all other meforshim I’ve gone through say that he is alive in a spiritual sense.
The Or Hachayim, in explaining Rashi, says that Yaakov was buried while alive PHYSICALLY. So does the Rif on the Ein Yaakov. And again again, do I have to take your word, or can I rely on my reading and translating of those mefarshim?
Now re the Raavad:
Hashem cannot have had a guf if He existed before matter was created, period.
This makes no sense. Perhaps Hashem had a guf (no, I don’t believe He does/did, but I am addressing your assertion) and then created other matter.
He cannot have a guf if He has no form, period.
How do you know FROM PESUIM IN THE TORAH that He has no form? All I remember is the passuk saying that Bnei Yisrael did not see a form. Does it say EXPLICITLY IN THE TORAH that he has no form? Perhaps it does, but I can’t think offhand where. So please provide a source.
He cannot have a guf and exist forever, period.
Why? Your assertion has no basis other than your assertion, period.
He cannot have a guf and be in the upper worlds and lower worlds simultaneously, period.
Why? Again, you are basing your assertion on your assertion, period.
The Ravaad is not saying that we cannot conclude from the Torah that Hashem has no guf and not that there were great people who thought Hashem has a guf. What the Ravaad is actually saying, according to the Piaseczner Rebbe, Rabbi Shapira zt”l, was that while God is unquestionably incorporeal, if someone has a need to visualize some sort of image…
From what you’re saying, the Piasecner Rebbe – I’d like to see a source, as this is interesting – is explaining why the Raavad says that someone who believes that Hashem has a guf is not a min. He is not saying, according to what you have written, that the Raavad agrees with your statement that it is obvious from the pesukim that Hashem has no guf.
As I said, I’d like to see a source for what the Piasecner wrote, and for two reasons. One, because it is interesting. Two, because I have already seen that I cannot rely on your interpretations.
Thanks for the defense and explanation Neville.
Once again, in case Non Political is not stam being negative and really doesn’t understand, if the Raavad says that there were great people who understood from the pesukim that Hashem has a guf, then how can anyone – including philosopher – say that it’s dumb to say that Hashem has a guf?
That’s the point I was making – I thought I made it pretty clearly – and the point that Neville was defending.
Just to correct a typo in my earlier post, it should say לפי מה שראו במקראות.
philosopher, do you deliberately misunderstand what some of us say?
1. No one on this thread has claimed to believe that Hashem has a guf. As far as I can tell, we ALL believe that he doesn’t.
2. The Raavad writes that someone who does believe he has a guf cannot be called a min, because people whom he terms “greater than the Rambam” believed that Hashem has a guf, and they based that belief “לפי מה שראו במקרות” – “from what they saw in the pesukim”.
3. It therefore follows that the Raavad holds that it is not 100% obvious from the pesukim that Hashem does not have a guf. If he held otherwise he could not have written that those people who were greater than the Rambam saw it from the pesukim.
4. You claim that it is 100% obvious from the Torah that Hashem has no guf.
5. You are thus arguing with the Raavad about what can be undrestood from the pesukim.
6. So it’s you against the Raavad. Who would you like me to believe?
Non Political: Actually showed in my posts above that not a single Mefaresh under discussion understands Rashi to be saying that Yaacov is physically / literally alive the way you, ARso, and Menachem Shemei seem to want to understand Rashi.
The Or Hachayim, although not a classical mefaresh of Rashi, clearly says that according to Rashi, Yaakov is physically alive. So does the Rif on Ein Yaakov. Others may not, but that doesn’t mean that there is “not a single” one who says that Rashi holds that.
Non Political, you said that my two points don’t shtime because on the one hand I wrote that according to Rashi, Yaakov Avinu is alive physically, and then I wrote that being a finite human being (without Ruach Hakodesh) I can’t understand how someone can be alive in that state.
I believe the two don’t contradict. According to Rashi, Yaakov Avinu is alive, but because he is buried, and without oxygen or food, I don’t understand how it works. Just because I don’t understand how it works it doesn’t mean that I can’t accept that it is true (according to Rashi).
I also believe that Hashem created the world ex nihilo, but being a finite human being I don’t understand how that works. I still believe it, however.
Hope that makes my stance clearer and non-contradictory.
philosopher: I said that being physically alive in a kever for 3,000 years is the worst punishment you can give someone… Can you imagine being physically alive in you kever forever?
You’re making the wild assumption that for Yaakov Avinu to be alive in his kever would be ‘unpleasant’. I, on the other hand, assume that if Yaakov Avinu is alive in his kever, he does not find it unpleasant at all. If Hashem wants him to be alive why would Hashem not make it pleasant for him? Yonah, on the other hand, as you wrote, was being punished, so Hashem indeed made it unpleasant for him.
philosopher to me: You are just arguing for the sake of arguing with me. Why are you doing that?
Because it annoys me the way someone who claims to fight for the purity of Torah keeps on rejecting Rishonim who don’t fit in with her desired belief.
The Ramban clearly says that Hashem does not have a guf. The Raavad does not argue with that, but he DOES say that there were people who he refers to as better and greater than the Ramban who (mis)understood pesukim to indicate that Hashem does have a guf.
So if you are interested in the purity of Torah – which includes the words of Rishonim kemal’achim – then you can’t say point blank that it’s obvious from the pesukim that Hashem has no guf, because the Raavad says that it is not obvious from the pesukim! I don’t care what supposed proofs you have – you just can’t say that something the Raavad claims is obviously incorrect.
And you do the same with the Rashi. You want to ‘believe’ that no Rishon says that Yaakov Avinu was buried alive, so you twist and turn to say that Rashi doesn’t say it based on an alleged contradiction of a passuk which the Ramban, and other meforshim, clearly explain in a way which does not contradict the Rashi.
Finally, in answer to why I am arguing with you about Torah sheb’al peh when I claim that women should not be dealing with Torah sheb’al peh: I’m not discussing Torah sheb’al peh with you as your claims are AGAINST Torah sheb’al peh as explained by the meforshim! Rather, I’m arguing with you about the way you misunderstand the concept of Torah sheb’al peh.
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?!
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.
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.
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!
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: 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!
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.
Menachem: Someone has been baselessly accusing Arso of terrible things for a while now, and this individual is starting to reveal his true colors, which are even darker than we initially thought.
I am increasingly surprised at the recent absolute lack of moderation on this platform, which has now descended from maniacal rhetoric to inyonim of hepech hatznius, r”l.I can only assume it’s qwerty you’re referring to, as I read all the posts other than his. The guy’s is completely out of his mind, and I don’t think it’s worth dealing with him. However, your point about the mods is very relevant. What’s happened to them?
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 ונרדם