ARSo

Neville, once again you made a very valid point at the end of your last post, and you made me very jealous!

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.

I have stopped reading qwerty altogether, as I’m scared I’ll laugh so hard I won’t be able to stop. As to philosopher, I currently glance at what she’s saying, but it seems I’ll soon stop that.

Kudos to Neville and Lostspark for their posts, and especially for their cutting retorts. Although I have to disagree with Neville on one thing he wrote. To say that philosopher is entiteld to her view is, I believe, untrue. A Yid is not entitled to misread a Rashi and to ignore Rishonim who explain it. That’s what she continues to do, and that, IMHO is unfortunately apikorsus.

In the meantime… כתיבה וחתימה טובה to all!

1. It’s a relief having come to the realization that ignoring qwerty is the best thing. Saves me time and energy, and frustration that there are such ingorant and apikorsishe looneys who consider themselves clever and knowledgable. The only thing I regret is not having thought of it earlier.

2. Philosopher, I’m coming to the conclusion that it’s not worth arguing with you. BH you are not on the level of the rabid qwerty, but you ignore misinterpret and conclude things that are illogical. Note: I am not the only one who has said that. (Of course, anyone who takes my side in anything at all is passeled by the looney.)

The Ramban was quoted to show how HE understood Rashi, when you and others said that Rashi could not be taken seriously. Clearly the Ramban takes Rashi seriously enough to resolve the issue that you brought up (and that you won’t let go of). That’s the point that Shmei made originally.

And I think you got yankel berel’s point wrong. I understood him to be saying that you quoting what the Ramban himself holds does not have any bearing on what Rashi holds, and that when dealing with Rashi the Ramban clearly says that Rashi holds that Yaakov Avinu is alive. In other words, you’re quoting of the latter part of the Ramban did nothing to support your view.

Maybe I’m wrong about yankel berel’s intention. yankel berel can you please tell us whether I am right or whether philosopher is?

philosopher, you are out of your depth by many many fathoms.

What I and Shmei said:

1. Rashi says that Yaakov Avinu did not die. (I don’t understand it, but there are lots of statements of Chazal and Rishonim that I don’t understand. That doesn’t change the fact.)
2. The Or Hachayim, the Rif on Ein Yaakov and others hold that Yaakov Avinu did not die. (You’re ranting and raving – have you been infected by a fellow conspiracy theorist? – that you have not seen that Rif is so immature. It’s there and everyone who has seen it acknowledges it. From what I understand you seem to be claiming that Shmei intentionally cited both the Rif (aka the Alfas) and the Rif on Ein Yaakov as two citations. I don’t recall him doing that. Maybe he did. I doubt it. But even if he did, it’s not relevant to what Rashi says.)
3. The Ramban was ALWAYS quoted in this thread to prove NOT WHAT HE HIMSELF HELD but what Rashi held. And he explains and resolves an apparent problem – the one you asked – in Rashi. So the Ramban agrees that Rashi holds that Yaakov Avinu did not die. That’s why Shmei quoted the Ramban. You then went and quoted what the Ramban himself holds, which is fine BUT NOT RELEVANT TO OUR DISCUSSION ABOUT RASHI’S VIEW. Yankel berel wrote that to you.

You have accused me and I have accused you, as follows.
You have accused me of saying that I personally believe that Yaakov Avinu is alive. I have challenged you to show us where I said that, and you couldn’t be bothered combing through the posts again. Great way to avoid admitting a mistake. Something worthy of your cohort too.
I have accused you of not knowing how to learn gemoro and meforshim and of spouting apikorsus (possibly without realizing). Others have backed me up on both points. They have also backed me up on how ridiculous your statements are in light of the above-qouted meforshim.

It’s time you took a break and realized that you are talking against Torah sheb’al peh, which, to put it mildly, is not very good!

philosopher, you keep lambasting Shmei because he is, in your words, trying to prove the authenticity of his Avoda Zara. Either he is or he isn’t, but you know very well that I am most definitely not trying to prove anything from Rashi in connection to Lubavich. So why on earth do you keep taking that tack, and not addressing the issue?

Rashi says something. You had a question on it. It must be a good question because the Ramban asks and answers the question that you asked. But if you keep on harping about that question you are clearly ignoring the Ramban. Why?

Not to mention that there is the Or Hachayim and the Rif on the Ein Yaakov. And, as I have mentioned, the Maharsha, while he definitely disagrees with Rashi, nonetheless says that Rashi says it and means it. You keep ignoring those gedolei olam, and then you take offence when I, and others, say you are spouting apikorsus!

And you have still not have not been able to cite one post of mine or of Shmei’s where we say that WE believe that Yaakov Avinu is alive. What I DO believe is that Rashi says it.

No, instead you resort to juvenile statements like, “I’m still waiting for you to tell me which Rabbi you asked.” How juvenile. I told you I wasn’t going to ask anyone as the above mentioned meforshim are good enough for me. Yet you REFUSE to deal with the Ramban.

Happy new year, you sound partially xian, partially Karaite and partially kook.

100% of Gemoro – not 80% as you wrote – is Torah.

First, thanks Neville and coffee addict for reiterating what both Menachem and I have been trying to say. Maybe they’ll listen to you. On the other hand, maybe you’ll be found guilty by association and be called some interesting juvenile epithets.

Which leads me to the following.

I suspect that qwerty is mentally unbalanced, and depite my disgust and distaste for him, I don’t want to be the one who causes him to go over the edge and do who-knows-what. Therefore, I have decided that until he stops posting inflammatory stuff I will totally ignore all his posts.

Of course, he will now say that he has checkmated me (I wonder if he’s ever even seen a chessboard…) and that that is why I am ignoring him. But – I really hope he can understand something as simple as this; I have my doubts – if qwerty desists from his infantile rabid style, I will bli neder deal with his posts. If he continues to be rabid, even if it is not me he is attacking, I will pretend he does not exist. I don’t want to be the one straw that breaks his mental state and leads him to harm himself or others chas veShalom.

As to philosopher, please read what Neville wrote to you. לא בחנם הלך הזרזיר אצל העורב

First, Neville my apologies for not compllimenting you for writing what you did in the original post. It was clear and to the point.

Second, as it seems that this thread is devolving into a parallel thread to the original Chabad Media one, I think that although I will possibly read both, I intend to reply to anything that is related to the other thread as well only there. It’s just too much effort writing more or less the same thing twice.

So if you’re interested in what I have to say, look over there. Unless they close down that thread, then I may return here.

yankel berel to me: You write that someone who argues on rishonim and meforshim about pshat in gmara is apikorsus.
Not necessarily so.

I thought I was being clear, but perhaps I wasn’t, so let me try now.

If you argue on a Rishon or one of very early and well-accepted Acharonim based on the fact that other people of equal stature to them argue, then there is nothing wrong, as long as you agree that אלו ואלו דברי אלקים חיים.

If, however, you reject a view of someone of that stature because it makes no sense to your small brain, then you are an apikorus.

Do you agree with that?

At any rate, here we are dealing with a third type of person: someone who rejects the existence of a view because they reject that view. That is, Rashi did not say it because it doesn’t make sense. If someone would make a shevua of that type it would be a shevuas shav because clearly Rashi does say it!

qwerty, keep piling on the insults. They work in my favor and against you. Although, you probably won’t be punished for your ravings because you seem to be a lunatic.

philosopher, qwerty and anyone else interested: Show me one post where I said that Yaakov Avinu is alive. I said that Rashi et al said it, and that one is not allowed to reject Rashi based on one’s logic.

Then, once you have given up trying to find me saying that Yaakov Avinu is alive, show me one post where I have disagreed with the Maharsha. Even the Maharsha himself says that Rashi holds that Yaakov Avinu is alive (!) but he argues with Rashi. He is allowed to argue with Rashi because he was much closer to him chronologically (sorry qwerty, you probaby don’t know what that word means because it contains the word ‘logic’ which you cannot comprehend) and he was a tzaddik gamur who wrote with Ruach Hakodesh. We, on the other hand, can’t reject Rashi or the Maharsha, and we have to resort to the rules of שבעים פנים לתורה and אלו ואלו דברי אלקים חיים. The fact that none of us can understand what is meant by Yaakov Avinu being alive must not bring us to say that it can’t be literal if Rashi says it is.

No, philosopher, he wants to say what I’ve been saying a long time. qwerty is talking garbage and arguing from a standpoint that is against that of lomdei Torah for centuries. All his invective is pointless if he doesn’t know how a 15 year-old yeshivah bochur learns, and it’s clear that he doesn’t.

As to you having listened to many shiurim on Yaakov Avinu lo meis, and none having said that he is alive… so what? Rashi says it, the Rif on Ein Yaakov says it, the Or Hachayim says it, the Ramban defends it against your questions from pesukim – isn’t that enough for you?

If any of your aforementioned talmidei chachomim said that Rashi is wrong (c”v) I would call them apikorsim, or at the very least huge am haratzim, but I am 100% sure they did NOT say that. You have to realize that aggadata is a prime source for derashos and shmuessen which are designed to attract and uplift an audience. Citing other meforshim who explain the statement in a way which is more suitable for a derashah is par for the course, and I would do the same if I was giving a non-lomdish talk. Citing Rashi et al doesn’t give you much opening for a derashah. That doesn’t mean chas veShalom that they reject Rashi! Ask them.

There’s another point here which is very very important. Were you to reject Rashi on the basis that the Maharsha or some other well-accepted meforash does, you would be wrong in doing so because אלו ואלו דברי אלקים חיים, but it would be little more than a mistake. If you reject Rashi because in your opinion what he says doesn’t make sense (c”v), which is what you have implied by incessantly referring to the impossibility of him breating etc underground, then you are rejecting him based on YOUR comprehension. That is unacceptable in Torah learning, and close, if not equal, to apikorsus.

qwerty: To Lostspark

It takes a retard to know one. At least I’m successful.

Nope. It doesn’t take a retard to know one. But it certainly takes a retard to make such a juvenile statement.

And your defintion of success is clearly not a Jewish one. An apikorus, by definition, is a failure.

Lostspark: A narcissistic retard dentist and a woman debate a Lubavitcher and a Litvisher over a Torah subject they can’t comprehend.

Hey! Are you referring to me? I am a card-carrying member of a chassidic group, as I have mentioned in other threads.

Also, I can’t believe that you-know-who is really a dentist. Nor do I believe that he learns for hours upon hours each day and that he writes regularly for the JP. From his writing I get the feeling that he around 15 years-old and that he can’t control himself.

Yankel berel: a] As far as I remember RASHI says ‘kegon’ Daniel. Not that Daniel is the only possibility if its min hameitim . There are other possibilities. So j would NOT be excluded according to that pshat of RASHI.

The gemoro itself says kegon Daniel, and Rashi says that that either means that if Mashiach was someone who has died it WAS Daniel (and Rashi adds that the word kegon is lav davka), or that Mashiach will be someone like Daniel. From Rashi, therefore, there is no wiggle room to say that it can be someone else who has died. yoshke would therefore definitely be excluded according to Rashi.

b] I am not ‘concerned’ about RAMBAN excluding j [because of his death], because he is contradicting RASHI. He contradicts RASHI many times.

According to what I have explained above, does he still contradict him here?

Now , let’s ask you . If the plastic and the forged one [or his followers for that matter] are able claim that a so called second coming will clear up all the left over mess, then we are back to square one.
Any failed , forged or plastic one , will say – I am still the right one . Just wait until I reappear.
.
Think about this.

Call me stupid (this is an opening for qwerty to make his usual ‘pithy’ comments) but I don’t understand what you are trying to prove with the above.

yankel berel, your suggestion that the Ramban differentiates between someone who has started the process and someone who has not is something you invented because you were ‘concerned’ how the Ramban got away with his refutation when, according to Rashi, Daniel could be Mashiach despite having died. But if you look at the gemoro you’ll see that it has nothing to do with Rashi as it is the gemoro itself that says that Daniel may be Mashiach.

If anything, Rashi makes a xian view even less acceptable, because he says either Mashiach is someone who is alive and similar to Daniel, or it was Daniel. It is only by ignoring Rashi that someone can wrongly extrapolate and say that someone else who has died is Mashiach.

So why come up with a differentiation based on conjecture and for which you have no source?

Furthermore, I would venture to suggest that if anything you have it back-to-front. Wouldn’t you agree that it is more likely for someone who has started to process to be an acceptable candidate after death than someone who has not started the process? If it has to be the latter, then why yoshke and not someone else?

And that would make the Rambam even more simple to understand. That is, even though Bar Koziba, whom Rabi Akiva supported and claimed that he was Mashiach, was disqualified when he died, how much more so someone who did not ‘start the process’.

As to your claim that by accepting petitions and the like the LR is believed by Lubavichers to have ‘started the process’, since when is accepting petitions a criterion? It certainly has no source in the Rambam. At any rate, what Lubavicher do or do not consider in regards to their rebbe is irrelevant to us.

Sorry yankel berel, but after reading your posts TWICE I still don’t understand how you claim to prove that, based on Rashi in Sanhedrin, there is a difference between someone whom we disqualify because he “started the process” before he died, and someone whom we don’t disqualify because he died before starting the process.

According to Rashi in Sanhedrin – and we don’t know for sure that the Ramban had that Rashi, but let’s assume he did – the gemoro’s mention of Daniel can mean either one of two things:
1. If Mashiach was someone who has died, it WAS Daniel. No one else.
2. Mashiach will have the same type of tzidkus/traits that Daniel had, but it will not be Daniel because Daniel has died,

If the disputant of the Ramban believed in Rashi, then there is nothing further to discuss, as yoshke is both dead and he is not lehavdil Daniel.

If the disputant did not believe in Rashi, and he misinterpreted the gemoro by saying that the gemoro allows Mashiach to come from the dead, then what difference does it make if the dead person in question has started the process of geulah or not? The gemoro makes no mention of it. So why would the Ramban base any part of his argument on that. His argument, according to what you say, is that yoshke did not fit the criteria of Mashiach, period. Having started, or not having started, the process is irrelevant to the discussion.

Btw your differentiation between someone who has started the process and someone who has not works against you when it comes to the LR’s ‘candidacy’. He did not start the process – he may have wanted to, but he didn’t – and therefore according to your sevara – not mine! – he is not disqualified!

Philosopher: Arso, as usual, you misunderstood. Qwerty said he’s out of the thread. I never said I’m leaving.

True. I misunderstood.

I said I’m not going to argue about Yaacov lo mes anymore. Why should I waste my time with people who want to believe that Yaacov Avinue is physically alive, that his body is breathing while buried under the ground, that he’s eating and his bodily functions are working while at the same time being his body is in his kever not being able to move?

Not one person on this thread, and not one of the meforshim I have seen, say that Yaakov Avinu is breathing, eating, or that his bodily functions are working. You take statements of Rashi and meforshim, twist them to reach your own conclusion, and then make fun of what you have concluded!

Yaakov Avinu being alive after embalmment and burial is clearly miraculous, and as far as miracles are concerned it’s not a greater miracle for him to be alive without breathing etc than it is for him to be alive at all.

I will not continue arguing with people who deny what it says outright in the Chumash that the brothers of Yosef saw their father DIED, and other pesukim that openly show that Yaacov died.

So the fact that meforshim of earlier times discuss this problem, and answer it (!), means nothing to you?! Or are you going to ignore me for making that point, because you “will not continue” (despite feeling justified in denigrating those of us who understand what Rashi et al say, even though you wrote that you will not continue arguing).

And my challenge to you is one of the main challenges to qwerty that went unaddressed:
Does Artscroll say explicitly that according to Rashi, Yaakov Avinu did not die? Yes or no, please? And if yes, are they also as stupid and unlearned as Shmei and myself?

They don’t understand how to understand pesukim, Chazal and meforshim which only SEEM on the surface to contradict the pesukim that say that Yaacov died, but if learnt correctly, which these people obviously can’t or don’t want to

I take it you include in “these people” not only those on the thread, but also those meforshim, including the Ramban (Berishis 49:33), who answer your question.

I reiterate what I have said in the past, and although you will take it as an insult I mean it as a limud zechus. Women should not be involved in these discussions because they do not understand properly how learning Torah sheb’al peh works. (The same is true of men who do not have a yeshivah-education background.) Anyone who can stick to their question and ignore a Ramban who deals with it explicitly, hasn’t got a clue!

The fact is that you people choose to ignore meferishe pesukim

While you only ignore a Ramban who deals with the befeirushe pesukim…

because you want to use that as a springboard to then say the Lubavitche rebbe is alive. That is the point of you all arguing that Yaacov is physically alive.

And you say this to me?! How ridiculous! I challenge you to find anyone more adamant than me in arguing against the LR being Mashiach in a number of threads.

For those wondering what the message in Vietnamese says, here is the translation:

Thanh Trung Mobile is a reputable electronic device repair system, established in 2006 in Ho Chi Minh City. This center specializes in providing repair services for a variety of devices from phones, tablets, to smart watches. With over 16 years of experience, Thanh Trung Mobile is proud of its team of professional and dedicated technicians, along with the use of genuine components and modern equipment to ensure service quality. Customers can find screen replacement, battery replacement, hardware repair, and many other utilities at Thanh Trung Mobile.

Perhaps he has, for some reason, seen a market to supply thousands of pagers and walkie-talkies!

So qwerty has taken the ‘high moral ground’ and is leaving us.

How noble of him… not to admit anything at all. I don’t know what others are waiting for, but I’m waiting for…

1. An admission that Artscroll says that Rashi holds that Yaakov Avinu did not die. qwerty committed to admitting that once he saw the Artscroll. Does that mean that he will never open an Artscroll again in case he sees something?

2. A statement that he explicitly asked Rabbi Plutchok, and the latter agreed, that the LR got his (alleged) theory of his master-race from H yemach shemo.

3. Confirmation from his Rabbis that Rashi does NOT say that Yaakov Avinu did not die.

I think there are more, but I can’t think of them offhand, and if he has takke left us I’m not interested in searching.

So if he reads this – and I have the feeling he will – do the honest thing and admit your mistakes instead of slinking off with your tail between your legs while convincing yourself that you are morally superior.

yankel berel, your post on the history and the mood of the times of the Ramban’s debate (Btw I apologise for saying it was the King of Seville. I don’t know where I got Seville from.) is very nice, but your conclusion that WE MUST SAY that Daniel is different to the others because he didn’t start the process – something which the Ramban does not mention at all – is far-fetched and certainly cannot be proven to the extent that you take it as fact.

qwerty: And the simplest answer is that When Rashi said that Yaakov is alive he meant alive as per Maharsha and/or Ohr Hachaim, that is not literally alive.

Funny that Artscroll – whom you are so careful not to deal with here – didn’t think of the simplest answer, because Artscroll says that the Maharsha ARGUES with Rashi. How stupid of Artscroll.

And lets chalk up another win to Magnus-Carlsen-qwerty, world chess champion when playing with his own board and his own rules. Rules, by the way, that fly in the face of Torah. Oh, sorry. No they don’t. He has the word of his Rabbis that whatever he says is gospel (after all, he prays with idolaters).

Surely youRashi wasn’t following the Pshat of a lying weasel like Shmei who needs to believe that Yaakov is alive to convince dummies like ARSo that the Rebbe is still alive.

Well clearly he hasn’t convinced me, has he? SI’m probably too dumb even to be convinced. And, unlike you, B”H too dumb to write apikorsus.

Why doesn’t ArSo see what’s obvious to all? Because he’s insanely jealous of me and can’t deal with the thought that I beat him Nebach.

Did one of your alleged Rabbis tell you that? If yes, it must be true.

Yankel berel, sorry, but your “perforces” don’t work. Rashi himself has two explanations re Daniel, and he himself does not say which he prefers. The Ramban may very well have held of the one that says that Mashiach will be similar to Daniel. He had no reason to worry that the King of Seville would argue based on the other pshat.

Also, you say that the Ramban always tells us when he disagrees with Rashi. Is that true? Have you researched all of Shas to come up with that statement? Furthermore, does your “rule” apply in aggadata?

Qwerty: You scored a direct hit with your two questions. Great job .ARSo the Shmei puppet can’t answer either question so he says, We don’t die from a question..” When we add my two questions is why do Maharsha and Ohr Hachaim not accept Rashi’s statement literally. So now there are 4 powerful challenges to the ridiculous notion that Yaakov is still

Unfortunately you are not only stupid but you are an apikorus, and an ignorant one at that.

1. My answer was clearly a humorous one, as can be seen by the smiley at the end.
2. Your questions are stupid and worthless because you deny that Rashi et al hold that Yaakov Avinu never died, all because you want to prove that the LR can’t be Mashiach. Hey. I’ve been saying for ages that the LR can’t be Mashiach and that he is not alive, but I am still normal and honest enough to say that Rashi et al hold that Yaakov Avinu is alive. So climb down from your stupid dead tree, and accept that Rashi et al hold that.
3. The Maharsha disagrees with Rashi, but he does NOT say that Rashi does not hold that. So you bringing a “proof” from the Maharsha (and the Or Hachayim for which I am still waiting for a source) is ridiculous. You may as well say that Shmei agrees with everything you say because you disagree with him.

When will you learn not to avoid issues you don’t like and to stop with your ridiculous and infantile “checkmates”? You probably can’t even play chess.

Anyone who disagrees with you about Rashi – and not “allowing” him to say that Yaakov Avinu is still alive is clearly an apikorus and an am ha’aretz – is a traitor, a puppet and whatever other silly epithet you can think of. I know you didn’t learn gemoro in school, but it seems to me that you didn’t learn – or at least failed dismally at – clear thinking.

qwerty, I assume to me: BA’s jealousy of my superiority…

You are possibly more deluded than the Lubaviches who say their rebbe is alive!