Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
qwerty: ARSo was insinuating that philosopher was Chayav Misah for learning Gemara.
Another brazen lie! (You tend to do that, following the premise that a big lie will be believed. I wonder which mass murdered you got that from…)
Show where I insinuated that or tell us all publicly that you were wrong. That’s a challenge, and if you don’t face up to it you should never play chess again!
coffee addict has two questions:
We say תורה צוה לנו משה מורשה קהילת יעקב the word מורשה (according what I heard at least) is that it means inheritance (and because we say קהילת יעקב it’s understood from יעקב) how can an alive person give over an inheritance, inheritance is only done after death?
and
Doesn’t it say Hashem doesn’t affix His name to a person while he’s alive? (Hashem said to Moshe “אלקי אביך” and the midrash says that’s how Moshe knew he passed away) yet Hashem says אלקי יעקב
Perhaps that’s where the Yiddish expression פון א קשיא שטארבט מען נישט – “one doesn’t die from a question” – comes from. Just because you have two problems with the statement יעקב אבינו לא מת it doesn’t mean that he died! 🙂
qwerty: To Benedict ARSo
Do you still want to be on Shmei’s team?
You are certainly one big weirdo! I am on “Shmei’s team” only insofar as he is quoting Rashi correctly. He definitely is – as, apparently Artscroll does – and you are not. Your hatred of Lubavich is making you make apikorsishe statements about Rashi and Chazal, R”l, and that I can’t abide by.
And let me absolutely clear, if Rabbi Plutchok (about whom I know nothing and assume that he is a sound person) says that the LR learned from H yemach shemo the idea of a master race, then he is a low-life. And I would say that if he said it about any Jew who is not openly pro-Nazi.
Also, if he said that Rashi is incorrect, and one may not understand יעקב אבינו לא מת literally, then is he should not be a Rabbi!
BUT I don’t believe he would say or agree to either of those two statements, and all we have to “assume” that he would is you saying that he agrees with everything you say. So I’ll have to call you, at best, misguided, or a liar… or more likely a looney.
qwerty: To Benedict ARSo. I’m waiting for an answer or to see how you try to squirm out of the question.
I don’t see a question.
On the other hand, there are a number of questions that I have asked you that you have not answered. For example, how to you justify praying with idolaters? And, where did Rabi Akiva say that associating with (or perhaps it was supporting) an idolater makes one like an idolater?
And there are others…
qwerty: I’ve told you that everything I say I either heard from Rabbi Plutchok or I checked it’s veracity with him.
So either he said that the LR got his idea for the master race from H yemach shemo, or you have checked it with him and he agrees with it. Is that correct?
Yes or no pretty please.
qwerty I don’t take your posts seriously at all because of what you have said and the fact that you refuse to ask your alleged Rabbis whether it is ok.
Furthermore, you have still not supplied a source for your statement that Rabi Akiva said whoever sides (or perhaps supports, I don’t remember exactly) an idolater is an idolater. I told you that I am not saying that there is no source, but I don’t know of one which is why I asked for one.
Finally, you continue to pray with idolaters, which BY YOUR DEFINITION makes you an idolater. So why should I take you seriously.
And btw I think you’re a sad case that you have to keep on telling us how so many different Rabbis like you.
As to philosopher, sorry, you have no idea how to learn, but despite that you won’t stop writing stuff that is close to, if not outright, apikorsus. You and qwerty refuse to deal with the fact that the Rif, Artscroll and others all say CLEARLY that Rashi holds that Yaakov Avinu is alive. I don’t give a hoot how many wonderful shiurim you have heard on the topic, until you admit that there are choshuve opinions who say that according to Rashi, Yaakov Avinu is still alive, you are learning on the level of someone who has never opened a gemoro.
For clarification, I’m sure that if the discussion was Menachem’s belief in the LR and Mashiach, I would disagree with everything he wrote. But Menachem – and I don’t care what his hidden agenda is – is arguing about the way you, qwerty and philosopher, misinterpret Chazal, Rishonim and Acharonim based on your am haaratzus, and in that I am fully in agreement with him.
Philosopher, have you asked any talmid (yes, you even get that wrong, as it’s not talmud, which you have written countless times) chochom whether you can prove that Rashi CANNOT be taken literally because there is a possuk that contradicts him? Try it, explain your issue here, and see if he agrees. Make sure also to show him the Rif on Ein Yaakov and the Artscroll footnote. And then let us know the answer.
Your post ‘rebutting’ Shmei is so weird, because you have now labeled yourself the defender of the faith by not knowing how to learn and understand Chazal.
Tell me, what does the passuk והיה הבכור אשר תלד יקום על שם אחיו המת mean LITERALLY, and what do Chazal say it means? How can Chazal ‘misinterpret’ c”v a possuk? (I know it’s not a perfect example, but it’s enough for someone who thinks they know how to learn Torah sheb’al peh but really don’t.)
qwerty, I have absolutely no intention of calling anyone. I have challenged you numerous times and you ignore my challenges.
So, until you write that you have directly asked Rabbi Plutchok
1. Whether it is ok to say that the LR got his “master race” idea from H yemach shemo, and
2. Whether it is UNEQUIVOCALLY WRONG for anyone to say that Rashi (and others) explain יעקב אבינו לא מת literally,I will not take anything you say seriously, as by your admission you daven with idolaters, and as far as I understand you are an apikorus. You also lie incessantly, as you now claimed that I called philosopher a shiksa! I will therefore only skim what you write, if at all.
Note, we are not at all arguing about the impossibility of the LR being Mashiach. That is not the issue here at all. He can’t be. But you feel the need to misinterpret Rashi et al to do so, while I don’t.
And as to philosopher’s posts re Rashi. Sorry, but you are so off the Torah mark that you are not worth arguing with. Once again, if a man with a yeshivah background would cite pesukim to reject Rashi’s pshat, he would be either a gross am haaretz or an apikorus. You, on the other hand, are merely dabbling in areas for which you are not qualified.
There are many areas where I am not qualified, and I avoid – possibly unsuccessfully at times – to avoid dabbling in them. Gemoro, Rishonim and how to deal with questions is not your area, and I am advising you to stop your incessant claims which fly in the face of the Torah.
philosopher: Indeed, ambiguous verses are part of Tanach too. All these thousands of years klal Yiroel knew how to study Torah. But some groups and individuals try to use Torah to give legitimacy to their idolatrous ideology so they’ll ignore when the posuk or chazal say things clearly and misinterpret things that seem ambiguous to “prove” their claims even though their beliefs clearly contradicts the Torah. It is easy to misinterpret things when its taken out of context. Within context it cannot be misinterpreted. Because, for example, when we read the entire parshas vayechi, how Yaacov took his last breath, the brothers of Yosef saw that their father died” etc. you know when the Rashi says Yaacov lo mes that it could mean many things but not that Yaacov is physically alive
With all due respect, you have just demonstrated why women – and anyone with a non-yeshivah background – should not be discussing Torah, as what you wrote is 100% incorrect and possibly מגלה פנים בתורה שלא כהלכה!
Anyone who for whatever reason they have, even because they ‘found’ a possuk that apparently contradicts Rashi, says that Rashi does not explain יעקב אבינו לא מת literally, is either an am haaretz, an apikorus or mentally deranged Rachmono litzlan from all of those.
Lostspark: Why feed into the ego of this overpaid tooth shiner that can’t understand Torah at the level of a child?
I object! How do you know that he is overpaid?
I hope that all of QWERTYs children become Lubavitchers, and they laugh about their fathers mesorah.
I object to both parts of the sentence:
1. I hope they don’t become Lubavichers,
2. I hope they totally reject their father’s mesorah (mesorah?! you mean meshigassen!) but have pity on him and don’t laugh.yankel berel, perhaps I wasn’t clear enough earlier.
You wroteDaniel never started. Therefore, he never failed. And therefore, he could still [at least according to one pshat in sanhedrin] be a candidate for mashiach.
As RAMBAN and RAMBAM point out, starting the ge’ula process and then, dying & leaving unfinished business, equals failureMy argument with the above is that you write that the Ramban and the Rambam reject a dead person being Mashiach ONLY IF that person started the process and died leaving it unfinished. Therefore, Daniel who died without having started the process of geulah could be resurrected and be Mashiach.
But you don’t cite a source for that!
It seems to me that you came to the conclusion that there is this difference because the Ramban and the Rambam reject a dead person’s candidacy, while the gemoro in Sanhedrin, according to one explanation of Rashi (Are we allowed to quote Rashi nowadays in this thread, or have certain fanatics ruled him persona non grata c”v?) allows the possibility that Daniel is Mashiach. But that gemoro is not something that is brought lehalocho by the Ramban or the Rambam, and we don’t even know how they interpreted that gemoro. Don’t forget that even Rashi has an alternative explanation which does not allow Daniel himself to be Mashiach.
Therefore, the simple pshat in the Ramban and the Rambam is that someone who has died cannot be Mashiach, regardless of what he achieved in his lifetime. This would then, apparently, include Daniel.
philosopher: Just because you two are male does not give you two an excuse to ignore
1. a befereshe posuk in Vayechi that the brothers of Yosef saw that their father died.
Indeed being male does not give me or anyone else an excuse to ignore an explicit possuk, but it does mean that as a male I, and probably the majority of others on this thread, have had a yeshivah background and know that you can’t cite a possuk against Rashi at any time and certainly not when Rashi is explaining the gemoro!
Furthermore, you should have asked a much stronger question, but not on us, on Rabi Yochanan. How can he say יעקב אבינו לא מת when the possuk you cited seems to say that he did? Moreover, why did Rav Nachman object to the statement only on the grounds that Yaakov was mourned, embalmed and buried? Shouldn’t he have objected on the grounds of the possuk that you keep on citing?
These are all strong questions dealt with by the meforshim who DO NOT reject Rashi’s interpretation. So please desist from citing that possuk as some sort of proof agains Rashi c”v/
2. Misinintrepret CLEAR words from the Chumash, gemarah and other meforshim
If anyone is misinterpreting here it is you, but based on your misunderstanding of how one deals with pesukim, divrei Chazal, Rishonim and Acharonim. And that is why I say that only men – and let me add, MEN who have had a decent yeshivah background (you know who I am excluding) should be dealing with these matters. It’s not misogynistic. It is merely something which Chazal and the poskim themselves iterate.
3. Ignore the fact that only Hashem runs the world, He is the only one you are allowed to pray to, He is the Only One who is every and never made nor never will make mistakes. To believe all this about the rebbe is idolatry.
BH nothing to do with me. Possibly to do with some/many Lubavichers.
Since you two are men and ou know better thna me, the non-talmud chuchem woman, you would think that you’d know better not to make your own misinterpretations on Chumash and Chazal.
See above. I am not making my own interpretation c”v. I am merely quoting Rashi and other meforshim.
What I don’t understand is why none of you have addressed what is apparently (I haven’t seen it inside) a clear statement in Artscroll that Rashi holds that Yaakov did not die. Is Artscroll now also a book of apikorsus? I would wager that both you and qwerty have made use of Artscroll, and that there is a good chance that you do so on a regular basis
philospher: The fact is that with all the “I’m a woman and can’t learn”, it is Arso who claimed that it says in taanus 13 that yaacov laughed when eisov’s eye fell out. Which was wrong of course and me the not talmud chochem woman pointed you in the right direction where it written, in Sotah 13a
In my very first post on this thread – September 1 REPLY #2310514 – I quoted the above gemoro with the correct source in Sotah. I also quoted it a few days later in another post. In one later post I made a typo and said it was in Taanis. So I’m sorry to correct you here, but you are not the one who enlightened me that it was in Sotah! Let’s fact it, typos happen.
qwerty to me:Hey bigmouth. If you question that I’m telling the truth go to the Five Towns and look up Rabbi Plutchok. Ask him his opinion of Chabad. Then tell him you can prove from a Siyum in the Rif that Yaakov Avinu is still alive. He’ll fit you for a straight jacket.
Great answer! You make a disgusting statement that the LR learnt his view from H yemach shemo, and when I challenge you on it you tell me to go and ask the Rabbi who allegedly approves of all the garbage that you write. You then follow it with apikorsus by making fun of a valid interpretation of a statement of Chazal!
Let me be abundantly clear: if Rabbi Plutchok says, as you say he would or does, that Rashi is wrong in his interpretation, and that only the Rambam is right, then he is going against the klal of שבעים פנים לתורה. I had never heard of Rabbi Plutchok until you started quoting him, so I googled him. I find it very hard to believe that he is an apikorus like you are (on the other hand, if he prays with you in a Lubavich prayer-house, he must be an idolater).
Btw you do realize that unfortunately there is no cure for rabies, don’t you?
Always_ask, no, not all of Chazal said not to teach Torah to women, but that is the halocho as paskened both by the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch.
(A dishonest person – not mentioning any names at the moment – could attempt to answer that in all cases it is dealing with teaching one’s daughter Torah, and that it doesn’t apply to other women. But that would be disingenuous. Clearly there was no question about the impropriety of teaching other women anything at all, and the case of the daughter was the only imaginable case.)
qwerty: I would add that Benedict ARSo should also be excluded from the Bes Medrash.
Do you mean Bes Medrash, as you wrote, or the place where YOU daven, which by YOUR definition is a beis avoda zara?
Look at his quote, “Perhaps this is the reason that Chazal said that Gemoro should be restricted to men and not women.” If you say it’s restricted to men don’t I know that women are excluded? So we add idiot to your resume.
Following that piece of superb logic, please add “incredible lamdan” to you long list of self-praise.
If you wanted to really pick on what I wrote, you should have said that the way I wrote it I mistakenly implied that it is not restricted to women! And what I should have written is that it is exclusively the domain of men and not women. But I’ll be melamed zechus and assume that at the time you were probably too busy trying to contain the rabid frothing of your mouth.
qwerty to me: I never said you’re Chabad
I’m pretty sure you did!
I can’t believe that Benedict ARSo is now playing the worthless women card. Elke Bentley just finished Shas. She started at 16 finished at 18..She also attends Harvard.
Give me a minute… I’m trying to figure out what you are proving… Oh, I get it. You don’t accept the statement of Chazal or the Halocho that women should not be taught gemoro. Fair enough. I assume you got that from your alleged Rabbis. Did they call it “the worthless women card”, or is that the invention of the oh-so-humble, oh-so-non-arrogant, oh-so-yerei-Shomayim, oh-so-great-writer, qwerty?
And right after writing that “When Shmei is reduced to name-calling his end is near” you call me a raving lunatic, which is not the first epithet I, and others, have been gifted by you.
You are most definitely a Johnny-come-lately to Torah (more likely a Johnny-not-coming-to-Torah-at-all), but your arrogance, hypocrisy and warped logic seem to know no limits.
Finally, don’t forget that according to your quote of Rabi Akiva (for which I requested a source) by davening with idolaters you too are an idolater!
philosopher, notwithstanding your beliefs about Lubavich and avoda zara, don’t you think it’s time for you to dissociate yourself from the ramblings of qwerty?
qwerty, in your latest self-praise you state “As I said recently I am a Yirei Shomayim.”
So now we know that you are not only not-arrogant, humble, that you learn for many hours every day and don’t waste any time, but that you are also a yerei Shomayim! The thing that immediately came to mind when I read that was that you have proven the statement in Zohar Hakadosh (3:193b) סימן דלא ידע כלום שבוחי – The sign that someone knows nothing is that he praises himself.
You certainly know nothing on a Torah level if you reject a Rashi and other meforshim based on what your alleged Rabbi allegedly told you about the Rambam. Every kid in a yeshivah high-school knows that that is not how the Torah works.
But then again, you pray with idolaters, so what can we expect from you?
qwerty: I can’t ask Rav Dovid what he thinks because he was Niftar.
My apologies. I was thinking of Rav Reuven.
But my challenge still stands in regards to Rav Dovid’s son-in-law and Rabbi Plutchok. I challenge/dare you to ask them whether it is appropriate to say that the LR got his view from H yemach shemo. If I don’t hear from you that you have asked them, and you don’t supply their exact reply, I will not believe anything you say in their names.
You probably assume that East Siders communicate with their dead Rabbis like Chabad does
That was a good one!
philosopher, without being too offensive, perhaps this is the reason that Chazal said that Gemoro should be restricted to men, and not women. Nothing against women, by the way. My wife is a woman, and lehavdil my mother a”h was also a women. Coincidentally so are my daughters and a number of my grandchildren B”H. But I am old-world, and I believe that this type of discussion should be kept to those who can, and are encouraged, to learn gemoro.
In answer to your inability to find the Rif, it seems from what you wrote in your post that you have a misunderstanding. The Rif on the gemoro is Rav Yitzchak Alfasi who was one of the early Rishonim. The Rif on the Ein Yaakov is a Rav Yoshiya Pinto of the 17th century. He will likely be found only on the Ein Yaakov, although I can’t be sure of that. He will DEFINITELY not be found in any regular edition of Shas.
As to Sefaria – a word of warning. I can’t remember where, but I have seen it quote xian sources in relation to their beliefs, and not to refute them. So although it is likely not relevant here, just be careful with that site.
(I just googled Sefaria and christianity and it came up with some “questionable” material.)
yankel berel: Daniel never started. Therefore, he never failed. And therefore, he could still [at least according to one pshat in sanhedrin] be a candidate for mashiach.
But, As RAMBAN and RAMBAM point out, starting the ge’ula process and then,
dying & leaving unfinished business, equals failure.I may have missed some quote that was cited before I joined the discussion, but where does it differentiate between someone who starts the process but doesn’t complete it, and someone has never started it, with the former being rejected as a candidate for Mashiach and the latter still valid? It would indeed seem from the Rambam that Bar Koziba “started” the process, but as far as I can tell it doesn’t say that he was rejected for that reason. Rather it was because he was killed. Perhaps he says it somewhere else, but not in Hilchos Melachim. (I can’t discuss what the Ramban says as I don’t have the source.)
As to qwerty, I find you absolutely disgusting!
Look through all my posts on numerous earlier threads and you will see that I am virulently anti-Lubavich in more ways than you have ever known. But to spout filth and garbage, and say that the LR (whether you like him or not) adopted the ideas of H yemach shemo, is beneath all levels of contempt.
Do us all a favor and ask Rav Dovid Feinstein, or his son-in-law, or Rabbi Plutchok, whether they would agree with that statement. I dare you!
And your logic in your vitriolic posts demonstrate that you have no logic at all. Rav Avigdor Miller was asked why Chabad think they’re the best. He answered that every group should think that about themselves. So you see it as a problem, where RAM says it isn’t, and you won’t “speculate” as to why he said that. Is it at all possible that he meant it about all groups?
But you won’t answer that, will you, as you never answer my questions with any decency? You’ll just attack me for being a Lubavicher and an associate of idolaters while you are the one who davens (takes communion?) in their houses of worship!
qwerty to me: I ignored your question above because of its stupidity
Ah, it’s a stupid question. In case anyone has forgotten what the original question was, here it is: Does the Rif hold that Yaakov Avinu is still alive? Couldn’t be more stupid, right?
but now I’ll respond, “I don’t answer questions from Christians. Philosopher theorizes that you’re Chabad. She may be right, but even if you aren’t you are now a supporter and Rabbi Akiva said that a supporter of idolatry is an idolater.”
I’m a supporter of Chabad because I agree with Menachem that according to Rashi and others Yaakov Avinu is still alive?! Note: that has nothing to do with Chabad theology, but who cares? When you are cornered you come out attacking even if what you’re saying makes no sense at all! And the fact that you daven with the ‘idolaters’ is fine. It’s just when someone disagrees with you that he is an idolater. One rule for the goose and one for the gander.
You claim to learn hours each day, but you have clearly displayed that you have no understanding of Torah. All you can do when faced with an issue is spew invective and hatred. I believe you claim you’re a dentist. I’d hate to sit in your dentist’s chair, Marathon Man.
Btw I now know that you are a Catholic because both you and the Pope reject totally Rashi’s opinion about Yaakov Avinu. That’s the logic you use, so it’s only fair to use it against you. Btw do you refrain from eating meat on Fridays?
And one other thing – which you will probably not answer because I am in agreement with a Lubavicher on one issue – what is the source of the above statement of Rabi Akiva? It may be that I have never heard of it or simply have forgotten it, but at any rate I would like a source, please.
First, even though it’s not necessarily in the correct order of the posters, I admit that I made a typo when I wrote Taanis 13 instead of Sotah 13. I have quoted that gemoro in an earlier post and there I wrote Sotah 13.
Now, legufo she inyan. Qwerty and philosopher you are so anti the Lubavicher posters online – and lately that’s mainly Menachem – that you are blinded to the points of the conversation, you veer dangerously close to apikorsus!
1. Because I am not the least bit interested in what that shiksa CO ym”sh says (and I’m not really interested in Shmuley Boteach either) does not mean that I take either side in the argument. I simply don’t care about what she says and hope that the epithet ym”sh indeed happens soon.
2. The fact that Rashi, and the Rif on Ein Yaakov (and, I believe others) explain that Yaakov Avinu was literally buried alive, has nothing whatsoever to do with the Lubavicher rebbe, who was buried after he died. But because you assume (and you may be correct in assuming so) that Menachem and the others want to make that connection, you refuse to accept that there is a VALID opinion that Yaakov did not die and that he is still alive, despite being buried. There isn’t much difference between that approach to that of the Lubavichers who refuse to accept anything which could fly in the face of their claim that the LR is Mashiach.
3. qwerty, your views on ‘rational’ Judaism scare me. I don’t know the Rabbis you keep quoting, but if they say that one cannot accept ‘irrational’ explanations to ‘strange’ statements of Chazal – as Rashi and others clearly do – and that anybody who does is a nutcase, then they are also veering close to apikorsus. I am therefore inclined to be melamed zechus and to believe that in your frenzy you are misquoting them.
4. philospher: It’s a mefureshe pasuk in the Torah that Yaakov Avinu meis. You cannot argue on a pasuk in the Torah. The Gemara is an agadata.
Are you suggesting that Rebbi Yochanan, who said יעקב אבינו לא מת, didn’t know the passuk? Of course he did, but he said his statement anyway. Saying it’s an aggadata does not help. Can you find me any aggadata that directly contradicts a passuk and that is not therefore refuted?
5. I’m still waiting on qwerty to answer the questions I asked…
qwerty in post #2313974 (on this page) I asked you a question which you have thus far ignored. Why? Are you any better than Shmei who, at least according to you, does not answer questions?
Once again I have to agree with Yasser-Shmei (I took the liberty of adding the firstname to pre-empt Saddam-qwerty) in regards to the Rif on Ein Yaakov.
Philosopher, in the edition I have on Ein Yaakov, the Rif makes absolutely no mention of Yaakov dying once he arrived in Eretz Yisrael. (The gemoro in Taanis 13a which says how he opened his eyes and smiled would clearly imply that he was alive, and that took place near the Me’aras Hamachpelah in Eretz Yisrael. Of course, it is possible to say that he had fully died by then, and that he resurrected for a very short time, but I feel that that is stretching it a bit.)
And one more point. Someone who is comatose breathes, and if Yaakov would have been comatose they would have know that he was alive from his breathing. If they mistakenly thought he was dead, he clearly was not comatose.
qwerty, you are forever challenging people (stooges?) to answer your questions, so here is an opportunity to face my challenge and answer mine without obfuscation:
1. Does the Rif hold that Yaakov Avinu is still alive? (In case you don’t know exactly where to look, in the standard edition of Ein Yaakov, with all the meforshim surrounding the gemoro, it’s in the last three lines of the Rif on page 91 of the volume that contains Taanis. Btw I could have asked the same question about the Artscroll, but as I don’t have access to it I am reticent to rely on the testimony of one of the stooges.)
2. If your answer is, “Yes, he does,” then why is it not ok for someone to quote it as a valid opinion, just as the Artscroll apparently does?
3. If your answer is, “No, he doesn’t,” you are either a brazen liar, or someone who can’t read/translate Hebrew.
4. If your answer is along the lines of, “These ‘fantastic’ statements aren’t to be taken literally,” then you are mistaken. There are indeed opinions that many aggadatos are not to be taken literally, but to the best of my knowledge there is NO opinion that the explanations of the Rishonim/Acharonim are not to be taken literally.
qwerty: The debate is over because Shmei couldn’t and/or wouldn’t answer Candace Owens’ question.
I may be mistaken, but haven’t you said in the past that the debate is over for a number of reasons. Maybe you should apply to become a mod, but in the meantime using language like “the debate is over” is infantile.
And I still don’t see why we should care at all about a question asked by CO yemach shema. We reject yoshke because he was a rasha (as is CO). We also don’t generally believe in a second coming, but according to one explanation given by Rashi in Sanhedrin 98b, Daniel, who has most definitely died, may return as Mashiach. So there is that possibility in regards to Daniel.
We mainstream Yidden also reject the suggestion that the LR is Mashiach, and for any number of reasons, as I have outlined in posts on earlier threads.
The Lubavichers aka the Three Stooges use the phantasmagoric as fact to substantiate their idolatrous beliefs and Benedict ARSo
I prefer Quisling.
appears to be joining their ranks.
For those of you who may not be aware of qwerty’s logic, because I know a little how to learn a gemoro with the Rashi on it, and I have come to the conclusion – supported by the Rif on Ein Yaakov, and apparently cited by Artscroll – that there is an opinion that Yaakov Avinu is still alive, I am on Menachem’s phantasmagoric and idolatrous side in all arguments.
I have a question for you. If I agree with Menachem’s spelling on a certain word, or if I like the way he divides his posts into paragraphs, and I then touch your wine, will it become stam yainam or actual yayin nesech?
ARSo
ARSo?! What happened to Benedict?
is now convinced that Yaakov Avinu is still alive. Let him tell that to his Rav. The Rav won’t ask if he took his meds, he’ll have him put away.
Tell me, in your great humility and non-arrogance (not to mention your amazing writing style) have you now been forced to reveal that you have Ruach Hakodesh? You have no idea who my Rav/Rebbe is, yet you know what he will ask and what he will do! I think I’ll drop him and start coming to you for advice etc.
Yes, the Torah(Tanach, Gemara, Midrash, etc. is replete with references to the supernatural, but it’s our job to discern the truth within. Generally speaking, we’re expected to eschew the fantastic in favor of the mundane. Hameivin yavin.
Yep, hameivin yavin. And that clearly excludes you!
To the rest of the onlookers, am I totally out of the ball park when I think that qwerty has ‘certain unpleasant’ issues?
Despite being absolutely terrified of the rantings and ravings of the non-arrogant and humble qwerty, I am taking the risk and saying that once again I agree with Menachem in his posting that the Rif makes no mention of Yaakov Avinu being in a comatose state davka until he was brought to Eretz Yisroel. As Menachem wrote (does this agreement c”v make me an idolater?) the Rif clearly says that Yaakov is still alive even after his burial. He writes that Yaakov was in a similar state to someone who had fainted and who shows no sign of life. And that’s how they buried him.
Ah, it doesn’t make sense? That just shows that we can’t understand everything. It does not mean that we can reject that interpretation of Yaakov Avinu lo meis!
And again, for the needless 1000th time, nothing whatsoever to do with the LR, about whom no one of accepted Torah authority has said that he did not die.
qwerty to DaMoshe I assume you’re taking a shot at me because I attend a Chabad synagogue … I come there for a minyan and that’s all. We’re friendly but I don’t push my beliefs on them and vice versa. Try again
How do you daven in a minyan of idolators?
qwerty to me Are you so jealous of my writing ability that you insinuate that I’m mentally ill?
You may not believe me, but I guarantee you I am not jealous at all of your writing style. Nor am I jealous of the content. And to be honest, from reading your rantings, as well as your denigration of me because I agree with Menachem that ACCORDING TO RASHI, Yaakov Avinu is still alive (as the Artscroll edition allegedly says), I am indeed starting to wonder…
You may recall that my first post in this thread included a call on all the Lubavichers here to explain clearly and in plain English what they mean when they say that the LR is physically alive and still here with us, in Queens, in 770, in fact everywhere. (Btw, no one has deigned to answer that.)
Now it seems that some on the other side are also falling into the same trap. Do they believe in Rashi? Ostensibly yes. That doesn’t mean that they hold that Rashi’s explanation has more weight than any other meforash, but it does mean that when Rashi says something he can’t just be blithely dismissed.
Now Rashi clearly says that according to Rebbi Yochanan in the gemoro, Yaakov is alive forever, and the passuk clearly says that they buried Yaakov. So, according to Rashi, is Yaakov still alive in Me’aras Hamachpelah? The only correct answer I can come up with is “yes”, although I don’t understand what it means. If you think the answe is “no”, then I would really like to know the logic you use to arrive at that “no”. And without recourse to the views of other Rishonim or Acharonim who understand the gemoro differently to Rashi.
qwerty: I spoke to Rav David Feinstein’s son-in-law. He’s my biggest Mashpia in Torah and I told him that posters are arguing if Yaakov Avinu is still alive. You can imagine what he said.
Well, if he is inline with his illustrious father-in-law and grandfather-in-law, I imagine he said that Rashi says he is alive.
Being a Torah Jew doesn’t require one to replace rationality with voodoo logic. To that point my other Mashpia Rabbi Moshe Plutchok says that we follow Rambam who rejects any violation of natural law even Bilaam ‘s talking donkey.
Who are the “we” you are talking about? I, and I’m confident, most others on this thread, believes that Bilaam’s donkey did indeed talk.
The Gemara says ,”Lama Li Kra, Sevara He?” Judaism is a rational religion.
And that is why we (chas Veshalom) reject miracles, or Mattan Torah for that matter, not to mention a mabbul of hot water, and the ten makkos…
If Rashi says that Yaakov will live forever, then he means it, and most, if not all, of us do NOT reject it. Nor do we reject the totally irrational gemoro that says that Yaakov opened his eyes and smiled after he died.
There is so much to write in regards to some of qwerty’s and philosopher’s weird claims.
1. Just because I happen to be in agreement with Menachem – despite being totally opposed to absolutely every Lubavicher who thinks that their rebbe was the leader of Torah Jewry – regarding the understanding of Rashi in both the gemoro and Chumash, I am now a loke’ach shochad! I suppose I’ll just have to take qwerty’s word on that as he has testified that he is not arrogant and that he is humble. (Is it possible he hasn’t been taking his medication, and that that has been causing him to rant?)
2. As regards to the “expired” and “dying” discussion. What does the word ויגוע mean? If, as philosopher keeps claiming, it means he expired, then that means he died, doesn’t it? Certainly, that is the dictionary definition of expiring! (I looked it up.) So what does it mean elsewhere when it says ויגוע… וימת? He expired and then died?! That’s meaningless. Clearly גויעה is not expiring.
After doing some research I see that the Malbim (Bereishis 25:8) writes:
הגויעה מציין אפיסת כחות הגוף, והמיתה מציין פירוד הנפש מן הגוף – gviah refers to the lack of any physical strength, while misah refers to the departure of the soul from the body.
So according to that, when the gemoro says that Yaakov lo meis – and Rashi clearly says that he is alive forever – it seems to mean it in a physical sense. He was still alive, but without any physical strength. And that, by the way, is how the gemoro in Sotah 13a can say that Yaakov opened his eyes and smiled.Of course, nowhere do Chazal say that the LR did not die, and I have been clear about than in many of my earlier posts. In fact, I feel stupid having to reiterate my stance here, and I only do so because of the possible future ravings of some.
3. There may be other meforshim who say otherwise, but I have not found any Rishon (if I am wrong please correct me) who says that the gemoro in Sanhedrin 98b allows the possibility of any dead person other than Daniel Ish Chamudos being Mashiach. As I have posted a number of times, according to one pshat in Rashi, if you are looking for a person who has died as the type of person that the live Mashiach will be, then it is Daniel. According to the other pshat, if Mashiach is someone who has died, then it must be Daniel. Based on this gemoro, then, there is no room for anyone else who is not alive to be Mashiach.
4. The gemoro itself – the part that was censored in Sanhedrin 43a – says that yeshu was a maisis umaidiach. What other reason did the Sanhedrin have to execute him?
Sorry, I meant the Alshich that you quoted, not the Chida.
Thanks Menachem for the reference to the Eitz Yosef/Chida. I had wondered about the embalming for a long time and now, thanks to you, I have an answer.
Also, I now understand what you’re saying in regards to the B”D executing yoshke despite them not yet having come up with the idea of a second coming.
As to qwerty’s alleged non-arrogance, well, if you say “I’m extremely humble” we’ll just have to take your word for it.
Finally, in regards to that shiksa yemach shema, who cares what she asks? We reject yoshke because he was a meisis umadiach. All the rest is just icing on the cake.
Out of interest, when did she have a debate with Boteach?
qwerty: I admit to being arrogant when I write(although not in real life) and as for ignorance, I’m the first to say that my Torah knowledge is limited. This said, I am an Ish Emes.
You seem to be blowing your own trumpet quite a bit, yet you claim not to be arrogant. Despite siding with you on much of your views on Lubavich, I have to disagree with your claim as to not being arrogant.
Menachem: If Jews reject Christianity because of the second coming, why did beis din kill Yoshke In the first place?
Sorry, but I don’t understand at all what you are saying here.
I don’t think I have to prove my credentials as being someone who is strongly against Lubavich philosophy and beliefs. Many many posts of mine in other threads will prove that. But having said that, I don’t understand a lot of the attacks that some of you are making against the Lubavichers here. In fact, I’m surprised at the mods who have let a lot of this stuff pass when in the past posts that were much less incendiary (ok, I admit I had to look up how to spell it) were censored or deleted.
At any rate, in regards to Rashi on Taanis 5b and Rashi on Chumash, I just don’t see how they contradict. In both places Rashi says that Yaakov Avinu did not die. In Chumash he does not elaborate, while in the gemoro he explains that people thought he had died, but that in reality he hadn’t.
Note that this is impossible for us to understand, as he was buried, so what does it mean that he is alive? Furthermore, I believe that embalming involved the removal of a number of inner organs, so how can someone be alive in that manner? Nonetheless, that is what, according to Rashi, the gemoro is saying, and just because we can’t understand it it doesn’t allow us to reject it. So the conclusion for a maamin, and I hope we all fit into that category, is that because Chazal say it, and only because Chazal say it do we accept it.
Now when it comes to the Lubavicher rebbe, on the other hand, Chazal do not make that statement, and we therefore have no right to make it on our own. If it would be something that is explainable it would be a halbe tzora to say it, but since it is unexplainable, saying it is plainly and simply ridiculous.
The gemoro says that there were trees of gold planted by Shlomo Hamelech that actually miraculously produced golden fruit. Can I therefore say that I believe that in my back yard there are plastic trees that produce plastic fruit? After all, if Chazal can say it so can I, right? No! Wrong! I can’t say it because it’s miraculous and I can’t decide on my own that I can apply it elsewhere. The same is true of saying the LR did not die, and attempting to cite the gemoro as proof.
I have to agree with yankel berel in all that he said regarding the so-called nevuah of the Gulf War, and it not coming exactly to pass.
I too followed it all at the time, and I clearly remember all the claims that were made, and which didn’t eventuate. If those statements no longer appear in Lubavich publications it’s because they were intentionally edited out.
sechel: I heard only one jew was hurt by the golf war and it was not directly from the missile
Of course not. It was from a golf ball.
coffee addict: Lubavitch is a derech, not a race.
Of course that’s true. They lost the race years ago!
But on a more serious note, out of all the Lubavichers on the thread the only one who addressed my two questions (about the LR being physically alive, and the correctness of using the igros) was Menachem Shmei, and he agreed with me! Are there really no Lubavichers around who can logically, and in a Torah-true fashion, answer my questions?
Menachem Shmei, is it really you?! You’re agreeing with everything I say and even claiming that you have had some of the same problems in understanding what’s going on that I have?!
Either one of us is going crazy or someone has stolen your moniker : -)
But seriously now, you can’t answer the questions I have asked because you agree with me. Fine, and I appreciate that. But then again, as far as I recall you are not the one who has said that the LR is alive. So can someone who has claimed that please enlighten both of us of what it means. And remember, no fluff. Simple pshat that makes sense when saying someone who has died and been buried is still alive.
And, of course, we are both waiting for justification about the use of the igros.
Two points, however, about what you wrote:
1. none of them take the advice %100, and will use it more as food for thought for general guidance
I, with newfound respect, beg to differ. I know a number of people who use the igros regularly to make their decisions, and many even encourage others to do so.
2. Of course we believe in Hashgochoh Protis, but determining what is meant to be done from a given circumstance is very dangerous. Let’s say that someone wants to attend an event but he is short of cash on hand. Then, behashgochoh protis, he finds a $20 bill that was blown his way. So often the immediate conclusion is that Hashem has sent him the money so that he can attend. But that may not be the case. Perhaps Hashem sent him the money to test him to see if he uses it to attend when, in fact, he shouldn’t.
Hi to all. I’m sure you’ve ALL been wondering where I am and hoping for my reappearance. Ta da! I’m here. The reason I haven’t given my two cents’ worth until know is because what I’ve read in this thread is basically a lot of rehashing of old stuff that has been debated in the past. But I am (slightly) human, so I can’t stay silent forever.
I have two topics on which to comment:
1. When someone says that a person who others assume has died is “with us physically” what does it mean? No beating around the bush, please. What does it mean? I know what a live person being with us physically means – he is in his body and nowhere else, in one place, he’s breathing and his heart is beating – but what does it mean when it is said about someone who has died? Even Yaakov Avinu lo meis – what does it mean? To me, from the gemara in Sotah 13a, it seems that he was alive but his soul was in his body, and not that he was in 770 or elsewhere. So without dissembling, what does it mean when someone says the L rebbe is alive physically.
2. Goral Hagra was transmitted from the Gra himself, which is why it is called that (surprise, surprise). What is the source for using the LR’s igros to answer questions? Had he himself said to do it, I would have accepted that Lubavichers do it even though I would not have believed in it. But he didn’t, so who says it is right?
And please don’t tell me “it works”, because that doesn’t mean it’s right or even permitted.
And don’t tell me, as a Lubavicher told me nearly three decades ago, “The rebbe said that there would always be a way to be connected to him, and therefore we use the igros,” as one does not lead to the other.
Finally, don’t quote me anecdotal stories about people putting kvitlech in seforim of their Rebbes, and having answers and/or yeshuos. I believe that many of those stories are in fact true, but that is not the same as reading what the sefer says when it is opened at random and deciding what it means on a personal level.sechel, what are you trying to prove with the Tzemach Tzedek?
Also, if you insist that Hedyot means idiot, then what is meant by a Kohein Hedyot – a regular kohein? The word idiot may indeed come from the Greek equivalent, but when it’s used by Chazal it doesn’t mean idiot.
sechel, I forgot a very important point in regards to your claim about tefillas nedavah. A tefillas nedavah cannot be said on Shabbos!
(I apologize if this post already went through, but something happened to my computer and I’m not sure it did.)
sechel, Shmoneh Esrei can be a tefillas nedavah, but Birkos Krias Shema can’t, and if they are said after chatzos it’s a berachah levatalah.
As to being a hedyot (not an idiot!) when sleeping in the sukkah when you are pattur, the same is true of eating in the sukkah when it is raining, yet Lubavichers do so, and with a berachah!
sechel, Shmoneh Esrei can be a tefillas nedavah, but birkos Krias Shema after chatzos can’t, and that makes them a berachah levatalah.
sechel: One source is today’s rambam hilchos tefillah see the ראבד
All of a sudden we ignore Rav Shulchan Aruch who writes clearly that one has to daven lechatchilah before zeman tefillah, and bedieved before chatzos?! Since when does a statement in the Rambam (and I don’t even know what you’re referring to) override the Baal Hatanya?
See also צמח צדק הלכות ציצית about if women can make a bracha on a mitzvah they are not obligated (it’s a long teshuvah and talks about making brachos if one is not obligated)
Totally irrelevant. Not being obligated in a mitzva does not make it a berachah levatalah. Davening after chatzos does. Check it out.
Btw, yb, why davka Shabbos afternoon? In 770 there are people who daven long long after chatzos even during weekdays.
sechel: Another famous thing you quote is about Sukkah the hater is were mitztayer that were not mitztayer that were not mitztayer,
I think it comes from the yated.
In truth the rebbe says only once מצטער.)I did not get it from Yated. I heard it from Lubavichers who think that it’s an amazing chidush al pi nigleh. (The fact that it makes no sense means nothing to Lubavichers, as since their rebbe said it al pi nigleh, it must be right.)
So according to you, what is the heter al pi nigleh?
Btw, as a favor to me, please check your spelling and punctuation. I’m guessing that you went through the yeshivah system, and didn’t do much English. That’s fine with me. It’s just that it took me a while to figure out what “the hater is were mitztayer that were not mitztayer that were not mitztayer” meant.
I guess according to you the yeshivish are very concerned about their image…
No idea – and I don’t care – because I’m not yeshivish.
Chabad didn’t sleep in the suckah since the alter rebbe, didn’t eat shalosh seudos either.
Sorry, but I don’t believe that. I knew Russian Lubavichers aleihem haShalom who slept in the sukkah until they heard the news that Lubavichers don’t. They also ate Shalosh Seudos. There is a lot of revisionist history in Lubavich, as I have claimed a number of times in regards to the Memoirs of the Rayatz.
yb, I agree with you wholeheartedly, but, as I have written in the past, I am not arguing with CS or sechel in order to get them to change their minds and admit that their rebbe was/is not Mashiach, a Navi or the Nassi Hador. That will probably never happen… unfortunately.
What I want is for them to realise that the only leg they have to stand on for these claims is that the LR claimed all these great titles for himself, and that the rest of the world finds it all ridiculous. Then, hopefully, they will stop trying to convince the outside world how mistaken they are in not recognizing the LR for the apex of Creation that they believe he is.
If they want to believe all the garbage, there’s nothing I can do about it. But leave the rest of us (hopefully normal) people alone.