Oh. I thought that was what we were arguing about. I was saying that pshat is that in the future they will be able to pasken like Bais Shammai. You were saying pshat was that they will have to pasken like Bais Shammai.

I never said that.

It is definitely more than just being ‘able’ to pasken like Beis Shamai. That is not how to read pshat of ????? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????.

What I was arguing with you about was that Beis Shamai could hypothetically be right in every instance and the majority and halacha can still be against him.

If all you meant was they are more likely to pasken like Bais Shammai on any given question then we agree.

I’m glad you finally think at least that much. Because before, your opinion was clearly something else.

You said: “When we say Bais Shammai was not the majority, that means that the majority thought Bais Shammai was wrong!” you used that as a proof against my comment: “Actually that is not true. The Halacha was not like Beis Shamai because they were not the majority, not because they were wrong.” The indication is that you are of the opinion that Beis Shamai is wrong where the majority rules against him.

This, I refuted (besides the obvious question since when is majority opinion equivalent to truth).

A more honest and accurate expression would have been for you to say “I concede,” not “we agree.”

JayMatt19, as I was trying to say, ??????? ???? ??? ?? ???? ????? seems to be a (similar but) different concept.

I was engaged for 2 months. But that’s just me.

benignuman- That is a good question. When you will finally read the explanation in the link provided, part ?, with the footnotes, especially 52 and 61, I am confident you will finally understand.

Sam-

Or he doesn’t consider a source found in late Achronim to matter when no earlier sources mentioned it first.

Or he didn’t know or remember. HaLeiVi I remember that as well. Hopefully this post will go through now that you brought that up.

Sam, you said you asked several Gedolim; what was their reason?

And actually, this concept, if not mentioned outright, is rooted strongly in ???? ??”?, as I proved before. Quite literally is the implication (-benignuman). If you would read what is explained on the subject it would become quite clear to you how aligned and firmly rooted with ???? ??”? these sources are.

Part ? with the footnotes for the entirety of it (in the link I provided).

Or he doesn’t consider a source found in late Achronim to matter when no earlier sources mentioned it first.

But why do you think the Rogatchaver Gaon would say or quote it?! And why do you think the ????”? himself would say it, if not for it being a reputable statement?!

Also, everyone should agree that just because something is found in Seforim, especially the Arizal (like the topic of our discussion), without earlier sources does not mean it isn’t considered a source. See the end of the ????? of ?’ ???? ????? to ??? ??????? starting with ‘???? ??? ??? ??? ????’ until ‘?????? ???’.

Some examples he brings are ????? ????”? ?? ????? ???? ?”? and on ????? ??? ?????? ?”?, see there.

benignuman- What does confusion over the meaning of ????? ???? have to do with taking things literally? Did you look up the mekoros I cited? It’s actually relatively straightforward. Beis Shamai are ????? ???. When ???? will come the Sanhedrin will be ???? ?????. For more on the matter, go to the link I provided.

As for Sam asking ‘Gedolim’ and they saying it has no source and it is from the Hamon Am, maybe you should revisit your basis for qualification.

You usually have to “read between the lines” to get what they are saying since it is the mark of a Ben Torah to use polite indirect speech rather than ‘trash talking.”

No, that is the mark of a person who is afraid of confrontation.

benignuman-

I was unaware of the Rikanti’s usage of Targum Yonosan (a citation would be appreciated).

Here is one example. Top of second column:

http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=44376&st=&pgnum=17

Haleivi-

The Rikanti is after the Ramban, so you aren’t really adding much by saying that someone after the Ramban quotes it too.

I was only responding to what you yourself wrote:

“The Ramban rarely mentions it. So, if other Rishonim refer to it one time less than the Ramban, they won’t mention it at all.“

And the Rikanati and Tosafos both cite it as Targum Yonasan.

A There are many Midrashim that were around then that are not not around anymore. If Targum Yonasan was composed or compiled during the Rishonim period, the author drew from these same Medrashim.

B Until benignuman provides a reason to assume Targum Yonasan was not written by Yonasan ben Uziel don’t assume it.

C Here is the reason to assume it is not written by Yonosan ben Uziel…

Haleivi- Even if you would be able to speculate about the timetable of the origin of the Targum Yonasan, and were able to say that ‘Targum Yonasan’ ‘drew from Midrashim’, the fact that many of Rashi’s statements have no other known source than the Targum Yonasan, still allows for the possibility that Rashi used the ‘Targum Yonasan’ which itself would have ‘drawn from Midrashim’, and that Rashi didn’t himself draw from those Midrashim.

benignuman- This possibility would in turn invalidate your argument that Rashi never saw Targum Yonasan, which would in turn invalidate your inference from there.

And again, there is definitely nothing to be ‘wary’ of.

Rashi doesn’t provide a citation. There is certainly no need to assume that Rashi had a different girsa or that he had no makor.

I read “at the expense of others” along with the rest of the post the only way I was able to understand it.

And again, if something is common, it doesn’t make it legitimate.

Also, the context of this forum is not the same as the context you mention, hence the multitude of complaints and offenses taken, not just by myself.

“I’m actually enjoying your posts. I think you have nice sense of humor, I’m just afraid that some people are taking you seriously.”

DaasYochid, you seem to be one who considers himself a discerning person, so is it so hard to recognize that every post adds or or takes away from the flow of an originally more serious thread? Troll posts, no matter how perceivedly humorous, especially with the current dynamics of this forum’s post delay rate, are an eyesore, and not worthy of mention or praise, and should be taken seriously.

Another point is sometimes there is absolutely no way to determine whether a poster is trolling or not; being sarcastic or whatever. So to wait until they establish themselves as authentic trolls, or better yet, to claim post-fact of disapproval that it was a troll post, should be to push their luck. And what does “a respectable troll” possibly mean anyways?

Additionally, I find many of the attempts at humor here predictable, repetitive, and distasteful.

There is no excuse for allowing this troll post through. Can anyone suggest similar forums to this one without the annoyance?

“Arabs have shown little interest”

“why many Israelis can make peace offers that they know won’t be accepted.”

The offers have sometimes been accepted, or rather, granted.

“Where did you get the idea that the Torah was literally infinite? The Torah is described as an ocean. Oceans are very very big, and very, very deep, but they aren’t infinite.”

benignuman, actually it is described as wider than the ocean, and this is what that means:

???? (????? ???): ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ????? ???, ??? ?? ???????

???? ???? ?? ??? ???????, ??? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???????

??? ??? ?? ?????, ?????: (???? ??): ????? ???? ??? ????? ??? ??

– ?????? ??? ? ?

It is infinite because it is supernal wisdom. Consequently new insights will always be uncovered. -?? ????

And by your own admission readynow, it is not dependent on any other existence.

Sam, how would it be or lead to an Issur when it has always been permissible to make a 7 branch menora with wood or glass?

Toi, it’s originally the Chidushei Harim’s kasha (though R’ Chaim may have added reasoning in saying it has to have been “kasis”). And both the Chidushei Harim and R’ Chaim are muchrach to answer that there is a difference between oil that “expanded” in the proximity of “real” olive oil, whatever that means, and olive oil created from nothing. However, in light of the answer I provided above that the oil never decreased until the eigth day, we do not need to be forced into that explanation for this question.

Shticky Guy’s answer about making sure Beis Hillel and Shamai’s opinions never align so therefore no seven days also answers the question of why not nine days because of sfeika dyoma. -Gra

This question applies especially according to what the Rosh Yosef discusses in Shabbos: if we say there must be this specific measurement of oil even bidiavad, and if there isn’t this amount, we may be required to mix impure oil (?????? ??????) into the pure oil to fill it.

yekke please tell us where in the gemara it says they must be changed.

A similar question is what it says in Menachos 89, 1, it must have a half-lug, the amount to stay lit from night to morning. According to the Beis Yosef (670) in the first answer that they split the oil into 8 portions, or even according to the Pri Chadash there and Tosafos Harash that it was originally filled entirely and every day an eighth burned, this is not being done. Even though according to the Tosafos Harash this law only applies when possible, we know the famous question, if ???? ????? ????? why did Hashem need to do the ness with the oil? The Sfas Emes answers ??? ????? ????? ?? ?????, ????”? ??? ??????? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ????? ??????. Hashem cherishes his people and their mitzvas, so he did this miracle so they would be able to perform the mitzva, when they looked for the opportunity to be mehader and do the mitzva of lighting the menorah by searching for oil. Based on this even according to the Tosafos Harash his answer is problematic, Hashem would likely arrange for the miracle to fulfill the mitzva in the most mehudar way.

-Lubavitcher Rebbe

rebdoniel, rampant anti-semitism and self-justifying insincere Judaism has resulted in quite a bit of harm. That characteristically goes hand in hand with misconstruing the words of our sages. If you don’t take care to have the common decency to give them the benefit of the doubt with openminded inquisitiveness, then you are the one taking part in the harm by so easily following the belligerent. You may even surprise yourself and find that their opinions match perfectly with your consciense. It seems you have already had your earful of the outside rhetoric.

Let us just consider the coherence of what you said. You said the notion caused harm, but you didn’t say whether or not the notion was untrue or counterintuitive (And you are going to point out to me where to read in the Sridei Eish). Now let us consider the subject of the R’ Yehuda Halevi, Maharal, and the Baal Hatanya’s studies. I’m sure they learned, for just one example, Bava Metziah 85:1 numerous times, where R’ Yehuda Hanasi gets punished for not comforting an animal properly.

So, though it’s true we can never stress enough compassionate behavior to everyone, it would be a big stretch to say or even give off the impression that great Rabbis were guilty of such things. In the end we must say, we must study their words in more depth and hopefully come to a more agreeable understanding of what they are saying.

4) There is also the authoritative position of the Arizal (whose teachings are from Eliyahu Hanavi), that all of Hevel’s gilgulim need Tikun through death (like he himself needed), and the Ir Miklat is Michaper and Misaken for those who kill them unintentionally. If we merit that Mashiach comes before “its time” which means before the Tikun is finished (when there won’t be any death at all since ??? ???? ????), there will be a need for (even more) Arei Miklat (and hence the word “??”). But if Mashiach comes in “its time,” after the Tikun is finished, there will be no need for the Arei Miklat. Either way, there will not be any intentional killing and the unintentionall killing will fit into the “Ina Liyado” in Makos 10:2. The Arizal is quoted by the Zayis Raanon and the Maskil Lidovid.

5) The Maskil Lidovid also cites the Shalah. The Shalah proves that not all of the great successes prophesized will be at one time, there may be different periods, but eventually, there will be no death at all.

6) The Alshich offers a similar explanation as the Arizal.

So in response to your question about the Malach Hamaves, maybe Hashem will Shecht the Malach Hamaves after people finish killing unintentionally, after the Tikun of Hevel is finished, at a later period.

And a person with ????? ????? can ?”? be mafsik someone from Torah and then let the ???? ???? finish the job.

But you may be right, since I have no idea what the Malach Hamaves is and how it works.

takahmamash: the same thing happened by my nephew’s wedding.