Menachem Shmei

Philosopher, I hope you will come to realize that when people attack Chabad (or any other group, for that matter), it often stems from a complete ignorqnce of something widely accepted in mainstream Torah understanding.

For example, when Qwerty thought it was a Chabad invention that עתיד החזיר ליטהר, or that Avraham’s tenth test gave (public) credibility to the first nine.

Or when Coffee Addict thought it was a Chabad invention that Rashi on Chumash often doesn’t align with Rashi on Shas, or the minhag of taking of shoes before kivrei tzaddikim.

This should make you think twice and three times, and do lots of research, before deciding to attack a Jewish group just because you weren’t aware of their ideas beforehand.

Where in the world do you get the idea that a Halachic state will require no army and no natural hishtadlus for protection from enemies?

If you reread my post you’ll see that I was MOCKING the thought that learning Torah is enough and no army is needed. So too vice versa.

And even the Gemara that you quote doesn’t seem to support your case. Yes, Dovid HaMelech’a Torah gave the zechusim for the army to succeed… But Dovid HaMelech wasn’t in Kollel 24/7. He was a warrior! A general! A king! This doesn’t support that we need Torah learners in Kollel while the army fights. This supports that we need Torah learners bringing their zechusim to the front lines!

What’s your source that Dovid always fought with Yoav? From Rashi it doesn’t seem that way.

Rashi writes on Tehillim kapital chof (which is said till today to daven for Jews in danger): This mizmor was composed because Dovid would send Yoav and all of Israel to war, and he would stand in Yerushlayim and daven… Our Rabbis say, if not for Dovid, Yoav wouldn’t go to war.

What if it was the other way around?

What do you think the Charedi attitude would be regarding the army and refusers if the roles were reversed?

Let’s say Israel was a chareidi state. The IDF would be defending Israel in one way only: Through sitting and learning Torah, thus drawing Hashem’s protection on the Jewish people.

However, then will come the Jews who don’t spend much time learning Torah (“chilonim”) with a taanah:

“The Gemara says that without Dovid’s Torah learning Yoav couldn’t successfully fight wars, but without Yoav’s battles Dovid wouldn’t be able to learn Torah.
“We admire your Torah learning and are thankful for the protection that it brings, but it’s also necessary for us to fight physical battles.
“Allow us to prepare an army that will go take care of the physical Jewish Defense while you take care of the spiritual defense.”

Imagine if the chareidim would respond: “Absolutely not. You despicable people obviously have no interest in protecting the Jewish people, you should be ashamed of yourselves. Every single Jew must be drafted to the learning brigade, fighting is bittul Torah!”

This is exactly what the government is doing now in Israel, just in the reverse.

Oh that I wrote of instead of or. That’s a typo like you spelling columnist wrong.

I completely agree, it’s ridiculous to attack someone for a typo.

[Good thing I wasn’t the one who had just called someone a “functional illeterate” for missing a letter, or who had written “That’s a deranged individual who’s so full of hate that he can’t think of write straight.”]

“Sorry that’s not a typo. That’s a deranged individual who’s so full of hate that he can’t think of write straight.”

I think we’ve found the Qwerty Quote of the Year: “can’t think of write straight.”
How eloquent, truly befitting of a veteran Jewish Press colomnist.

על זה אומרים: כל הפוסל, במומו פוסל

Yankel, thanks for clarifying the story.

Let’s not forget the question that stumped Shmei, “How could Chabad reject Rambam ‘s criteria for Moshiach?”

I have clarified my position on this several times here, and I won’t change my mind.

Do Lubavitch take off their shoes by מערת המכפלה, קבר רחל, or קבר רשב״י?

I’m not sure.

If not, why not?

If not, maybe because they have more minhagim of respect for their rabbeim’s kvarim.

Additionally, if I’m not mistaken, the minhag of removing shoes was quite common in the past by many Jews at kivrei tzaddikim, I don’t think it was unique to Lubavitch.

The above proposition is that the conditions of physical death did not apply to Yaacov. Are you understanding that this also means that all conditions of physical life did / do apply? Please clarify.

I have no idea. It is certainly more literal than Maharsha himself who holds that Yaakov’s body is dead like any other and he lives on through his children.

I don’t think you have to worry about the 5-6 CR Rabbi’s who disagree with you. The The Gur Aryeh (Maharal), The Maskil L’Dovid and Divrei Dovid (Taz) certainly did not learn Rashi like them (Obviously neither did the Ramban).

You haven’t been following the long discussion until now.

To summarize:

Rashi on Vayechi is quite ambiguous, and can probably be understood either way.

Rashi on Taanis however is simply understood to mean that Yaakov is physically alive, since he explains the Gemara that the only reason why Yaakov was embalmed and buried is because “he SEEMED dead, though really he was alive” (נדמה להם שהוא מת אבל חי הוא) [– as OPPOSED to other meforshim who hold that Yaakov was embalmed and buried because he was physically dead].

Maharsha understands Rashi this way (which is why he says that Rashi’s pshat is דוחק, and gives his own pshat). Artscroll understands Rashi this way (I’ve quoted the footnote many times). Rif to Ein Yaakov, Etz Yosef, Iyun Yaakov and Ohr Hachayim all clearly hold that יעקב לא מת is literal, and ויגוע means that Yaakov was in a deep state of sleep.

[None of the meforshim that you mentioned (גו”א, משכיל לדוד, ד”ד) quote Rashi on Taanis (נדמה להם), rather they are being mefaresh Rashi on chumash. Even if you were to find a meforash who interprets Rashi on Taanis to mean spiritual, that is definitely not the פירוש הפשוט of Rashi there, as I have shown in the previous paragraph.]

The answer to Philosopher’s question (that later it says that the sons saw כי מת אביהם) is obvious after reading the Ramban: The possuk is only writing about how Yaakov seemed to the sons’ perspective — they looked at Yaakov and say כי מת אביהם, which doesn’t necessarily reflect on the reality.

This answer of the Ramban solves the issue from this possuk for all the opinions in meforshim, including the literal interpretations. Ramban’s own opinion (which seems to be cryptic and not clearly fitting with either interpretation) is irrelevant to this point.

Interesting point, Yankel.

I assume that Qwerty and Philosopher insist that all meforshim interpret the story of Yonah to be a משל, because Torah must be completely rational, G-d performs nothing above nature.

Participant,

Mods seem to be fast asleep.

It is not rare for a sicko creep to baselessly accuse others of the very sins they themselves are guilty of.

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 thought you were openly a tichiyas-hameisim-first-nik, rather than a still-alive-nik if you’re catching my drift. Is that not correct?

You’re right, this conversation is irrelevant to the Rebbe. I haven’t voiced ANY opinion here about the Rebbe being alive or being Moshiach.

Philosopher started the conversation out of the blue, with this ignorant attack:

It is Lubavitche like you who twist everything out of context. For example when Rashi says that Yaacov avinu did not die there are numerous mefarshim that explain what it means. There is no mefoiresh saying that he is here with us physically. And yet i heard a Chabad rabbi claim that Rashi said that Yaacov is with us physically; that is a lie.

In a way I am happy about this discussion, because it led me to do more research into יעקב לא מת than I’ve ever done.

the Ramban clearly concludes that Rashi saying Yaacov lo mes means he is spiritually alive.

No. He brings the מאמר חז”ל from Rashi. Then he gives his own interpretation of Chazal. His pirush has nothing to do with Rashi’s pirush specifically, and definitely not with Rashi on Shas (which is what we are discussing).

Honestly, I don’t think we even know which way the Ramban held, because his words here can be understood both ways (as opposed to Maharsha, Rashba, etc. who clearly hold that Yaakov is alive spiritually. And Rashi, Rif, etc. who clearly hold that Yaakov is alive physically).

Either way, the point is that your question is clearly answered, no matter what the Ramban held.

Rashi is saying Yaacov lo mes.

Rashi (on Shas, which is what we’re discussing) did not say Yaakov Lo Mes. He was mefaresh the Gemara that said that, and in a way that clearly means that he physically didn’t die, as Rashi is understood by Maharsha and Artscroll and more.

The Chofetz Chaim says the above. Idol worshippers are apikorsom. You are bringing stories from Tanach to reach your own conclusion to disagree with the Chofetz Chaim? Or are you being misunderstood? Where in Shulchan Aruch does it say it is ever prohibited to condemn, mock or despise idol worshippers?

My point was that when speaking about Jews, one is playing with fire. Handle with care.

Yakov would not be ‘in a deep sleep’ because how didn’t the embalmers notice his breathing ?
And his pulse ?
It says they thought him being dead ?

It could be that his brain was functioning bederech nes without oxygen supply, and that was the measure of life within his body.
Thats why it does not say vayamat.

This is indeed a plausible explanation, I don’t know. I was just bringing how the meforshim explain the word ויגוע here.

one must be equally careful in both directions.

I’m not sure this is true. Chessed is an inherently good middah, though it can be used for bad. Achzariyus is an inherently bad middah, though it can be used for good.

It is definitely better to err on the side of chessed.

The issue with the Tzedoikim was that they interpreted Torah Shebchsav wrongly because they disregarded Torah Shebaal Peh entirely, not that they interpreted it wrong

What you are doing is, in a way, worse than the tzedokim. They only accepted the literal meaning of Torah Shebiksav and rejected Torah Shebaal Peh outright. You only accept the literal meaning of Torah Shebiksav yet twist Torah Shebaal Peh to fit your literal understanding.

Philosopher, if a woman touches a man inappropriately, should her hand be cut off?

If, based on Chazal, you answer no – my question is: How can Chazal “contradict” the clear meaning of the possuk (Devarim 25:12)?

Please answer this question. Should her hand be cut off or not.

Would you criticize the IDF cook by saying: “Why are you sitting comfortably in a safe room while other soldiers are risking their lives on the battlefield? Why aren’t you out there in danger, fighting alongside them?”

Such an argument would be absurd. While combat may seem more heroic and demanding than working in the kitchen, if the cooks were to abandon their post and join the battle, the soldiers would starve!

The soldiers and the cooks are partners, each fulfilling a critical role in the war effort.

The same applies to Torah learners and physical fighters:

The ruchniyus aspect of the war is waged by those learning Torah in yeshiva, while the physical war is fought by the soldiers on the battlefield.

The Gemara says (Sanhedrin 49a):
אילמלא דוד לא עשה יואב מלחמה ואילמלא יואב לא עסק דוד בתורה
Were it not for David [who engaged in Torah study], Joab would not have been able to wage war. And were it not for Joab [who fought the battles], David would not have been able to study Torah.

If either side abandoned their responsibilities due to a desire to do the other’s role, it would endanger us all, ch”v.