Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@ Philosopher
“It’s really unfortunate that frum people can hold the Torah in such little regard as to think our great Sages contradicted any posuk in the Torah.”
I don’t think it’s fair to say that Arso and Neville are holding the Torah in little regard. It’s clear from their posts that they don’t think that the Sages contradict a pasuk.
@ Neville
I don’t understand where you are coming from here
You wrote: Here are some examples of Philosopher invoking her “proof” by bringing a posuk to argue on rishonim, something that is not done in frum circles:
Example 1: “I am saying that Rashi does NOT CONTRADICT any posuk in the Torah, period. Therefore, if it says in the Torah that the brothers of Yosef saw that their father DIED, Rashi who knew Torah better than you, did not mean to say what you are saying he is which is that his GUF was alive.”
Example 2: “When you want to have a Talmudic discussion you can bring a rishon. But to say that the comment that Rashi is making on a pasuk contradicts another posuk in the Chumash is absolutely ridiculous and disgusting. Rashi did not contradict the Word of Hashem.”
Example 3 “Neville, you are unwilling to say you are disagreeing with Rashi because never said that Yaacov’s guf is alive forever.
You are also disagreeing with a pasuk in the Torah.”None of these examples involve arguing with a Rishon. What Philosopher has consistently claimed is that the proposition that Yaacov was buried while physically alive (in the sense that his body was still animated by his Nefesh) contradicts a Pasuk. I have broken this down step by step previously. Here it is again, simplified:
1) the Pasuk says Yaacovs sons saw their father died
2) It is not reasonable to understand this as meaning that he was still completely physically alive (he was breathing and had a heartbeat) but somehow they missed this.
3) Such a position would contradict the Pasuk because the Torah says that “they saw he died” so clearly they must have seen sufficient indication of death.
To claim that she is arguing with a Rishon you would need is a Rishon who says explicitly that Yaacov was completely physically alive (he was breathing and had a heartbeat) at the time his brothers buried him. This is the proposition she (correctly) rejects.
Next
You wrote: Do you think that every time a yeshiva learns a sugya in gemara, the shiur splits into groups based on which man d’amar they’re “siding with” in a machlokes? Some meforshim say one way, some they another. It’s irrelevant which ones make more sense to a random Joe Shmo posting on the CR in 2024. You need to just get over the fact that not all meforshim are going to make sense to you all the time.
She hasn’t “sided” with any of the meforshim cited in the above discussion (Ramban, Or HaChayim, Rif, Maharal, Maskil L’David, Taz). She did (correctly) disagree with Arso’s interpretation of the Ramban, OrHaChaim, and Rif. She even went to the trouble of explaining exactly how she understands what the Rif wrote. Now, you are certainly welcome to disagree with how she understands the Rif (I don’t) but that doesn’t justify a claim that she is “taking sides”.
@ Arso
You wrote: “it’s not your fault that you are a woman, but you just don’t understand the derech halimud that men are taught.”
You have made a claim that no meforesh makes, mainly that Yaacov is physically alive in the sense that his body was still animated when he was buried. It’s nice that you want to understand the OrHaChayim and the Rif this way, however, as a man with a Yeshiva background you should be able to read these mefarshim and recognize that they do not say this explicitly. The “derech halimud men are taught” should have given you sufficient analytical skills to see that your claim is interpretive.
@ Philosopher
“I have NOT changed anything I said. I repeated the same thing from the first post I posted on this topic”
והאמת יורה דרכו
@ Arso
“??? I said nothing of the sort!”
The words “You wrote” in the beginning of the phrase was a typo. The post was my response to the the following,
Here is what you did write: But as it would clearly be miraculous for Yaakov to be alive even after he has been buried for some time, I think it would be fair to assume that Hashem ensured that he was not suffering.
To this, I responded: I don’t think it’s fair to assume that Hashem does things he is not on record saying he does. You don’t have a single unambiguous source for the proposition that we should interpret Rashi / Chazal as saying that Yaacov is alive in the full physical sense of the word. You have many sources that say clearly not like that.
Correction in post to Arso
“You wrote: I don’t think it’s fair to assume…..”
“You wrote” is a typo here. My response to what you wrote starts with “I don’t think it’s fair to assume…..”
@ Arso
On second thought, after re-reading what Philosopher already posted I see there is really no need for additional clarification. I’ll break down for you what I think she is saying step by step:
1) the Pasuk says Yaacovs sons saw their father died
2) Ramban expains that according to Rashi they didn’t know that he didn’t die
3) At this point Philosopher asserts that it is not reasonable to understand this as meaning that he was still completely physically alive in that he was breathing and had a heartbeat but somehow they missed this.
4) Then she asserts furthermore such a position would contradict the Pasuk because the Torah says that they saw he died so clearly they must have seen sufficient indication of death. So what she is saying is that the way you are proposing to understand Rashi according the the Ramban would contradict the Pasuk.
5) She then sums up that Yaacov’s body died [meaning no heartbeat, no breathing], however per Ramban’s explanation of Rashi, the shevatim may have not know or realized that Yaacovs nefesh is still attached on some level to his body and because of this he is alive forever.
@ Arso
You wrote: You are assuming that he is suffering because you imagine yourself being buried alive. But as it would clearly be miraculous for Yaakov to be alive even after he has been buried for some time, I think it would be fair to assume that Hashem ensured that he was not suffering.
You wrote: I don’t think it’s fair to assume that Hashem does things he is not on record saying he does. You don’t have a single unambiguous source for the proposition that we should interpret Rashi / Chazal as saying that Yaacov is alive in the full physical sense of the word. You have many sources that say clearly not like that.
You wrote: she has been referred to that Ramban, and ignored it, so many times!…In fact, I just saw that she does it again in the very post that immediately follows the post of yours that I just quoted! How are you going to justify that?
I am going to wait to read her response to my question (if she wants to respond). I think her primary issue is that one cannot use that Ramban to justify the position that Rashi holds that Yaacov is alive in the full physical sense. She is certainly right about that.
You wrote: I don’t think she is worth arguing with because she bases her “Torah” understanding on her own prejudices and misunderstanding.
That is not my impression.
@ YB
But if he does know the gemara , and still that his [!] tsadiq cannot make a mistake simply because he ‘is HKBH himself’ [afra lepumayu] , and like God by definition is infallible, so too is his[!] tsadiq, infallible. That is apikorsus. Clear and Pashut.
No, that would be a”z
For it to be apikorsis he would have to
1) know that Chazal contradict his view and say that he is right anyway because he knows better then Chazal. Or
2) be mvazeh Chazal in some other manner@ Philosopher
” It says in the Torah that Yaacov himself said he is about to die. אָבִ֞י הִשְׁבִּיעַ֣נִי לֵאמֹ֗ר הִנֵּ֣ה אָנֹכִי֮ מֵת֒ בְּקִבְרִ֗י אֲשֶׁ֨ר כָּרִ֤יתִי לִי֙ בְּאֶ֣רֶץ כְּנַ֔עַן שָׁ֖מָּה תִּקְבְּרֵ֑נִי וְעַתָּ֗ה אֶֽעֱלֶה־נָּ֛א וְאֶקְבְּרָ֥ה אֶת־אָבִ֖י וְאָשֽׁוּבָה׃ and his sons saw that their father died. וַיִּרְא֤וּ אֲחֵֽי־יוֹסֵף֙ כִּי־מֵ֣ת אֲבִיהֶ֔ם וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ ל֥וּ יִשְׂטְמֵ֖נוּ יוֹסֵ֑ף וְהָשֵׁ֤ב יָשִׁיב֙ לָ֔נוּ אֵ֚ת כׇּל־הָ֣רָעָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר גָּמַ֖לְנוּ אֹתֽוֹ׃
“The Ramban himself is not saying that Yaacov is alive forever he himself says alive spiritually. But on the words of Rashi he is saying that “to them (the shevatim) he was dead or perhaps they did not know all of this”
Right. So according to Rashi, as the Ramban understands him, the above psukim can’t be proof texts that he died. Of course, that does NOT mean that he understands Rashi as saying that he is literally alive or buried alive.
@ Philosopher
If Moshe Rabbeinu and Avraham Avinu made mistakes, why wouldn’t the LR? He is not greater than them.
You would have to ask someone who believes this. I don’t. I just don’t think such a belief is a’z.
If you do ask though be ready for a long trip down the rabbit hole….
@ Philosopher and YB
I am not defending the proposition that it is and appropriate application of emunas hachamim to say that a particular HaCham or Tzadik never made a mistake. I was saying it’s not a”z. Something can be very wrong (even close to apikorsis per YB) and still not be a”z, no?
@ Arso
You wrote: “One of the things she said was that Yaakov Avinu can’t be alive because he would be suffering there, and why would Hashem make him suffer.”
Right. Because being physically alive has 2 aspects
1) the Nefesh animates the body
2) the Nefesh is constrained to experience whatever it experiences through the bodyIf he is physically alive in the full sense of that concept then both of those conditions would still apply and he would be suffering. So surely there is at least something different between the state Yaacov is in and the state a guy is in when he is buried alive, no?
“She also argued that Rashi does not mean he is alive.”
If alive means in the full physical sense then she is in very good company
“And don’t forget that she keeps on insisting that Rashi can’t be saying that he is alive because a later passuk says he died, and Rashi can’t be arguing with a passuk. This is all despite the fact that the Ramban explains that according to Rashi the sons mistakenly thought that he died, which philosopher keeps intentionally ignoring.”
I am not sure why she used that as a proof. Maybe she made a mistake. It happens to the best of us.
As to your claim that none of the mefarshim say that all conditions of being alive apply to Yaakov Avinu, look again at the Or Hachayim who writes:
חי הוא אלא דורמיטא קראתו כישן ונרדם, which to me seems clear that he’s saying that Yaakov was fully alive (and breathing!) and in a sort of comatose state.דורמיטא denotes withdrawal (like how some kochos hanefesh withdraw from the guf during sleep). The point here is that the Nefesh retains a connection to the Guf similar to a person when he is sleeping. The OrHaChaim then goes on to describe some (there are others) consequences of that connection that are relevant to pshat in the Narrative. This is how I understand the OrHaChaim.
It’s true that there is some ambiguity here because one could understand the כ’ הדמיון two ways (as you probably know from the sugya in Brachot re כחצות). So, on could read the OrHaChaim as saying that Yaacov is precisely like one who is sleeping. This seems to be how you are understanding the OrHachayim.
Same thing for the Rifs use of the כ’ הדמיון in כאיש שנתעלף.
@ Lostspark
1) You are speaking about a derech you clearly know nothing about
2) At least one poster on this thread is certainly ChasidishBut that’s ok. Carry on.
@ YB
“This is against a famous tosefot , based on guemarot, that HKBH only safeguards tzadiqim from mistakes pertaining to food ingested into their bodies, but not on any other mistakes.That’s how holy tana’im erred and came beshogeg to isurei de’orayta.
Infallibility belongs to God only.”I don’t follow what you are saying here. I am not defending their position as correct, I explained that it is not a”z.
“Infallibility belongs to God only”
Correct. And If he choses to prevent someone from making a mistake he can do do that, right?
@ Arso
“At any rate, I don’t know whether option 1 or option 2 of yours is what is meant by Rashi et al.”
Well if it’s number 1 then I don’t think anyone is arguing. You and Philosopher are simply using terms differently. I did not see in any of her posts that she rejects the possibility that Yaacovs Nefesh maintains a kesher to the guf to the extent that it keeps the guf from getting buggy or decomposing.
She clearly objects that Physically Alive means that all conditions of being alive apply to the buried body. Since there is no justification in ANY of the meforshim for such a position (including the Rif and Or HaChaim) it is my opinion that she is fully justified in strongly rejecting it. The question is, why are you unsure? What reason do you have for entertaining the possibility of such a position?
@ Philisopher
“every human being makes mistakes. Imperfection is one of the traits that defines a human being. Only Hashem is perfect, only Hashem does not ever make mistakes.”
If one believed that (a) due to a persons inherent perfection he will not make a mistake then you are right. However, If based on a misguided understanding of emunas chachamim, one believed that (b) Hashem is committed to guiding leaders such that they won’t make a mistake this would not be a”z.
@ Arso and Neville
Arso: “I definitely see philosopher having a cavalier attitude to Rishonim, starting with her writing countless times that Rishonim can’t argue with a passuk”and thus ‘proving’ that Yaakov Avinu died, despite it being pointed out to her countless times that the Ramban explains that according to Rashi the Shevatim believed that Yaakov had died even though he hadn’t.
This just proves that she has a cavalier attitude to your understanding of the Rishonim.
Neville: Did you really just read that one post or her’s, or are you just pretending you didn’t see all the posts calling it “dumb” to believe Hashem has a guf
She brought you an opinion above of the Piaseczner Rebbe based on which she is saying that even according to the Ra’avid the Gedolim and Tovim where not ascribing corporality to the Creator. That soesn’t sound like a cavalier attitude to Rishonim. But, even if we accept the simple reading of the Ra’avid I don’t think her sentiment demonstrates a cavalier attitude to Rishonim for the reasons I provided in previous posts.
Neville: ….and name calling everyone who doesn’t bow down to her undeniable genius?
I didn’t see these posts. But, even if they exist they would not demonstrate a cavalier attitude toward Rishonim.
Neville: The point with the Raavad is that she is saying it is pashut and obvious from pasukim that Hashem has no guf (no need for rishonim to even tell us so
You seem to understand that she is saying that anyone without any background can simply pick up a Chumash and know that Hashem is incorporeal. I don’t think this is here position because at the very least such a person would be confronted with contradictions in the text. I imagine that since she is posting in the TWN coffee room she is trading on propositions that are currently universally accepted when reading Psukim. Not many people learn Jewish Philosophy b’iun (Emunos v’Daos, Moreh Nevuchim, Milachamos Hashem, OR Hashem). Therefore, not many people appreciate how much work went into establishing propositions that today are taken for granted. This is not indicative of a cavalier attitude toward rishonim.
@ Arso
My position is that to be called physically alive
1) The Nefesh animates the body (even paralyzed / comatose people’s internal systems are animated
2) The Nefesh experiences the world through body (hearing with ears, seeing with eyes, speaking with the mouthNeither the Rif or any one else ascribes these conditions to Yaacov.
Now I see 2 ways out of this
Option 1
You can reject my position. You can say that when the Nefesh retains a connection to the body to the extent that the body is protected from bugs and deterioration this is sufficient to be called Physically Alive. If that’s the case I don’t think anyone is disagreeing about Yaacov per se, we are simply using the terms differently.Option 2
You can assert that, in fact, both of the conditions I stipulated do apply to Yaacov. If that’s the case we certainly disagree about Yaacov per se. Also, I don’t see how there is any support for such as assertion in any of the meforshim under discussion.@ Neville
I wrote: ““It is therefore perfectly legitimate to cite proof texts that such position is false. This is in no way disagreeing with the Raavid.”
You wrote: Why are you still defending her on this?
Yes. Because it does not follow that citing proof texts (or strong svaros) that Hashem is not physical means, perforce, that someone disagrees with the Raivid.
From her posts she does not seem like someone with the cavalier attitude to Rishonim that you guys are ascribing to her.
@ ARso
“The Or Hachayim, in explaining Rashi, says that Yaakov was buried while alive PHYSICALLY. So does the Rif on the Ein Yaakov. And again again, do I have to take your word, or can I rely on my reading and translating of those mefarshim?”
Please stop writing this. Its false. I even provided you a paraphrase in English of what the Rif wrote.
@ Philosopher
You mention 4 beliefs
1) he runs the world
2) that he’s everywhere
3) that you can pray directly to him
4) he never made mistakes.Points 1-3 are a”z. It seems, at this time, that the majority of Chabad doesn’t hold these beliefs. I am basing myself on the current policies of major Hashagacha organizations who rely on machischist mashgichim (including for wine) and on statements by R’ Aaron Feldman (who holds not to rely on them.
Given the number of yiden involved we can only daven that with Hashem’s help they will pull back from the abyss.
Belief 4 is not a-z. It is a misguided understanding of emunas chachamim. It is not an error unique to Chabad
@ Philosopher
“The sign loudly proclaiming their a”z beliefs”
Their beliefs are most certainly wrong but I don’t think the majority of them (the elohistim aside) are actually a”z. Consider, the policy of major hashgacha organizations is to rely on mashichist mashgichim. Even R’ Aaron Feldman, who holds not to rely on them it is because he holds that someoe who can hold such a belief is not of sufficiently sound mind to be reliable (not because it’s a”z)
@ ARso
Imagine a group of people who are taught from a young age that all Psukim (including the ones ascribing hagshama to the Borei) are to be taken literally. Some of these people may progress in there studies and eventually become very knowledgeable in Mikra and Shas. Some may even progress to more esoteric areas of learning. Such scholars may even gain renown for their pious observance of Mitzos and Torah knowledge. The Raivid’s point is that such a person is not a min.
We are not working from the premise that all Psukim (including the ones ascribing hagshama to the Borei) are to be taken literally. It is therefore perfectly legitimate to cite proof texts that such position is false. This is in no way disagreeing with the Raavid.
One condition of physical life is that of the nefesh animates the body. Even in the case of a comatose or paralyzed person the nefesh animates the body’s internal functions. There are other gedarim regarding how one who is physically alive interacts with the world but this should suffice for out purposes. None of the mefarshim cited (including the Rif and OrHaChaim make such a claim about Yaacov.
@ Neville
I wrote re: ARso’s post: “I just can’t figure out how to make your 2 posts that I quoted above shtim.”
You erote: Simple, the first time he said “men” it was a slight towards Philosopher for being a woman. The second time, he meant it in the sense of being mortal.
I guess you missed that his post is internally contradictory.
Next
I Actually showed in my posts above that not a single Mefaresh under discussion understands Rashi to be saying that Yaacov is physically / literally alive the way you, ARso, and Menachem Shemei seem to want to understand Rashi.
Mods
In the response to ARso above the following was not intended to be part of my post. It was a quote from ARso that I ended up not responding to.
“The Maharsha, by the way, does exactly the same. He explains Rashi literally, then disagrees respectfully. Only you and your the rabbis and talmudei (sic) chachamim that you allegedly ask hold differently. And I declare without reservation, if they say that Rashi does not mean it literally, not only are they not talmidei chachamim but they are not even talmudei chachamim.”
It would be geshmak if this could somehow be corrected. If not, I guess this will serve as a correction
@ Menachem
“Rashi on Taanis however is simply understood to mean that Yaakov is physically alive”
The way the Rif and Maharsha are explaining Rashi is that Yaacov was not subject to a misas haguf. Meaning, that unlike others who die, Yaacov’s Koach HaNefesh stayed in his body and did not separate from the body (the double lashon is from the Rif) so that there was no need to embalm him to protect him from worms since the Nefesh will protect him just like the Nefesh of the living protects his flesh from getting buggy and their also no need to bury him since the purpose of burial is for the flesh to decompose.
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.
@ Arso
You wrote:
“the Ramban starts by explaining Rashi, which he understands literally as we men do. Then he offers an alternative pshat.”
Then you also wrote
“As I, a physically-bound human, cannot understand what it means to be alive and buried, I don’t want to choose as to what is the exact explanation.”
I just can’t figure out how to make your 2 posts that I quoted above shtim.
PS Please look up the mfarshei Rashi that i cited (Divrei Dovid, Maskil L’Dovid, and Maharal) and see how they understand Rashi. You seem to be taking a very firm position that:
The Maharsha, by the way, does exactly the same. He explains Rashi literally, then disagrees respectfully. Only you and your the rabbis and talmudei (sic) chachamim that you allegedly ask hold differently. And I declare without reservation, if they say that Rashi does not mean it literally, not only are they not talmidei chachamim but they are not even talmudei chachamim.
ARso
Regarding the Raavid that you are quoting
I think what Philosopher did was to trade on the (by now universally) accepted position that Psukim ascribing hagshama to the Borei should not be taken literally then proceeded to show from other Psukim why that position is compelling. Of course, if someone had a mistaken commitment to interpreting all Psukim and Agados dealing with hagshama literally they would have to resolve the Psukim she cited accordingly. The Raavid says such a person is not a min. That does not mean her proofs from the Psukim are not compelling.
@ Arso “The Ramban bought what Rashi is saying but is not commenting on what Rashi is saying whatsoever”
Do you even learn Ramban? How can you write the above with a straight face? Then you write that a women can’t know the right pshat in Rashi / Ramban.
@ Philosopher
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).
@ Lostspark
The Or HaChaim you quoted is saying that Yaacov’s guf was not m’tamei and will not be subject to decomposing. Did anyone on this or the other thread claim otherwise. Specifically, did someone make a positive claim that Yaacov’s guf was m’tamei and was subject to decomposing that you felt the need to quote this Or HaChaim to set them straight?
Philosopher
I addressed my question to Neville because he seems to be claiming that the mainstream orthodox approach to how to understand the Rashi under discussion is that Yaacov Aveinu is physically alive. I was just hoping to clarify what he meant by “physically alive”. I even made the question multiple choice 🙂
Even though the question was initially addressed to Neville, I would be very interested to know how Arso would answer it as well.
I jumped in on the this conversation because עולם הפוך ראיתי
Here is a full text of Ramban. The Ramban is explaining Rashi by explaining the Medrash that Rashi is quoting. There are places where the Ramban disagrees with Rashi,, this is not one of them.
Ramban
וַיִּגְוַע וַיֵּאָסֶף וּמִיתָה לֹא נֶאֶמְרָה בוֹ, וְאָמְרוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ (תענית ה), יַעֲקֹב אָבִינוּ לֹא מֵת, לְשׁוֹן רַשִׁ”י (רש”י על בראשית מ”ט:ל”ג). וּלְדַעַת רַבּוֹתֵינוּ הֲרֵי יַעֲקֹב הִזְכִּיר מִיתָה בְּעַצְמוֹ (בראשית מ”ח:כ”א), “הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי מֵת וְהָיָה אֱלֹהִים עִמָּכֶם”, וְאוּלַי לֹא יָדַע הוּא בְּנַפְשׁוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא רָצָה לָתֵת כָּבוֹד לִשְׁמוֹ. וְכֵן (בראשית נ’:ט”ו) “וַיִּרְאוּ אֲחֵי יוֹסֵף כִּי מֵת אֲבִיהֶם”, כִּי לָהֶם מֵת הוּא, אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יָדְעוּ הֵם בָּזֶה כְּלָל. וְעִנְיַן הַמִּדְרָשׁ הַזֶּה, כִּי נַפְשׁוֹת הַצַּדִּיקִים צְרוּרוֹת בִּצְרוֹר הַחַיִּים, וְזוֹ תְּחוֹפֵף עָלָיו כָּל הַיּוֹם, לוֹבֶשֶׁת לְבוּשָׁה הַשֵּׁנִי, שֶׁלֹּא יִפְשְׁטֶנָּה עֲרוּמָה, כְּיַעֲקֹב, אוֹ תִּתְלַבֵּשׁ לְעִתִּים מְזֻמָּנוֹת. וְיוּבַן הָעִנְיָן הַזֶּה בְּמַסֶּכֶת שַׁבָּת (שבת קנ”ב) וּבְמַסֶּכֶת כְּתֻבּוֹת (קג.):
Below I provided the full text of 3 classic mefarshei Rashi the Maharal, Maskil L’Dovid, and Divrei Dovid (Taz). All three are also explaining Rashi, not disagreeing and providing an alternative pshat.
Maharal
ואמרו רז”ל יעקב אבינו לא מת. וכך איתא בפרק קמא דתענית (ה ע”ב) – אמר ר’ יצחק אמר ר’ יוחנן יעקב אבינו לא מת, וכי בכדי ספדו ספדיא וחנטו חנטיא, אמר ליה מקרא אני דורש (ר’ ירמיה ל, י) “ועתה אל תירא עבדי יעקב ואל תחת ישראל כי אני מושיעך מרחוק ואת זרעך מארץ שבים”, מקיש אותו לזרעו, מה זרעו בחיים אף הוא בחיים, עד כאן. והרבה מן המתמיהים על זה דאיך לא מת, והרי קברו אותו, ועוד כי הקשה מן התורה והשיב ‘מקרא אני דורש’, וכי יותר קרא של נביאים מקרא של תורה, אמנם פירוש זה כי המציאות וההעדר הם שני דברים שאין להם התיחסות וצירוף, כי זה מציאות וזה העדר, ולפי זה אם נמצא שני דברים מתיחסים ביחד אי אפשר לומר שהאחד יתואר במציאות והאחד יתואר בהעדר, שמאחר שהם מתיחסים אי אפשר לומר כך, שהרי המציאות וההעדר אין להם התיחסות. וידוע כי האב והבן מתיחסים ביחד, ואם כן ראוי לומר שאם הבן בחיים שגם האב בחיים, ולא נוכל לומר שהאב מת והבן בחיים מאחר שהאב והבן מצטרפים, והמיתה הוא העדר, ואין יחוס למציאות עם ההעדר. ואין לומר כי המיתה מבטל היחוס, כי זה אי אפשר שיבטל היחוס הזה, מאחר שאין בן בלא אב, אם כן יחוס זה וצירוף זה אין ביטול לו, ומאחר שהבן בחיים גם כן האב בחיים, ואי אפשר שיהיה רק כך. ובכל אב בעולם היה ראוי לומר כך, אלא שאין הבן יש לו חיים בעצם, והחיים באדם מקרה, כי הם חיים לשעה ומיד יוסר, אבל דבר שיש לו חיות בעצמו – כמו שהם זרע ישראל – והם חיים קיימים תמידים, וכדכתיב (דברים ד, ד) “ואתם הדבקים בה’ אלקיכם חיים כלכם היום”, ודבר זה חיות בעצם. ולפיכך יעקב שהוא אב להם, ונקראו ‘בני ישראל’ במה שהוא מתיחס להם כמו האב והבן, ראוי שיהיה בחיים, כלומר כי שם ה”חיים” נקרא עליו, היינו שאמר ‘מה זרעו בחיים’, כלומר מאחר שזרעו בחיים והאב מתיחס אל הבן – האב גם כן בחיים הוא. ובב”ר (מט, ד) פרשת וירא בפסוק (לעיל יח, יח) “למען הביא על אברהם” ‘תני רבי שמעון בן יוחי אומר כל המעמיד בן יגע בתורה כאילו לא מת’. וזה מבואר גם כן, כי בעל התורה במה שהתורה היא חיים, גם אינו דבר מקרה שיוסר ממנו, ואינו כמו החיים האלו שהם חיים מקריים, לכך האב אשר יש לו יחוס אל הבן וצירוף אליו – כמו שהבן בחיים, כך הוא גם כן בחיים, והבן זה היטב.
ועוד יש בזה דבר נפלא ונעלם ודבר מה ארמוז אם תבין, וידוע כי המיתה היא קצה וסוף, ודבר שאין לו קצבה אין לו מיתה. ומפני שיעקב אין מתיחס לו קצה, כי הקצה הוא לשני גבולים שהם קצה, כי כאשר תניח ג’ נקודות זו אצל זו אין לנקודה האמצעית קצה כלל, ומפני שיעקב הוא האמצעי בין אברהם ובין יצחק, והוא השלישי המכריע ביניהם, הוא כנגד הנקודה האמצעית שאין מתיחס לה קצת וגבול, ולפיכך יעקב אבינו לא מת. ודבר זה אמת וברור מאוד על פי החכמה. ובפרשת שמות (ד, יט) יתבאר עוד מזה אם תבין אותו, כי הם דברי חכמה מופלאה, רמזו חכמי האמת ליודעי מדע. ועל פי סוד הזה נקרא יעקב “ישרון” (ישעיה מד, ב) על שם היושר, כי כל דבר יושר אין לו קצה, שהקצה למי שנוטה מן היושר, אבל היושר אין לו קצה. וזה שאמר בלעם (במדבר כג, י) “תמות נפשי מות ישרים ותהי אחריתי כמוהו”, רוצה לומר כי במה שהם ישרים – אין לישר מיתה בעצם, ונשמתו קיימת לעד – “ותהי אחריתי כמוהו”, כי אין לדבר הישר אחרית במה שאינו נוטה לקצה, והוא נשאר באמצעי שאין לו קצה. ובספר דרך חיים נתבאר עוד, כי דברים אלו הם ברורים ליודעי חכמה. והמעלה שהיה אל יעקב אבינו שלא מת – כי החיים יש להם דביקות אל השם יתברך ביותר, וזהו מעלת החיים “ואתם הדבקים בה’ אלקיכם חיים כלכם היום” (דברים ד, ד). ואם הדביקות הזה אינו לבני אדם, זהו שהחומר הוא המבדיל בין השם יתברך ובין (הגוף) [השכל], אבל יעקב נפרד מן הגוף, ויש לו החיים והדביקות עם השם יתברך, וזהו המעלה היתרה, וזה שאמר ‘יעקב אבינו לא מת’:Maskil L’Dovid
ויגוע ויאסף ומיתה לא נאמרה וכו׳ תחלה מרגיש רש״י מבחוץ למה לי כפל דויגוע ויאסף דלכאורה היינו גויעה היינו אסיפה והתירוץ לזה שכן מצינו בשאר צדיקים שיש ב׳ לשונות הללו ועוד אחרת דהיינו מיתה כמו ויגוע וימת אברהם וכו׳ ויאסף אל עמיו ויגוע יצחק וימת ויאסף וכו׳ וכן בדין כידוע לי״ח בסוד הפירוד דגויעה היא על הנפש התחתונה שבו הנפרדת והולכת לג״ע התחתון ואסיפה היא על נשמתו העליונה היא העולה לג״ע העליון ומיתה היא על זוהמא דיסודות דעשיה שבו המתעכלת בקבר וכל צדיק דעלמא יש בו קצת זוהמא ומעתה מקשה רש״י וא״כ למה לא נאמר ג״כ ביעקב מיתה כמו בשאר צדיקים ומשני יעקב אבינו לא מת פי׳ שלא היה בו שום שמץ זוהמא כלל:
Divrei Dovid
ויגוע וכו’, יעקב אבינו לא מת.. בפ”ק דתענית (דף ה:) מקשה, על זה וכי בכדי חנטו חנטייא אמר ליה מקרא אני דורש אתה וזרעך מה זרעך בחיים כו’, נראה פירוש מאמר זה שדקדק לומר יעקב אבינו דר”ל הזכות של הצדיק שהוא בחיים עם בני דורו הוא הגנה והצלה להדור יותר ממה שהוא אחר מות הצדיק, כי בחיים צריך הוא ג”כ להגנה וההגנה ההיא יש לה כח גדול לשמרו מכל צרה ממילא נצולים גם בני דורו עמו, משא”כ באחר מותו שא”צ להגנה אלא להדור לחוד והם אינם כדאים לזה על זה אמר יעקב אבינו ר”ל זכותו שתגין עלינו לא מת, וההגנה היא גדולה כ”כ כאילו עדיין בחיים, ועל זה הקשה וכי בכדי חנטו וכו’, פירוש ממ”נ אם החונטים ידעו שהוא חי למה חנטוהו ואם היו סוברים שעל הזכות קאמר דלא מת והוא גדול עדיין אם כן למה ספדוהו שהרי לא אבדו כלום במיתתו דזכותו קיים כאילו עדיין חי. א”ל מקרא אני דורש פירוש אני יודע שזכותו כאילו חי אבל החונטים לא ידעו זה, וכ”ת מנין לי לומר דבר חדש מה שלא ידעו החונטים לזה אמר אני דורש את המקרא אבל החונטים לא ידעו מקרא זה שלא היה בימיהם אותו הפסוק בכתב (כנ”ל נכון בפירוש מאמר זה):
והאמת יורה דרכו
Gosh its been a while since I was on here. Hi everyone!
I have a question for Neville. Please clarify what you believe to be the mainstream orthodox position of of the Rashi under discussion
Are you saying that when Rashi says Yaacov Avinu Lo Meis he means:
1) Alive like in a guf sheini dak to which he transitioned to without being taam misa
or
2) Alive, as in not subject to conditions associated with being dead (ie not decomposing, not being mitamei) but the Neshama is exclusively in the Olam HaNeshamos and the Guf exclusively stays here (ie the kesher is severed)?
or
3) Alive, as in not subject to conditions associated with being dead (ie not decomposing, not being mitamei) and the Nishama is in the Olam HaNeshamos while retaining a kesher with the Guf (comparable to sleep)?
or
4) Alive like in the same exact body (skin, muscle, organs, bones) with the same physical needs (air, food, water)?
or
5) None of the above
Forget a treadmill. It’s expensive up front, needs ongoing service, and takes up lots of room. Your best bet is to get basic strength training equipment and get a trainer to come to you. Suggested equipment:
1) Olympic style barbell
Ideally a 7′ – 45LB barbell. If room is an issue get the 5′ – 25LB version.2) Weight plates 45LB x 2, 25LB x 2, 10LB x 2, 5LB x 2, 2.5LB x 2
Ideally bumper plates (walmart.com acctually has an “Everyday Essentials” set that is very inexpensive). Otherwise regular cast iron plates are fine. Note that even if you go the bumper plate route the 5 LB and 2.5 LB plates will be cast iron.3) Squat rack. If you don’t have room for a rack you can get squat stands
4) Doorway chin up bar. If you cant do chin ups yet get some assistant bands.
Train 3 days per week. Hire a good trainer to come to your house and teach you how to safely perform the following lifts.
Day 1
Low bar back squat
Chin UpDay 2
Press
Low bar back squatDay 3
Chin up
PressOnce you get the above lifts down you’ll want to learn another 3 lifts. the front squat, deadlift, and floor press.
*If you want to bench press you”ll have to add a bench to the equipment above. Since I use the floor press as an assistance exercise for the press I don’t bother with a bench.
For Cardio take a brisk walk on the days you don’t lift. You can also skip rope or do jumping jacks for warm ups on your lifting days.
@ CS “nefesh chaim(I think) who pretty much said the same thing”
No he did not. Nothing of the sort.
@ Knaidelach
Since you are so fond of just tossing around ma’amarei Zohar, check out the Ramchal’s sefer Kinas Hashem. You will be astonished (not in a good way) at the kind of things one can arrive at by simply taking statements of the Zohar at face value. It IS called sisrai Torah for a reason, you know.
@ Toi
Fancy seeing you here 🙂
A consensus of experts, even a majority consensus,) is certainly a legitimate piece of evidence to consider in building a case to accept or reject a proposition. But there is a fine line (and sometimes a rather thick, albeit obscured one) between using this piece of evidence competently on the one hand and deceptively on the other.
For starters:
1) A consensus of experts (COE) should be regarding a subject that is subject to expertise. Meaning, it’s the kind of thing we have lots of experience with. That is, after all, how expertise is established.Even when criteria 1 is met…
2) COE ought to considered only if the experts have expertise (lots of experience) in the subject they are offering an opinion on
Even if criteria 2 is met…
3) We should remember that COE is one type of evidence. We ought to consider the weight of contrary evidence. If there is sufficient contrary evidence we ought to leave the matter unresolved.
@ Bruriah
You quoted: “קדושין פט”
What’s your point? surely you are familiar with the concept of כל הגדול מחבירו יצרו גדול ממנו
You wrote: “Philosopher is not defending”
she wrote: “I sincerely believe it was not with intent to denigrate our Chachomim, c”v….That is not why you should make it seem as if the Bruriah’s post is so bad that it’s not worth reading”
That sounds like a defense to me.
“She’s asking you and others to address the actual chazals in question”
I actually did precisely this. Did you even bother to read my posts?
@ Philospher
“But why would we argue what ndk means for all women halachically or even only as a Chazal’s description of us if we are talking about an agadata that never has a practical application? ”
One area where it has Halachic ramifications is in Hilchot Talmud Torah. The Mishna and Gemara in Soteh and the Machlokes Rashi and Rambam as to how to understand NDK has had (and continuous to have) a significant impact on how Poskim in various communities advocate designing a curriculem for female students.
“As far as I know, agadatas never dictate halacha or define a reality.”
Whether or not Agadata dictates Halacha they are part of our Heilig Torah and we have an obligation to understand them in line with the intent of the Ba’alei Mesorah. Something being an Agadeta is not a license to disregard it or to interpet it as one sees fit.
Also, we argue because when when a superficial reading of Chazal yields a misogynistic or feminist point of view it is our duty to set the record straight. We have this duty to uphold the honor of the Torah and to uphold the dignity of our wives and daughters.
@ philosopher
“the words of the Mishna is more accurate with her post”
Her malicious feminist rant was completely out of line on so many levels. Other posters have already called attention to the contemptuous manner she referred to Chazal. Beyond that suggesting that anyone can arrive at the proper understanding of Torah Sh’bal Pe by reading english translations of Talmud on Sefria is obscene. Her post does not so much reflect knowledge of the source material more like a familiarity with feminist journal articles on the subject. Not sure why you are trying to defend the indefensible.
“than other homemade peshutim that people are cooking up.”
I would say the pshatim you are referring to weren’t so much cooked up as they where half baked.
@ klugeryid
“basically your taking it out on Joseph because his comment triggers your rent up frustrations from people you come in contact with on a regular basis”
Being a male I am not on the receiving end of the kind of neirishkeit that would result in such pent up frustration.
@ klugeryid
“if someone routinely denigrated men in general by pointing out an intrinsic masculine failing, why would it bother me?”
I suspect a reason it doesn’t bother you is that you are not subjected to behavior and attitudes rooted in discriminatory premises on a regular basis. Maybe if you where you might feel differently.
@ Yeshivaguy78
“That’s not correct. Of course there are exceptions to intrinsic traits”
Please review the concepts of intrinsic vs incidental as the terms are commonly used in philosophy and logic.
Maybe philosopher (given her screen name) will be willing to help you out with this.@ Klugeryid
“Yeshivaguy78
While I could not follow you at all, at least your post seemed to have substance. Kudos.”I did follow the post and to me it came across as a feminist rant.
@ Philosopher et al
My point in contrasting specifically Devorah with other nashim tzedkanyos is this.
1) There is a distinction between intrinsic and incidental traits.2) If NDK is an incidental trait then it doesn’t necessarily apply to Devorah. It also wouldn’t NECESSARILY apply to most women today, one would have to make an assessment based on whatever concept of NDK one is using. That’s how incidental traits work.
3) If NDK is an intrinsic trait then it applies to all women at all times because it is part of what it is to be a women. That is how intrinsic traits work. It would therefore also apply to Devorah. One would then have to adapt a concept of NDK that would not prevent one with such a trait from being a permanent chain in the link of Torah transmission.
That is also why I did not use prophecy and tzidkus in making my point.
Checkmate.
@ DY
“I don’t get the point of bringing the cases of exceptional women in klal Yisroel’s history”
I’m surprised, you usually have a sharper eye for nuance. I wasn’t merely bringing up exceptional women. My remark was more pointed then that. I was contrasting most exceptional women with one. specifically Devorah and the fact that she had a very unique role in Klal Yisroel.
C”V that I would say anything to undermine one word of Chazal.
Also, a correction is in order. When I wrote ” all that remains is for someone to bring up a certain Gemmara in Chulin to attempt to undermine my bringing an example from Devorah” Chulin I meant to say a certain Gemmara in Magilah.
@ philosopher
“we each have our own spiritual destiny”
True that. But, we also have a collective destiny and when the ladies aren’t on board things go on a hand basket ride to warmer climates in a hurry. Contrast the situation in pre Bais Yaacov Europe with post Bais Yaacov America. It is not for nothing that Rav Aaron famously said he would never have been ab;e to build Lakewood Yeshiva w/o Bais Yaaov.
@ Philosopher
“I don’t think a woman being a nevuah is such a low spiritual point”
Per the source I quoted above it’s even more then that. Devorah was a link in the chain of the authoritative transmitters of Torah. Sarah, Miriam, Ester, and Hulda where also neviot. Ma’atikei HaShmuah is a uniquely special distinction. It is especially interesting because women are not mitzuveh in Talmud Torah and gadol mitzuveh v’oseh. In spite of that she was the shofetes of her generation. Barak even refused to fight Sisra if she did not go with him.
Now, all that remains is for someone to bring up a certain Grmmara in Chulin to attempt to undermine my bringing an example from Devorah.
Take a look at the hakdamah of Perush Machzor Vitri on Avos (printed in every Yachin u Boaz Mishnaos).
See there in the hakdomah where the ma’atikai hashmuah (authoritative transmitters of the Torah) are listed. Get to the part where Devorah and Boaz are listed among the ma’atikai ha-Shmuahin of their generation. Next, take a deep breath and look at the shinuy girsot (sourced from the Sefer HaKaneh if I remember correctly) that Devorah received the Torah and transmitted it to Barak. Now meditate on the implications of that.@ Rational
You stated a proposition and supported it only to have your point beaten down like a scarecrow full of straw. Must be frustrating. For whatever it’s worth you have my empathy.
@ Besalel
Great response!
@ MrSarhahLevine
Why are you using a transgender screen name?