“If you enjoy it at a concert you certainly should enjoy it for the Torah.”

If it was the same thing then yes. But watching/listening to a professional performer is a far cry from what happens on Simchas Torah. A concert is inherently enjoyable (unless you don’t like concerts). Maybe for some people, watching others going around in circles is enjoyable. Not for me and not for many others – certainly not for hours on end. The fact that they hold a Torah while doing so doesn’t make it more or less enjoyable. It just defines what they are running around in circles for. If some group decided to celebrate simchas torah by twiddling their thumbs do you think that people should enjoy watching it simply because they are twiddling their thumbs in celebration of the Torah?

A few clarifications about my last post:

1) I wrote it before the previous two posts went up – it seems that I was incorrect about what thechoiceismine meant.

2) Only the first two paragraphs were specifically addressed to writersoul.

3) ????? ?????? ???? should be ????? ??????? ????

4) I didn’t really explain the Gemara in Kesubos and what I was doing with it. So here goes: R’ Elazar says that a woman becomes assur to her husband if she was warned about and was then secluded with another man (????? ??????), just like in the ???? ???? of David and Batsheva. The Gemara questions this since in the ???? ???? there was no ????? ?????? and Batsheva didn’t become assur to her husband. The Gemara proceeds to clarify what R’ Elazar actually said and then asks why l’maaseh didn’t Batsheva become assur to her husband. The Gemara answers that Batsheva was taken unwillingly. The Gemara offers an alternative answer that Batsheva was not an eishes ish since Uriah gave her a some type of get before going to war. The first answer definitely seems to be assuming that she was an eishes ish, just that an eishes ish who is taken unwillingly does not become assur to her husband. The Chelkas Mechokek (and the Rashash as well) use this answer as the halachic source that an eishes ish does not become assur to her husband if taken unwillingly. This can only be a source if Batsheva was actually an eishes ish. (The Chelkas Mechokek grants that the Gemara gave an alternative answer but that the halacha of the first answer is still true.) I haven’t seen any mefarshim use this Gemara against the Gemara in Shabbos (although I have seen people say this – but not people who qualify as mefarshim).

5) The Abarbanel’s main point is that the Gemara in Shabbos is completely against what it actually says in the pesukim.

??? ?? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ?’ ??? ?? ???? ???? (????? ??:?) ?? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?? ?? ????? ?? ?? ???? ????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ??? (????? ??:?) ??? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ?? ??? ????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??? (???? ?:?) ??? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?????

writersoul:

You are correct that David is not listed as one of those who never sinned: ??? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?? ??? (Bava Basra 17a) Although the Gemara there does say ???? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???… ??? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ???? ??? ????? whatever that means (see Tosafos for example).

Regarding the other Gemara (Shabbos 56a) which says ?”? ????? ??

????? ??? ?’ ????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ????, I don’t think thechoiceismine was applying the quote to David’s entire life. I think he/she that we can’t necessarily take the literal story at face value. The statement of the Gemara is not saying that David didn’t do anything wrong; it’s saying that it wasn’t eishes ish.

Interestingly, it would seem from the Gemara in Kesubos (9a-9b) that David did literally sin with an eishes ish. The Gemara asks ??? ????

???? ???? ???? ?? ?? ????? and answers ??? ???? ???. The Gemara then gives an alternative answer that ?? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ????? in which case Batsheva would not be considered an eishes ish. But according to the first answer, it seems that she was. The Chelkas Mechokek (11:10) in fact (in discussing the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch about an eishes ish about whom eidim testify that she was mezaneh) writes: ????? ????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ????’ ?? ???? ????? ????? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ?? ????? ??”? ???? ????? (?????? ?”? ?”?) ??? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ?? ????’ ?????’ ???? ???”? ????? ??? ??? ????? ??? ???”? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ?”? ????? ?????? ?”? ??? ????? ???’ ??????? ???? ??”? ??”? ?????? ?? ?? ?? (??”? ?????? ?? ?? ???’ ??”? ?????? ??? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ???? ??”? ????? ???’ ??”?) ???? ????? ??????? ??? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ????? which seems to be understanding the Gemara’s first answer as I wrote above – that Batsheva was actually an eishes ish.

Additionally, the Gemara itself (back in Shabbos 56a) says ??? ?? ??? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ???? which could indicate that the limud zechus is not so simple. Indeed this is one of the Abarbanel’s justifications for stridently rejecting the statement ?? ????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ????. He claims that David actually sinned with Batsheva as an eishes ish and that the gemara is ???? ????? ???? ?? ????? ????? and that the defense provided for David is ?? ??? ????. (I would quote it in its entirety but it’s a bit too long – it’s in Samuel 2 in the beginning of chapter 11.) It must be noted thought that the Abarbanel is a major daas yochid in this and the Malbim already somewhat castigated him for this in his comments to verse 3:

??? ???? ?? ???? ??”? (??? ?? ?) ????? ?????? ??????

ayyen sham.

Also, the Abarbanel does not bring the Gemara in Kesubos as a proof, and I have yet to see any mefaresh who does.

I may have to retract what I said above:

http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/sem-and-security#post-533845

In the Darchei Moshe, the Rema quotes the Teshuvah of the Maharik which is the source that you don’t have to obey your parents regarding marriage. He continues to quote from the same teshuvah: ??? ?? ???? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ??????? ??? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ????? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ??? ????? ???? ??”? ????”? ?????? ??? ??

Back to the issue of shechita:

(I don’t know if your still around yitayningwut, but it’s not like I have a problem with talking to myself.)

The Gemara in Chullin (5a) tries to bring a proof to Rav Anan that the shechita of a mumar l’avodah zarah is valid. The proof is that Eliyahu ate meat that the ravens brought him from Achav’s kitchens, which were obviously slaughtered by a mumar l’avodah zarah. The Gemara rejects the proof because maybe really the shechitah is invalid but in this case Eliyahu had a special dispensation from H’. Tosafos asks that in the step where the Gemara was bringing the proof, they were assuming that Eliyahu did not have a special dispensation. If that is the case then even if the shechita was valid, it should be assur for Eliyahu to eat it because it is ??? ?????? ?? ????. Tosafos answers: ??? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?”? ????? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ?? ?”? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ?????

Now it seems as if yitayningwut’s pshat is that when the Rambam says ??? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ??????? ?? ???????? ???? ????? ????? ????? ????? ??? ??????? ?????? ????? ??? ??? ????”? ??????? ???? it means that the shechita is invalid because they are ???? on avodah zarah. If that is true then the Gemara should not have a proof that the shechita of a mumar l’avodah zarah is valid – maybe it’s not valid but in this case H’ told Eliyahu that the shechita was not done l’shem avodah zarah, the same way the Gemara assumes that H’ told him ???? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ?????. Unless there is another answer to Tosafos’s question that the Rambam could use.

In fact the Maharatz Chayes in discussing this Tosafos concludes that there is a chiluk between the issur of ??? ?????? ?? ???? which is only assur because of a safek in the metzius ???? ????? ??? ?????, and the issur of shechita of a mumar l’avodah zarah which is intrinsically assur like the shechita of a non-Jew. If so the Gemara has a good proof. But if the issur of shechita of a mumar l’avodah zarah is also just a safek in the metzius that he might have slaughtered it l’shem avodah zarah, then the Gemara would have no proof.

??? ??? ???; ?? ?? ????? ???? ????? ???? ???? ????

Sam2:

I anticipated and preempted your response when I wrote “though he expressed himself VERY differently” and “My point is not to justify what rebdoniel said”.

And I like my explanation(s) better than yours.

“And I’ve gotta say that I’ve never had a post of mine so pilpuled before… thank you PAA for your diyukim in my defense.”

Just doing my job (as I plagiarize the Moderator):

http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/your-coffee-room-report-card-comments/page/2#post-536682

Is that an implicit admission that the Laughing Moderator and the Daas Torah Moderator are one and the same? I already know that the Laughing Moderator is 100 as per http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/alter-the-thread-titles/page/2#post-534235

I am glad that there are no hard feelings. I’ll forget about our past conflict when measured against all the positives:

http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/for-pulsing-flower-to-rant-about-iyun/page/4#post-526551

http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/for-pulsing-flower-to-rant-about-iyun/page/4#post-527950

http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/for-pulsing-flower-to-rant-about-iyun/page/5#post-530441

http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/alter-the-thread-titles#post-532252

http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/alter-the-thread-titles/page/2#post-533606

http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/your-coffee-room-report-card-comments#post-533380

http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/for-paa-and-randomex-to-jokingly-argue-about-reading-all-cr-threads-and-post-or-something-like-that#post-536897

http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/things-which-are-so-pashut-that-even-the-tinokos-shel-beis-rabban-know-them-but#post-529936

Is it possible to have interlocked fingers with your right hand on top of your left hand?

“Maybe someone should start a forum somewhere to post things people tried to post but had rejected (especially if they don’t understand why).”

http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/daas-torah-2/page/7#post-533222

Lol -Mr. Laughing Moderator

I think this qualifies:

http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/not-ladylike#post-475409

“The Maharsha in Berachos (10a) asks how you can daven for someone to do teshuva if yiras shamayim is not biday shamayim. He grants that you can daven for yourself to do teshuva because that falls under ???? ???? ???? ???? ??????? ???? and ????? ???? ??????? ??. He concludes with “v’yesh l’yasheiv.” The Orchos Tzadikim writes in Sha’ar Hateshuva ????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??????? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ???? ???? which would be consistent with the Maharsha, but in Sha’ar Hasimcha he writes ?????? ??????? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? ??? ?? ?? ????? ?????? ??????? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ????? ?? ????? so he clearly holds that you can (and in fact should) daven for others to do teshuva.”

While I was saying Avinu Malkeinu on Rosh Hashanah, it occurred to me that the lashon of ??????? ?????? ???? ????? is consistent with the Orchos Tzadikim and not the Maharsha. Then it occurred to me that I don’t need to use Avinu Malkeinu to show this since the same lashon is used in the everyday shemoneh esrei. Then it occurred to me that this doesn’t necessarily show anything because all the prayers in Avinu Malkeinu and shemoneh esrei b’lashon rabim. Then it occurred to me that I should not be thinking about something I wrote on Yeshiva World a month ago, in the middle of davening on Rosh Hashanah. But I kept thinking about it anyway.

“One wonders what Writersoul could possibly have had in that post that needed to be edited out. I guess we’ll never know.”

I thought I answered that already.

Did anyone insinuate that it is?

Also, a careful reading of the post shows that writersoul may actually have killed animals as well: The statement “I’ve yet to have caused one myself” is referring back to the statement of “I do see a lot of extremely depressing roadkill” so all it means is that writersoul never caused a DEPRESSING roadkill. If that is the case then the thankfulness is not for not killing animals; it’s for not killing them in a depressing way which obviously doesn’t apply to insects which are never killed in a depressing way. So chuvim (Joseph)’s question is all the more baseless.

For PAA and Randomex to Jokingly Argue about Reading All CR Threads and Post (or

“really not funny – even between the lines”

Sorry, I can’t help it if you don’t get the joke.

How about we seriously argue about the propriety of having an argument in the Jokes thread about “reading all threads”, or more encompassingly, the propriety of having a tangential discussion in a thread. I agree that one should not just start talking about something else in the middle of a thread. But if something is brought up in such a way as to relate to the discussion at hand, then I see nothing wrong with that spawning its own discussion. Often times the tangent ends up becoming the ikkar – see for example http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/not-losing-daas-torah#post-535895

If the original discussion is still ongoing in full force, and the new discussion is also a big discussion, then I could hear that it should be moved to another thread. But in absence of that, I don’t think there is such an issue, especially in a thread such as the Jokes thread where each post is really self-contained so it doesn’t detract anything if there is another conversation going on (as opposed to in a thread which itself is one conversation where a second conversation can detract).

Magen Avraham 581:1:

??????’ – ???? ????”? ?? ??”? ??? ?????? ????? ????? ?? ???”? ???? ?? ????

Magen Avraham 565:5:

??? ???? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?????’ ??? ?”? ???? ???? ???? ????? ??? ????”?

See also Igros Moshe O.C. 2:105

http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14675&st=&pgnum=295