??? ???? ?? ??? ????? ?????

Haleivi:

1)I’m not sure that your understanding of R’ Meir is correct. All the Gemara says is that R’ Meir argues. Then it says shene’emar… and quotes a pasuk which proves that Rasha V’tov Lo can defy explanation. I don’t think that necessarily means that R’ Meir was only arguing about Rasha v’tov lo. It could be that that pasuk was just used to prove that Moshe’s request to understand H’s ways was not answered, the proof being that Rasha v’tov lo is unexplainable. I am not saying that you are wrong (in fact I think I am more noteh to your reading) but I am suggesting another reading.

2)As for the Ramban, he discusses tzadik v’ra lo in his introduction to Iyov. He does not directly mention the Gemara in Berachos but he doesn’t seem to accept the Gemara’s answer of “tzadik gamur…” as the final word on the matter – he points out that there can be tzadikim gemurim like Iyov who still have troubles.

3)As for Rabbeinu Yonah, he is explaining pshat in the Mishnah in Avos which by the way, Rashi explains pretty much the same way. He also quotes the Prophet Jeremiah so he seems to have good backing. Additionally, his understanding of the Gemara in Berachos might be in accordance with what I wrote in point#1 or point#2.

4)I won’t claim to be an expert in Maimonidean thought, but in Moreh Nevuchim 3:17 he discusses different views of Hashgacha and he seems to hold that any little thing that goes wrong for someone is a punishment for some bad deed and every little thing that goes right is a reward for a good deed. He implies that Yissurin shel ahava is a minority view (and again implies it in 3:25).

If one believes in Olam Haba and/or yissurin shel ahava, I don’t really see why anyone would have the kashya of tzadik v’ra lo. But anyway my original point was that if tzadik v’ra lo makes perfect sense based on the concept of gilgul, then anyone who struggled with this issue perforce did not know of/hold of gilgul. Now perhaps you can make the same argument in regards to olam haba/yissurin shel ahava in which case I would either be stumped or I would say that perhaps they hold like the Rambam (or what I think the Rambam seems to be saying).

In summation, this is definitely a complex topic and I am definitely not claiming to have expertise in it.

Yerushalmi:

I quoted the Maharalbach above and used it as part of a proof that gilgulim don’t exist.

Tzlach Berachos 7b:

????? ??? ???? ?????? ??????? ???? ?????? ????”? ??’ ?????? ?? ?’ ???? ????? ????? ??? ??? ????? ??????? ??? ??? ????? ??????? ??? ??’ ???? ??? ????? ????”? ??? ??? ??? ?’ ?????? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ???, ?? ????”? ????? ?????? ??????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ??? ??? ?? ??????? ?? ???’ ??????? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ?????

So it is clear that “halacha” and “hanhaga” are two different categories which have different rules governing the decision-making process.

“Why a person would run run run to make more more more money is fuelled by lack of success in the Yeshiva World. Take it slow, learn as much as you can while you can. There is no reason to rush into building your goyishe mindset of a family”

I’m not sure who this is addressed to. The topic here is not about someone with a goyishe mindset of a family; it is about someone who is deeply committed to Torah while being able to support himself (and his family).

That’s not the Gemara’s answer.

“Pashtus of the Gemara is actually that Moshe Rabbeinu did get an answer, ???? ???? ????? ????? ????. The Gemara then says that Rebbi Meir holds that for ??? ???? ?? there is not always a reason.”

I wasn’t discussing the answer; I was discussing the question.

“that is not the primary function of Toras Hagilgul in the Arizal.”

It doesn’t have to be the primary function. As long as it answers the issue, my point is that anyone who was bothered by this issue obviously didn’t hold of, or didn’t know about gilgul.

“and even Moshe Rabbeinu didn’t understand ???? ??? ??”

Actually, the pashtus of the Gemara and I think the Penei Yehoshua actually spells this out is not that he didn’t understand why there could be ???? ??? ?? but that he didn’t understand how there could be ???? ??? ?? and ???? ???? ??.

“Anyhow, major Judaism hack: Mesivta Gemara (although I didn’t see a teirutz to PAA’s kashya there).”

I feel so famous. This is at least the second time you mentioned my kashya in a totally unrelated thread. You are providing me with motivation to post more kashyas.

There is a very simple argument against the concept of gilgul:

In regards to the issue of ???? ??? ??, the Chofetz Chaim said

???? ??? ?????? ?????? ????? ???????? ???????? ??? ??? ?????

and similarly the Maharalbach writes in a teshuvah (siman 8) that gilgul is ????? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ???? ??? ??.

However, Rabbeinu Yonah writes about ???? ??? ?? that ??? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ??????? ???? ???????? ????. And we know that various nevi’im and even Moshe Rabbeinu didn’t understand ???? ??? ??. So they obviously didn’t know from the concept of gilgul (or they disagreed that it could explain ???? ??? ??).

“Which, according to R’ Akiva Eiger’s Hava Amina, makes a fascinating Chiluk between single and married women repeating Bentsching on Yom Tov is they forget Ya’aleh V’yavo.”

Are you referring to ‘??”? ??? ????? ???? ????? ??”? ???? ??

Sam2:

Is this the letter that you were referring to?

??????? ??? ????? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ??????? ??? ?? ??? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????? ???????? ??????? ????? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ?? ??????? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ??? ????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ???? ????? ??????? ????? ?? ??? ????? ???? ????? ??? ?? ?? ??? ???? ??

By the way, R’ Meiselman contends that the Rambam specifically says ????? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ????? ?????? ???? ??? but would not apply it to a definitive statement of Chazal.

As to whether the Ralbag’s shitta would be apikorsus for any of us to say, that would be an interesting discussion and we pretty much had this discussion at http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/shmuly-yanklowitz-novominsker-and-oo-theology

The key difference is that the Ralbag hasn’t said anything that would be against the Rambam’s principles of faith (well maybe he has – I won’t claim to be an expert in all the Ralbag’s statements, but certainly the statements being discussed here are not against the Rambam’s principles).

See also the Ralbag’s discussion of Billam’s donkey. The point is that the Ralbag objects to Chazal’s pshat on theological grounds – not simply because he is explaining a different level of pshat. In the cases of Billam and Lot’s wife he is disagreeing with Chazal on the theological implications of miracles (under certain circumstances), and in the quote from Bereishis he is disagreeing with them about changes in the ratzon Hashem.

If you are interested, I recommend reading the article entitled “The Scholar Rabbi Levi – A Study in Rationalistic Exegesis” by Yitzhak Grossman in Hakirah vol. 12 available for free download on their website.

In several shuls I have recently seen these new soft covered Yerushalmis put out (for people to take?) on the parts dealing with the churban. In the beginning they had several quotes from R’ Chaim Kanievsky about Yerushalmi.

One of them was:

?? ???? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ???

The Shulchan Aruch says that we don’t say tachanun and we don’t do nefilas apayim on Tisha B’av because it’s a moed. The Rema adds several things, among them that we don’t say lamenatzeach. As to whether or not this is also because it’s a moed, you may be right and truthfully I should have expressed my point in a better way which is as the Mishnah Berurah says about Lamenatzeach ????? ?? ???????? ?’ ??????? ????? ???’ ???? ???? ???? ??. In other words my point is that Tisha B’av is like Shabbos in the inapplicability of the pasuk from which the inyan of semicha is derived (even if it is for a different reason) and therefore it is possible that if you hold that you don’t need semicha on Shabbos then you would also hold that you don’t need semicha on Tisha B’av. (I say possible because it’s also possible that the differences in the reasoning [if there are] could translate into differences in halacha.) Also this was all pretty much l’pilpul b’alma (even though I know you will then object to this thread because I hold that pilpul is assur) because even regarding shabbos, the Rema paskens that one should be machmir to be someich on Shabbos unless it’s b’makom tzarich (and the Beis Yosef holds that you do need semicha on shabbos).

Sam2:

I don’t think that’s what it means in general contexts.

bais yakov maidel:

I don’t know if your comment was directed at me, but I am not discussing in terms of tznius.