Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The Gemara say that Eliyahu is one day before Mashiach.
Sam2:
I agree that it doesn’t mean colorful clothing. But that is not the same thing as colored clothing.
See for example the Aruch Laner Sukkah 10a:
??”? ??????. ???? ???? ???? ???? ??????? ????? (? ?) ??? ??”? ????? ???? ??????? ?????? ????? ?? ???? ??”? ???? ???? ??????? ??? ????? ????????? ??????? ????????? ???? ????? ????? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ??????? ??????? ?? ????? ?????? ???????? ????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ???? ?”? ??? ????? ????????? ?????? ??? ??????? ??? ??? ?? ??????? ????? ??? ??? ?? ???? ???????
But if we’re still not talking to each other, maybe you should say what you think it means.
Sam2:
“colorful clothing” perhaps not; “colored clothing” yes. I was not so precise in my first comment, but in my second comment I was. Perhaps what you mean is that I don’t necessarily have a raya because in Talmudic times “colored clothing” was chashuv because of the cost and work of dyeing it whereas nowadays it’s not.
Por:
The Rambam himself agrees with what you just said. In the very next halacha he says ?? ???? ??? ????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ?????? ??????? ?? ?? ??? ????? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ??????? ??????? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?? ?????? ??????? ????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????? ??? ??? ???? ????? ?? ?’ ?? ???? ???, ?????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ???? ????? ????? ???? ??????? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ?’ ?? ??? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ??????? ??????? ???? ????? ????? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ?????
Aaaiii, it’s a stirah in the Rambam. The Sefer Hateshuva addresses this stirah and explains
???????? ?? ????? ????”? ???? ????? ????? ?? ????? ????? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ?????”? ???? ??????? ???? ?????? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ???’ ????”? ????? 42 ?????? ????”? ???? ?? ?? ????? ????? ??????? ????? ????? ???????? ?? ????? ?????? ?????? ????? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ????”? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ???”? ???? ????
But the Rambam is still not saying what you quoted from the
Ramchal.
“PAA: I do not think that means what you think it means.”
Are you referring to the Gemara in Kesubos or the Gemara in Yevamos? The Gemara in Kesubos is talking about nedarim that are inuy nefesh and one of those listed is a neder about abstaining from wearing colored clothing. Rashi is explaining that abstaining from colored clothing is a genai and a bizayon to her and makes her degraded* to her husband.
The Gemara in Pesachim is saying that colored clothing is mesameach women. See also the hakdama to the Levush where he explains that he entitled the volume dealing with hilchos nashim “Levush Tachrich Habutz V’ha’argaman” because
??? ??? ???? ???? ????? ??? ????? ??????? ???????? ??? ???? ?????
*for lack of a better word
Pesachim 109a:
??? ???? ???? ??? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ????? ????? ??? ????? ????? ??? ????? ????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ??? ?? ???? ???? ????? ??????? ???? ????? ????? ???? ???????
Kesubos 71a-71b:
???? ?? ???? ????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ???? ???? ??? ???? ????? ????? ???????
Rashi there:
????? ???????. ???? ?????? ??? ?? ?????? ????
We see that women should be wearing colorful clothing.
Yevamos 44a:
???? ??????? ?? ??? ????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ?? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?????
“There’s a big difference between accepting a ‘rationalist’ explanation as Torah vs insisting that everything must fit in accordance with a rationalist ideology or else it is to be dismissed.”
So you can choose whether or not to accept the Ralbag’s rationalist explanations as Torah. But why do you think the Ralbag offered rationalist explanations if not because of a rationalist ideology? Granted there will be some times where he will accept things even when they are irrationalist but so will the people who were being attacked in the beginning of the thread (I think the only one mentioned by name was R’ Slifkin).
“So in other words, the greatest rationalist doesn’t have an issue with an open miracle. His issue would only be rational.”
Of course rationalists believe that H’ can perform miracles. The issue is how often, under what circumstances, for what purpose, and if there is historical evidence against it.
It would seem from the Rambam (Hilchos Teshuva 9:2) that the ikkar reason to want mashiach is to get rid of the oppression of the nations so that we can learn more Torah and do more mitzvos, thereby earning more Olam Habah:
????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ??????? ??????? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ??????? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ????? ????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ???
“I don’t know of a Kehilah that doesn’t sing liberally with the Chazzan throughout Chazaras ha’Shas of the Yomim Nora’im. Is this wrong l’Fi the Mishnah Berurah, or since the Minhag is to sing these words and only these words, perhaps there is no Cheshash that one will say the whole Berachah, and it is not Meichzi k’Yuhara?”
See Sha’arei Teshuva 582:7
“When my Rav shlita was discussing shnayim mikra recently, he said in the name of R’ Chaim Kanievsky Shlita, that being maaver sidrah during chazaras hasshatz is a mitzvah habaa biaveira. I have no source for this, other than his word.”
The source is Orchos Yosher chapter Tefilla Ose 28:
?????? ?? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?? ??
??? ???? ??? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???? ???? ??? ????? ???? ?????
???? (??? ????? ??? ??) ????? ??? ?? ????? ????? ????? ?? ????
????? ????? ????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?????? (??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??? ??? ????? ??????? ??????? ??)?
For all those who “wondered” how rationalists explain the pillar of salt, the Ralbag explains that it was the land that turned into salt, not Lot’s wife:
???? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??? ???? ????? ??? ???? ??
and then he explains more:
??? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?? ??? ????? ?? ???? ??????? ?? ?? ?????? ?????? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ???? ???? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???
The Penei Yehoshua explains that R’ Yochanan’s ???? was that there were more long-livers in Bavel than in Israel and that within Bavel it was specifically Jews who were living long.
The Ben Yehoyada explains that R’ Yochanan lived for 400 years and his ???? was for sure not about regular old age, rather it was that someone in chutz l’aretz could live as long as him i.e. 400 years.
Taking 10 minutes off the shiur would probably not cause a loss of an extra level of a mostly superficial grasp; it would probably cause them to be unable to learn the entire daf.
That being said, it would seem that R’ Chaim Kanievsky agrees to your basic idea:
???? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ??????? ????? ???? ?? ???”? ????? ??????? ????? ?????? ?????? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ?-5 ???? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ??????
(Igros U’kesavim siman 103)
Also, shema also includes kabbalas ol malchus shamayim and zechiras mitzrayim so lichora you can still say at least those parts
See however R’ Tzadok in ???? ????? ??? ??? who explains that ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??? ?’ ???? ???? ????? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ?????? ??????? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ???
that the seforim only become your “friend” once you use them to come up with chiddushim.
By the way I was kidding when I said “But I who do know kol hatorah kulah and couldn’t answer this kashya for sixty years, can entertain the possibility that the Ri gave an impossible example.”
But I will say that there are different types of mistakes. The potential mistake in the yibum case would be a basic mistake in cheshbon. Which is a much bigger mistake then say, forgetting an obscure source. Maybe not Rishonim, but for sure by acharonim, whereas I would be very hesitant to say that they made such a basic cheshbon mistake, I don’t think it would be out of the realm of possibility to say that they missed a source. Now perhaps missing a source might not necessarily be called a mistake in the first place. Also, I wouldn’t say that we don’t assume that Rishonim made mistakes because we have such a mesorah. I would say that we assume that they didn’t make such misakes because it is clear to anyone who reads Rishonim that they were brilliant and knew probably every gemara and were experts in cheshbon. The amount of times that I’ve had questions on Rishonim in cheshbon and later realized I was wrong, is more than enough to tell me not to treat them lightly.
I was talking about if you are wearing it for a davening jacket. Then it might be similar to a makom kavua in that it’s not assumed that you’re trying to rush out.
“I won’t say the Ri made a mistake because I am far from knowledgeable to ever say such a thing, and 2 days is far too short to ever say such a thing. If I knew Kol HaTorah Kullah and couldn’t answer this Kashya for 60 years, then maybe I’d begin to entertain the possibility that the Ri gave an impossible example.”
But I who do know kol hatorah kulah and couldn’t answer this kashya for sixty years, can entertain the possibility that the Ri gave an impossible example.
It would only be a problem according to the lomdus of Rashi’s pshat and Tosafos’s pshat. But according to the Maharam Mirottenburg there is no issue of looking like you are ready to leave and according to the bach’s explanation of the yerushalmi there also wouldn’t be a problem. Granted all the poskim do say that one should be machmir for all four shittos in which case it might be better to take it off. However one could perhaps argue that just like nowadays when people have a makom kavua there is no problem if it’s next to the door because everyone knows that your just sitting there because it’s your makom kavua, so too if everyone knows that people wear their coats as davening jackets then it might not be a problem.
If it’s within zman tefilla lichora you have to say it in order to be someich geulah l’tefillah (or at least the berachos). See Rabbeinu Chananel Berachos 10b ????? ????? ????? ???? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ?? ?? ?? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?? ????? ??????? ??? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ?????? ??????
Which is also why on something like respecting Rishonim, I (and I’m sure Sam too) will agree that there is something to it because throughout the literature we find that the great scholars respected (generally) held highly of those who preceeded them, including the Acharonim in regards to the Rishonim. And also not being able to source something wouldn’t necessarily make you wrong; it would just mean that you can’t prove that you are right. It might be somewhat of a siman that you are wrong.
“As I’ve said before (and PAA flattered me by putting it into the “Good CR Quotes” thread), the truth is the truth whether or not it’s sufficiently proven to you.”
I never said that I agreed with the good quote. (I would put a smiley face here but I am b’shita against them.) Now it happens to be that I agree in principle that the truth is the truth whether or not it is/can be proven. But what are the practical ramifications of that? I think we are coming from two different perspectives here. L’mashal: Let’s say you KNOW that Judaism is true but l’maaseh there is no way to empirically prove it. You might be satisfied with that because you are experiencing it so it doesn’t make a difference to you if you can prove it. But someone else who is not Jewish (or not frum) will not just accept that Judaism is true if you can’t prove it. (Ain Hachi nami it is possible to convince him by showing him the beauty of Judaism, but that won’t necessarily work in every context.) Similarly, on any issue being debated, one side can just claim that they are saying the truth (which works for them) but it doesn’t advance the debate at all (unless the other side has sufficient trust in you that they will accept what you say without it being proven). Which is why when someone nowadays makes a claim which they can’t back up with any source in our 2,000 year history of written literature, I will take it with a grain of salt. I’m not sure if this is what Sam is saying.
I think Sam’s point is somewhat similar to the Riaz that I quoted in the Shmuly Yanklowitz thread:
??? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?? ????? ???? ?? ??? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ??????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ????? ????? ??? ??????? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ????? ??? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ?? ???? ????? ?? ??? ?? ?????
He is essentially saying that the Rambam can’t make up things that aren’t in the Gemara. Now the Riaz is specifically talking about fundamentals of the religion, so he might not extend it as far as Sam does.
“Acquire for yourself a friend” (Avos 1:6) Like its implication. And also it is alluding to that the pen should be your friend – that you should write down that which you innovate (in Torah).
In a similar vein, the Kav Hayashar in perek 53 says ????
?? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ?? ??????? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ?????
“I’ve heard too many lectures about how I should only marry a guy who will learn for a few years “to give my family a foundation of Torah.”
No, sorry, my home will have a very clear foundation of Torah whether my husband learns in kollel first or not.”
Marrying someone “who will learn for a few years” and not marrying someone who “learns in kollel” are not mutually exclusive.