Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Is this what you are referring to:
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=21194&pgnum=504
(I think it’s a brain not a heart, though it’s not relevant to your question.)
To answer your question, I have seen people claim that R’ Gedalia Nadel and R’ Mordechai Gifter said that the Chazon Ish read medical journals. Google chazon ish read medical journals and you will find these claims. Seeing as neither R’ Gifter nor R’ Nadel is still alive, I don’t know how you can verify the claims, so you’ll have to decide for yourself whether to accept them or not.
There are those, however, who cannot follow the Hebrew, and those who cannot cope with the complexity of some of the sources, who are intimidated off a little.
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/your-coffee-room-report-card-comments#post-530103
I don’t think I ever indicated that I take it personally. (In fact in that thread I brought seven pro daas torah sources.) Does it come off that way?
And “Excessive-Block-Text-Brute-Force” is meant to promote debate, not stifle it.
Correction:
It was Vaeira, not Vayeira.
Specifically where it says:
?? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ????? ??????? ?? ?? ???? ??? ??? ????? ????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ????? ??????
DaasYochid:
It’s interesting you bring that up. I saw a piece in there on Parshas Vayeira and that was actually what my quote of the Noda B’yehuda was meant to primarily address.
No one. Randomex was using Yudkowsky to demonstrate that I don’t have to defend myself.
Why would I take offense? Anyway, I’m not saying that R’ Elya Ber can’t argue. I’m just saying that according to (your representation of) him, R’ Dovid Tzvi Hoffman is guilty of kefira. As is the Chasam Sofer (Nidda 18a):
??? ??????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ??????? ???? ????? ?????? ?”? ??? ?????? ??????? ????? ????”? ????’ ????? ???”? ??????
And R’ Yosef Karo (Kesef Mishneh Berachos 8:5):
???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??
etc. etc.
Since the theological conundrum thread is active again I have to reaffirm that “I really do believe in Hashem”.
I think the Maharshal (siman 72) said it best:
?????? ??? ???? ?? ???? ???????? ????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ????? ?? ???? ????? ???? ??????? ????? ???? ??????? ??? ?????? ???????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???? ????? ??? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ?? ????
Regarding the allegiance of wands:
First of all, upon rereading the excerpts that I quoted from Ollivander, it seems to me that Ollivander wasn’t 100% certain about the idea of wands changing allegiances. Notice how he says things like “then it may be yours”, “I think so”, “I think so”, “Whether it needs to pass by murder,
I do not know”.
Additionally, there could really be two separate issues here. The starting point is that a wand that is not yours doesn’t work well for you. So theoretically, “winning a wand” could just allow it to work well for you without the added chiddush of allegiances changing. Ollivander’s statement of “Yes, if you won it, it is more likely to do your
bidding, and do it well, than another wand” would reflect this. Though Ollivander does seem to hold of the added chiddush.
But getting to yekke2’s question, I think I was sort of alluding to this earlier, namely, that if disarming someone causes a change of allegiance, then there would really be complete anarchy. Wands would be changing allegiances on a daily basis and no one would be able to keep track of it. Also, in the third book Harry disarmed Snape. So Harry should have had the allegiance of Snape’s wand. Now sirvoddmort might answer both of these points by saying that when the person took his wand back, he regained its allegiance.
Stam a kashya – how did Dumbledore defeat Grindelwald if Grindelwald had an unbeatable wand? Unless “unbeatable” is lav davka.
Rambam Hilchos Avoda Zara 2:3:
?? ???? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???? ????? ????? ??????? ???? ????
It was Randomex trying to convince me that I don’t have to defend myself from three years ago.
Where did I indicate anything to the contrary?
The Sifri and the Yalkut Shimoni have the girsa as ????. But regardless of whether the derasha is referring to ???? or ?????? ????? or both, my point was that according to the Rambam and the Sefer Hachinuch it is not limited to those categories; it applies to all pursuit of gashmius.
I preempted that with my parenthetical.
You are welcome, and thank you for the compliment, sirvoddmort.
yekke2:
It’s a nice pshat, but there is nothing in Ollivander’s words that indicate it and there is a lot in Ollivander’s words that indicate against it. If that is really how it works then I don’t have such a big problem. The big problem is that Harry formed the plan based on what Ollivander told him and Ollivander told him nothing of the sort of what you are saying.
Stam a kashya on your pshat would be that Gindelwald didn’t defeat Gregorovitch; he just stole the wand.