Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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.
Although the Ramban says that Gilgul answers Iyuv’s question of seemingly undeserved Tzaros, that is not the primary function of Toras Hagilgul in the Arizal.
Nobody called it Avoda Zara, and an idea is not Avoda. They said that thee idea comes from outside, from Ovdei Avoda Zara.
Try Rabbi Arye Kaplan. He had books on many of these topics.
Once married, she probably won’t be talking to him directly.
Mai Chazis Dedamach Sumak Tfei would mean that you are not required to kill yourself. I can’t think of a scenario where this is Noge’a since being used passively in a murder (or even Orayos — Karka Olam) is not Yehoreg V’al Yavor.
On the other hand Rav Kahana jumped off a roof so as not to be forced into an Aveira, and Eliyahu Hanavi had to save him. The Yaavetz also holds that when it started out as your fault then it is better you harm yourself Beyadayim.
By the way, I really don’t think we say Tata’i Gavar on a pot. We find in the Sugya of Korban Pesach that what touches the walls cooks itself.
I’m aware of that. That is his reason for giving an alternate Pshat of his own. This is still not taking on Chazal. He is not commentating on a Gemara and saying that he argues on it. He is saying in the Pasuk what he feels and his Pshat follows.
It’s pretty hard to ignore that Mishna, actually. It is obviously spoken by those who have seen it. They lived there. And, the Mishna is not being theoretical. This doesn’t stop anyone from giving alternate Pshatim in the Pasuk and it’s fine. The Ralbag is not really taking on Chazal head on. He wants to give a Pshat that satisfies him.
Old Man and Ari-Free’s approach maat very well be how out took place. I wrote that on the coffee room someplace but can’t find it now. I suggested that her turning around allowed enough time for the sulfur and salt to catch up with her and consume her. When salt consumes something you get one big pile of salt.
This would mean that not only was she punished, but she was punished by her own actions. We find this concept often how a person gets rewarded by their actions.
Sam, why then did Rav Cahana jump (in Kidushin, Assara Yuchsin)?
Start a couple of blogs under your name and open a twitter account. But I think you an get Google to take off that result, unless this is only in Europe.
I hope they enjoyed the Chasusna yesterday.
Sam, you don’t mean Nida. You mean the Harchakos of Nida.
What does that make me?
You don’t skip aneinu, do you?
But the non-posters might not.
A Kosheren Pahi, Popa.
The Gemara there was saying 1 day before. But there are Midrashim about three days.
When a ‘regular’ refrigerator dies, it gets replaced with a new (i.e. fancy dancy) one.
This was looked through. The Shabbo mode addresses the light but not the fan and compressor. The fridge I dealt with does not have a switch, either. It has a magnetic sensor. We had to tape on thin magnets to get it to stop. If they start using infrared sensors we are stuck.
You mean Eliyahu.
Popa, that’s so unoriginal. Yehoyakum was original.
It comes from the Gemara. The Gemara describes a seven year sequence and that at the end of the seventh Moshiach will come. It might mean the actual Shmita.
check out wikisource
Sam, new refridgerators have the compressor go off every time you open the door and a fan go on every time you close the door, for like 20 – 30 seconds.
Sam, if you think it is not a silly question in its own right then the title can go to you.
Most Rishonim who give different interpretations from Chazal do so in the form of explaning the Pshuto Shel Mikra. There are Parshanim Rishonim who took the liberty to argue on non-Halachic Midrashim. The idea is that while Chazal were Mekabel the Torah, the Drushim are open game.
Anyhow, as I pointed out, rationalist then is not rationalist now. What we call rationalist are actually naturists. Rationalist means someone who weighs heavily on the rational mind. The Rambam had no problem with a Ness in the Torah. He didn’t try to explain the natural causes for the Makkos or Yosef’s psychoanalysis. But he disagreed with the world categories being blurred.
Most Gemaros about extra fantastic events are also usually translated to something more nuetral. This is not a rejection of Nissim, but a rational understanding that such things are very uncommon, and that it is not even being portrayed as something so strange.
So in other words, the greatest rationalist doesn’t have an issue with an open miracle. His issue would only be rational.
From your list, I only saw the Tosfos Harosh. He mentions the Ri but without the Yibum.
Too late.
I completely agree with you, RebYidd. Along with Yisgadal comes Yiskadash (or Yissgadeil and Yiskadeish). We sure look forward to meeting the Avos, but they are holy. I wouldn’t go running, shouting Totty did you buy me a present. I would be ashamed to meet their gaze. Perhaps it is worth getting to know some holy people alive today so you gain an understanding in this.
Sam, these cease fires are nothing other than political points. Yes, there is a humanitarian point to allowing people some time to restock or get around. When Israel is ready and the time is right, they can initiate their own lull in targeting. The idea here is to make bigger and bigger cease fires and then to make it sound like that in itself is a reason to stop.
By the way, Israel and its neighbors is a study in unfinished victories. When you corner a hornet and don’t kill it it is more dangerous. Just imagine if the allied forces would have backed off before closing in. In every Israeli war, their success was considered a crime. Look how media keep on matching numbers, as if being victorious is in itself a crime.
The Hamas organization is recognized as a criminal organization. How do we treat crime families in the US (when we aren’t afraid of them or too corrupt)? You don’t stop in middle or arrest half of them and free most of that. You don’t make agreements with them. You eradicate them.
DY, do you mean anything different than my first, and main Pshat?
I think I should add that even without any Kasha this is the way I’d understand Tosafos.
A side point. There is an Hagaah changing the Ein Ruach Chachamim to Ruach Chachamim in the words of Rabbeinu Tam. There is no need to change it if you see the Tosafos in BB referenced in Massores Hashas. Rabbeinu Tam takes it for granted that there is another side to the coin.
Benign, it is not a new invention. The Rishonim were Mefaresh that Pasuk this way.
Dancing is out of the question.
I don’t think it means something that different from the Chovos Halevavos. It should also be pointed out that the Gemara says that the Shechina is Shora on Simcha shel Mitzva. The proof is from Vayehi Kinagen Haminagen. Rashi says that that was Simcha shel Mitzva since Hashroas Hashechina is a Mitzva.
Since the Gemara is not telling us Halachos for a Navi, it stands to reason that there is some form of Hashra’a on non-Neviim too — as we say, Veruach Kadshecha Al Tikach Mimenu — and which is dependent on being Besimcha. Being Besimcha for that reason is a Mitzva.
Sam, he is saying that there is a Mesora on something that is up to interpretation, not that the Mesora is up to interpretation. He, and I, made this point many times.
Is it worse than Ashrei or better yet, Eizehu Mekoman? Anything recited is fine.
Sam, just because Moshiach is not synonymous wwith Techiyas Hameisim it doesn’t mean there won’t be any Techiya then. There was Techiya in the times of Eliyahu and Elisha. Moshiash is not less of a Navi.
Rabim Uchveidim Me’eileh.
But anyhow, Popa, if there is another brother then giving it to this one is Gezeila.
Big deal, so they’ll do Chalitza instead of Yibum?
DY, so you are saying Mochel half instead of Mochel the whole.
PAA, you are right. So that Pshat is out the window. We are left with 1- The Chashash is about someone else. 2- The brother is Mochel (Not optimal. Okimta.) and 3- Yerusha of his mother. (Also problematic because the Halacha is probably that he rightfully is her Yoresh).
The first is true anyhow. This is how all Chashashos work: we don’t want people to confuse the Halacha. Yevamos is full of this.
DY, if he returns it equally then he is stealing from the others. The whole issue in Tosafos is about being a nice guy and giving it. What I wrote earlier was using this Terutz as the seed. If the others are Mochel then this can work, but I’m not sure of the Halachos of some Yorshim being Mochel a Chov. Does that eliminate the whole Chov, their part, or nothing?
According to Popa’s current Terutz Tosafos should say, ?? ???? ?????. By saying ????? ????? ??? he is saying that they will ignore the active Zika.
2)There is no inheritor of the original ger.
That is your assumption, not Tosafos. Nevertheless, I am saying that you put everything into one person and there’s no reason to think Tosafos did the same. We don’t want you to treat this particular fellow like a full fledged ????? ?????? because of what will happen to the other ????? ?????? who might do Yibum when they shouldn’t while those who should won’t.
Or, if he said that this son should Yarshen the loan then the two are not mutually exclusive.
Tosafos was not bothered about him doing Yibum. His problem was that the brother would think he doesn’t have to.
It is not impossible if we are talking about money owedd to his mother. And, as I said, Tosafos is describing the issue of being Machlif a Nolad Bikedusha with an Horaso Bikedusha.
When Tosafos mentioned the Ichlufi (like Rashi, BTW) he was referring to any such person. Thereafter, the him and his are about the Ichlufites and not the Yoresh.
Another scenario is if the father requested that you pay it to that son but he didn’t do a Matnas Sh’chiv Mera. But, in that case Tosafos wouldn’t be running to Yibum. It would be Gezel to give it to him instead of his brother. What if the brother is Mochel the Chov? (In general, what happens when one Yoresh is Mochel?)
Na (or is it, Meh), that one is different. There I was pointing to something constructive that you actually helped with, and thank you for that.
Tosafos is specifically saying that the “big trouble” would be yibum problems.
Right. And therefore..? Yibum is where it would be a problem for people to think that this type of person is a full fledged born Yisroel. Tosafos is not applying it to this person. All these types of Gezeiros work this way: we don’t want people to draw wrong conclusions.
Still, why couldn’t the Ri give a case nogeia to this ger, such as if he is mekadesh his father’s wife? The Ran and Ritva do, in fact, give such a case.
Or worse, that if his brother is a real brother from his mother that we should be Choshesh that he might do Yibum which would be an Erva. Why does Tosafos only bring up a Zekuka marrying out?
As for your Kasha, why should we care about him being Machmir in vain? Tosafos brought up an issue of where him being a full Yisroel would bring Issurim. And as for my Kasha, Tosafos’ doesn’t want to add more people to the story (which makes is less likely) in order to bring out the point.
I mentioned the first wife dying so that the Yerusha is only for him. Obviously the brother dies as well.