Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
square root of 2Participant
So seems the unanimous consensus is that making a siyum is directly related to the subsequent seudah?
square root of 2Participant“Clothes, dishes, and books isn’t a full צורה so there are מקילים”
I don’t know what you mean. Do you mean that it’s not boleit? that heter doesn’t apply to the sun and moon. You mean there’s only half a sun in the picture? מאי פסקא?“Also ask tzemach if the gedolim think it’s assur”
who’s tzemach?“והיו עיניך רואות את מוריך you should see your teacher or rebbi.”
“Rav belsky had several pictures in his house, not just his office, of rav reuven, rav yaakov, and i believe rav shlomo heiman, but i don’t remember that very clearly.”
So you are suggesting that it’s worth it to be meikel and see the face of a godol (or to support someone). It wouldn’t answer having pictures of ordinary people. (I’m aware you might just be addressing the question of if there’s an inyan, and not if it might be assur.)” To support a yid, he put on his hat, made a big smile and posed for a picture”
I saw that picture and he’s not smiling.square root of 2ParticipantAs some posters mentioned, according to the Ramban, and MAharm Meirutenberg it is forbidden to keep a picture of a person (according to the Rambam it is forbidden to make such a picture, but not to own it). It begs the question why the biggest machmrim are suddenly meikel with this. Divrei Malkiel says that a ruach tumah rests on a picture of a tzaddik.
More shver is that people are meikel to buy and own clothes (for children), dishes, books, or “tchotchkes” with pictures of the moon or sun, something which is assur according to everyone.square root of 2Participantsee
תפילה למשה אוצר פי׳ ראשונים על התפיות ח״ג
bottom of page 768square root of 2ParticipantI didn’t pivot to another question. The question was, and is, of what value is emunah peshutah, when it is not the result of proper research and analysis. You compared it to belief in the American Revolution, to which I responded that, indeed, my faith in the revolution is not so strong, and I will not ascribe to it overdue significance.
What has prompted you to pivot from questions on faith to the emotional aspect of its denial?
Because you have failed to provide an adequate explanation, you find it necessary to accuse me of “just having a desire for emunah to be unreasonable.” I want it to be reasonable; you tried, several times, to give a non-answer: first by changing the subject to havchana, then via comparing it to the American Revolution, and now to accusing me because you don’t have the answer, and talking about how emotional Matan Torah is,
If you have the answer, please clearly provide it. If not, stop wasting my time.
square root of 2ParticipantWhat you wrote is:
“Emunah based on mesorah isn’t childish; it’s the acknowledgment of jewish history being filled with
*divinity and awareness of Hashem*.
It’s the *understanding that our nation stood by har sinai*, and that its authenticity shouldn’t be any more suspect than the American revolution. Havchana, seeing Hashem in creation and history, isn’t derishah vechakirah; it’s advocated by basically everyone.”
I don’t understand how we arrive at said awareness and understanding without probing the options.
And if its veracity is as strong as the belief in the american revolution, something tells me it’s not worth too much at all. Not that I, or anyone I ever heard of, is skeptical about the revolution. Just that I, and I assume most people, don’t cling to the fact that the revolution happened with unwavering belief. Were someone to shoe me evidence that it never occurred, I’d believe it.square root of 2Participant@Avira so you haven’t answered the question. Of what purpose is an unexplored emunah? An emunah so tenuous that philosophizing about it may shatter it?
square root of 2Participant@Haleivi
Let’s say one of the rishonim, an undisputed chain of the menorah of Torah as we have it……didn’t believe in Torah Min Hashamayim. Sure, a great and wise man or group of men wrote it, and every word is truth and should be “horved on”. What’s the big deal?If the Rambam is telling us this is something that is an IKAR HADAS, a foundation of our heritage, and an Amora didn’t believe in it, yeah, that’s a huge deal.
Sure, maybe amoraim made mistakes. Even torah mistakes. But not something heretical.square root of 2Participant@shlomo
this is what I had written:
“According to the raavad, it’s not an ikar; clearly he understands belief in a corporeal guf does not negate the belief in a god.”1. The raavad says it’s NOT AN IKKAR.
2. A [mistaken] belief in a corporeal [god] (sorry for the typo) doesn’t negate belief in god.Ch”V I never wrote nor implied that the raavad was a kofeir.
square root of 2Participant@Avira before I reply to you I should make sure I understand you.
Are you saying that seeing Hashem’s role in creation is condoned, and rather it’s yichud hashem (that there is nothing else other than Hashem; that all the Malachim and mazalos and middos are but expressions of the one God) that’s discouraged?
square root of 2Participant@R Eliezer it’s not how rashi learns.
@avira
it’s not a good comparison to Miryam. IIRC, what the acharonim say is the when Miryam judged Moshe, it had still not been established that his nevuah was unparalleled. It was afterward that it became established. Maybe that can be extended to explaining R’ Hillel’s position as well {though a tad far fetched, IMHO). The “why is nevuas moshe an ikar” is not explained by the above, nor will it explain why Bias Moshiach is an ikar. The reason I didn’t ask about Necuas Moshe is because I think it can be answered with the meshech chochma–maybe he himself answers this question with it–that Nevuas Moshe’s superiority is a prerequisite for emunah b’Torah min Hashamayim. [I might be somewhat misquoting the meshech chochma, I can look it up later, but that is his general yesod.]What I was really wondering, using the first question as a prelude, was why are we expected to believe the ikarim? Are they mesoratic based? Intellectual based? The answer is, I think, some and some.
For instance, someone who doesn’t believe in Techias Hameisim MIN HATORAH is a kofeir. (Parenthetically, this is befeirush a Mishnah, so why does Sefer Haikarim not include it?) Said belief is at least partially a result of belief in the Torah.
Sachar Vaonesh, some (I think the chinuch) say is rooted in svara (though of course belief in the torah will automatically result in said belief).Now, what about that Hashem is eino guf….? Is that something that’s a component of Metzius Hashem? That is, someone who believes in a corporeal god is essentially believing an impossibility? If so, the source for this ikar will be the same source–sevara–as Metzius Hashem.
Or maybe it’s not one and the same. (According to the raavad, it’s not an ikar; clearly he understands belief in a corporeal guf does not negate the belief in a god.)I have to respond to your second point but later.
May 16, 2021 8:28 am at 8:28 am in reply to: Learning Torah with the method prescribed by the s”a harav #1974695square root of 2Participant“When I was in yeshiva, I noticed that whenever someone learned the same topic consecutively, (For example, he switched yeshivos and was learning again what he learned the zman Bedford..) They basically knew it verbatim from any point that they picked up the discussion.”
Verbatim? I never saw anyone do that.
“In sum, learning by heart is more about mental preparedness,”
How do you prepare your mind for it?April 23, 2021 7:41 am at 7:41 am in reply to: Learning Torah with the method prescribed by the s”a harav #1967387square root of 2Participant@meir g
Sounds good to me. Which halachik authority are you quoting?square root of 2ParticipantThanks for the suggestions. I just need to know how long it’s reasonable to expect it to take. Obviously no one can give anyone an exact timeline; I’m more wondering if this is the type of thing you can pick up in your spare time or it’s something you have to focus on, full semesters in college etc.
@always that story is told about the author of the ketzos hachoshen and r’ aryeh leib tzintz. They were referring to content, not style.square root of 2Participant@laskern, the gemara is referring to the guf and the neshama. Olam Haba is referred to as the olam haneshamos, according to the Ramba there will be no guf then. Clearly the guf’s responsibility for decisions is minimal. Will there be seichel in olam haba?
@chabadshlucha, “And both are based on logic. Just depends which logic you feed to the nefesh hasichlis.” Well, aren’t you being fed by all 3? What makes the final decision?square root of 2Participantshuv matzasi this exact question in shu”t radvaz chelek 5 siman 89. If anyone can explain his answer to me, I’ll be very grateful.
square root of 2Participant@laskern if the moach is combined of different factors which do the thinking, the neshama being only one component, then why is the sachar veonesh applied only to the neshama and not all parts of the moach?
square root of 2Participant@laskern, it “contains” the neshama and sechel–does that mean that the neshama and sechel are contributing factors? The only factors? Or mere residents in the moach?
@chabadshlucha, yes please explain.square root of 2Participant@FM, Thanks for your time…thaat was one of the longest posts I’ve ever seen.
But I’m still confused. Your answer seems to be
1. Hashem originally wasn’t going to create the world with chesed, but then decided to.
2. The ramchal’s axiom is only applicable once it was created with chesed,
3. We don’t really know why Hashem created the world. And we’re not supposed to know.
4. There;s no conflict between yediah and bechirah.square root of 2Participant@Haleivi
“Square Root of 2, why do you say that the pint is not to be embarrassed? What about those being punished?”
I am quite honestly quite frustrated–angry, really–with everyone who comments without reading the posts. You apparently didn’t even read the title.“As for my point of Bechira, you have to truly envision such a universe before tossing the explanation. If the fact is that there is no concept of a Cheit (whether preordained or selective universe) then there is no active Bechira. (Yes, I know your point of view, which is why I worded it that way.)”
So please explain your point of view on bechira and how that’s contradictory to a world where only tzaddikim live.square root of 2Participant@FakeMAven, thank you. I don’t quite understand. The ramchal said our purpose in the world is to earn reward. Are you implying differently?
square root of 2ParticipantThank you AviT . I don’t know if you’re following up on this, but if you are: There are many sources that reshaim will remain reshaim in olam haba as well. One example: Midrash in the beginning of shir hashirim that says leasid lavo at the seudas livyasan, the reshaim will serve the tzadikim.
square root of 2ParticipantLaskern, thank you for the mussar tidbits. Does it pertain to the discussion?
Haleivi, “If Hashem would not create those people whom He knows will turn out bad, then we would have a world in which there is no active Bechira.”
What are you talking about? A tzaddik’s bechira is not dependent on whether there are reshaim in the world or not.“As for the Nahama Dikisufa, I don’t see any contradiction there. What you do get is deserved and well received and what you don’t get, for lack of accomplishment, is embarrassing.”
Excellent. Now if the point was to avoid embarrassment, it seems like a failure, no?square root of 2ParticipantSo, in a nutshell, reshaim were not created for their own good.
square root of 2ParticipantThe rambam discusses why yediah and bechira are not contradictory.
As I said already, more than once, that is not my question.square root of 2ParticipantI apologize for yelling.
square root of 2ParticipantLASKERN CAN YOU PLEASE READ MY POSTS BEFORE COMMENTING? AND DON’T CHANGE THE SUBJECT, EITHER. THANK YOU.
square root of 2ParticipantThere seems to be a large miscommunication here. Being as how nobody understood me, it’s probably my fault ,so let me repeat the question very slowly.
1. Hashem created people in order to do good.
2. There are people who don’t do good, i.e. reshaim.
3. The fact that they do bad on their own volition is irrelevant.
4. Hashem knows, before he even creates them, that they will be reshaim.
5. reshaim don’t do good, and hence there is no reason for them to be created.
6. Why does Hashem create people he knows will be reshaim?square root of 2Participant@chabad shlucha, I think you contradict yourself in the same post, but whatever, I calrified my question.
square root of 2Participantseems like either ,my question was misunderstood or people are taking the yediah/bechirah paradox to heart. Although a person has the freedom to be a rasha, and Hashem doesn’t create him as a rasha, nevertheless Hashem creates people he know will be reshaim. And hence my question. Why?
@Laskern. Please elaborate. I don’t understand.
@coffee addict, basically you’re saying that reshaim’s creation is indeed a disservice to them, but it’s done for the tzaddikim’s good?square root of 2Participant“yet the gemara says that tzaddikim in olam haba will be embarrassed of each other’s accomplishments ”
baba basra 75asquare root of 2Participant@laskern, what does that rashi by Kayin have anything to do with this?
@a pashute yid, please refer to my second post on this thread.
I fail to see how I took it out of context.
And please answer this rashi, instead of referring me to others, unless the others shed light on this one. Which it doesn’t.square root of 2ParticipantSide point: the ram ban in Iyov says that it’s better to have all the yissurim in olam hazeh than to have any small amount of gehenom. Is that not discouraging? Does that sound like a benevolent world rather than a harsh world?
square root of 2ParticipantLaskern, rashi doesn’t bring that part of the gemara; it would seem he holds that for “pashut pshat” of the pasuk it’s not necessary. Additionally, the gemara itself seems to put the focus on gehenom and not teshuva: if the “hey” alluded to the fact that Hashem created the world with mercy and instilled teshuva, that would be understandable. But when the gemara puts the emphasis on gehenom, with a side point that it’s possible to do teshuva, it’s not so much more encouraging.
An underlying difficulty I have is that if the mesillas yesharim is correct, then why is the world so prone to bad and not good? If the entire point is to get sechar, why is it that “noach lo leadam shelo nivra”–why did Hashem not make it that it would be easier to get gan eden than gehenom? Why is it that those who get saved from gehenom are one in many, and those that make it to gan eden are the minority?
square root of 2Participantlaskern, the tiferes yisrael is not at all a contradiction to what R’ Moshe says. No one denies that Moshe Rabbeinu definitely worked on himself a tremendous amount. What R’ Moshe says is that his drive/ability to work on himself was stronger than Aharon’s.
square root of 2ParticipantRashi in parshas va’eira says that Moshe and Aharon were equal in righteousness. R’ Moshe Feinstein explains that although Moshe Rabeinu undoubtedly reached higher heights than Aharon, it was because his neshama was naturally more prone to kedusha than was Aharon’s. This seems to be not like what you said.
I don’t know if I have a hechere neshama. I am mortal which by default is finite. My neshama is immortal and I guess infinite (?). 🙂
square root of 2ParticipantThank you. Who is the sefer habris? Do you mean that everyone starts off with a regular neshama and when they use up its potential they’re given a hechere neshama?
“You can have 25 levels…similar to sefiras haomer.” I always wondered what it means “yesod shebigvura, etc,” and so too I don’t understand it here. Does “nefesh shebeneshama,” for example, mean that the ikar is the neshama but it has a nefesh characteristic as well?square root of 2Participantwhat about a sheailas chalom? Anyone know how to do that?
square root of 2ParticipantChiddush ha’olam was by no means introduced by the nefesh hachaim. As Laskern pointed out, we say it in the 1st bracha of krias shema both by shachris and maariv. See abudraham on the bracha of ma’ariv who points it out. It’s also mentioned in Midrash Tehillim 119 85, although maybe it can be understood differently.
The nefesh hachaim calls it a tenet of our faith.
As far as the gemara in shabbos, the rishonim explain it differently than the maharal. I don’t understand the Maharal. Why is saying hallel on teva worse than reciting a bracha on teva?Ubiquitin and Gaon, besides for the fact that chiddush ha’olam is mentioned in the brachos instituted by the anshei knesses hagedolah, as I mentioned, I’m not sure there’s anything “backwards” in posing a question on an earlier source based on what a later source says. See, for just one example, baba basra 81b where the gemara questions a beraisah based on what r’ zeira says.
square root of 2ParticipantThanks avrah, I’ll look that up.
Catch yourself, I don’t see how the theories of why Hashrm created the world with koach hateva answers why it is that we’re to look at the world with an attitude of “everything here is by default going to stay unless there’s a definite change.”square root of 2Participantmameheleh, you mentioned 2 instances that we are supposed to. But maybe we should be cutting back on greenhouse gasses that we weren’t commanded in.
square root of 2ParticipantArvah, thanks again for your reply. Admittedly I did get a bit lost in middle of the paragraph, but you seemed to be quoting the nefesh hachaim that the world, though dependent on Hashem, will stay unless its base–Hashem–“moves”. You didn’t provide the exact source, so it’s hard to look up, but that seems contradictory to everything I always heard about chiddush haolam–that Hashem is constantly creating the world, and it’s not at all steady-but-dependent; it is nothing save for the command of Hashem.
Daas yochid and catch yourself, I understand that Hashem commanded us to do mitzvos even though in reality our actions are futile and it’s Hashem that allows the action to happen (or more accurately, performs the action himself). My question is why Hashem specifically wants us to act as though all is to be taken for granted, that we should apply a logical–or logic-related–assumption that everything should be staying the same unless we see proof that it changed.
I’ll illustrate the point further. The gemara (gittin and other places) discusses chezkas chai–we can assume that he who was alive yesterday is alive today. Is that not antithetical to our core beliefs? Are we supposed to have such an attitude, “we’re here to stay by default, unless some change happens”? Don’t we make a bracha every day amplifying that point exactly that our life was given to us by Hashem and that if not for his kindness we wouldn’t be here?
To reiterate, I’m 100% aware that this is a Torah-ordained doctrine. The question is WHY it is so.
square root of 2ParticipantI meant what I said.
square root of 2ParticipantI did press the submit button. The reason you thought I did was because you’ve become used to the fact that Hashem gave people to make decisions and cause things to happen.
square root of 2Participantubiquitin,
“I dont follwo, so what is the hashkafic view on smoking being bad. for that matter waht is the Torah view on the goal blood pressure various studies/guidlines disagree, So I guess we should let the Torah be machriah.”That was going to be a follow-up question. Why does climate change seem to be less accepted than other scientific claims? As far as letting the torah be machria….yeah, that is what we Jews do. The question is what is the torah’s view?
Mameleh, hashem never told us to increase greenhouse gasses.
square root of 2Participantavrah (the only one who answered the question):
Thanks for your answer, however, that is what I’m struggling with. If we’re to assume that there is no greater amount of change in plurality as opposed to a singular change, why would we be instructed (by the torah, as catch yourself so brilliantly pointed out;” a halachic principle”, to quote the pearls of DY) to, in essence, ignore that very concept that the world is actually being created every moment, and act as if it’s autonomous?
square root of 2Participantubiquitin, you’re right that there’s a scientific factor to all this, and that’s not necessarily related to any Torah view, however, I do think there seems to be a hashkafic side to whether or not scientists can be believed, as is evident from the subsequent posts.
Chiefshmerel, The mesilas yesharim understand that medrash to mean not to destory the world through aveiros. (I suppose you can say ain mikra yotzei midai pshuto, though.)
Little Froggie, thanks for your replies. I’m a little confused. Your first post indicated that although climate change may be real, the correct way to correct it is through hischazkus betorah vimitzvos. Your second post seemed to scoff at the very idea, and, as ubiquitin already said, would you say the same thing about smoking?
square root of 2Participanthow did the gr”a come to live in the 18th century? Did Hashem send a neshama typical of earlier neshamos or it was possible for everyone in his generation to become the gr”a?
square root of 2Participantjoseph, how?
square root of 2Participantwhy did hashem even make our generation?
-
AuthorPosts