tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955681.post2045075624804996840..comments2024-02-29T00:32:34.057-06:00Comments on Havolim: Mattos, Bamidbar 30:16: Causing Others to Sin. And The Converse; A Salute to Lubavitch PREliezer Eisenberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16036989084122930226noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955681.post-17150298039856036572010-07-11T02:05:30.224-05:002010-07-11T02:05:30.224-05:00what I meant to suggest is that a-priori I would h...what I meant to suggest is that a-priori I would have said נכנס תחתיה does not mean Chiuv Malkos etc, just like we don't take the Rambam De'ot literally to that extent.<br /><br />However, I saw on Shabbos that the Kli Hemda brings up this possibility. Also, I now see there are cases where the Machshil gets Malkos (Rambam Kil'ayim, and Tumas Kohen - are these what you referred to ?), and also the Mizrahi, so maybe Nader is one of these exceptions (but I would still claim these are all exceptions, with a Limud for each, albeit the source for Rambam regarding Tumas Kohen is controversial). <br /><br />BTW, Rashi brings the Sifri נכנס תחתיו לכל עונשין, but our Girsa is מוכנס תחתיה לעוון.<br /><br />BTW 2, I read into the Ramban that the Hidush here is that she is not considered even Shogeg [and here we may use your Chidush and say this is because Torah gives him the authority, unlike a regular Ed Echad case], so one might as well say as far as he is considered, it's just the same as any Machshil.Elihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12793717193734899866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955681.post-87179229437727578972010-07-09T08:25:34.906-05:002010-07-09T08:25:34.906-05:00Eli, I need pirush le'pirusho. I didn't s...Eli, I need pirush le'pirusho. I didn't see everything you brought down, but I did see the Rambam in Deios, which is a weak tzushtell. There is a Rambam that says befeirush that a machshil of a shogeg is ne'enash the aveira of the victim. But I don't remember where it is. And the Ibn Ezra brought in the Mizrachi is very interesting! I'll look at the rest this Shabbos bl'n. Yasher Koach.Bnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955681.post-80547933742008564332010-07-09T02:45:52.707-05:002010-07-09T02:45:52.707-05:00that's נדר, not Ralph Naderthat's נדר, not Ralph NaderElihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12793717193734899866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955681.post-68470740006504811312010-07-09T02:44:26.620-05:002010-07-09T02:44:26.620-05:00Do you really mean to say that the Machshil (in ca...Do you really mean to say that the Machshil (in cases where he is to be trusted, like here) is חייב מלקות ? What about Rambam De'ot 6:9 ? (True, Reb Elchanan, Kovetz He'arot 48:9 who uses נתפס בעון to imply יהרג ואל יעבור, but it seems he does not distinguish between נתפס and לפני עור)<br /><br />However, see http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pagefeed/hebrewbooks_org_2691_357.pdf and his analogy from Rambam Kil'ayim.<br /><br />Also, see Mizrahi (Pasuk 13) - http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14293&st=&pgnum=67<br />so maybe Nader is also one of the exceptions.Elihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12793717193734899866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955681.post-74717677850334714282010-07-08T15:51:23.135-05:002010-07-08T15:51:23.135-05:00Despite the superficial irony of contravening pure...Despite the superficial irony of contravening pure reason by means of logic, I do feel that way. But I have to admit that all divrei kabala make me queasy to different degrees, so I've never developed a feel for which ones cross the line between queasiness and minus. I'm not proudn of it: I'm not saying I disrespect it, Chas Veshalom. I'm not a min. I just never learned it, and to the uneducated reader, it is very disturbing.Bnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955681.post-64858570443112142262010-07-08T15:10:26.063-05:002010-07-08T15:10:26.063-05:00You're right; I do tend to respect action more...You're right; I do tend to respect action more than allegation. I think that ideas are ephemeral and ethereal, and even to the biggest adukim ultimately ambiguous. I think people lie to themselves all the time. I think that we all knowingly and willingly defraud ourselves. But I think there's a deeper level of thought that is more honest, that that level of thought is so profound and true that it is avoided by the conscious mind, that is so demanding and clear that it blinds the eye of the conscious mind. It is that level of thought that is expressed through behavior. <br /><br />So bekitzur, yes, to some extent I respect behavior more than expressions of credo. Or, more precisely, I think that behavior is the only reliable expression of credo.Bnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955681.post-64159934684117345372010-07-08T14:42:15.389-05:002010-07-08T14:42:15.389-05:00But somehow the Vilna Gaon managed to understand t...But somehow the Vilna Gaon managed to understand the Pri Eitz Chayim differently. The Tanya's understanding of the Pri Etz Chayim isn't Rav Chayim Vital's nor the Ari Hakadosh's fault. He took a statement about the effects of idolatry and ignorance of true holiness on the soul and turned it into a statement about the make up of the non-Jew.<br /><br />I also notice you skipped the whole deification of the rebbe piece, the second example on my list.<br /><br />B, what I see from your response is that you care more about the rote movement of the limbs than the religion itself. What Dr. Berger called "the scandal of Orthodox Indifference."<br /><br />They are much further from Jewish beliefs than "some shittos among the Tanaim and Amoraim were from each other". No tana declared his rebbe to be God Incarnate, repeating the mistake of the Golden Calf by worshiping Moses' replacement instead of G-d. How can a Jew hear these words and not shudder? How dare anyone make excuses for idolatry, just because they happen to keep kosher too?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955681.post-23529718890133871042010-07-08T14:32:53.661-05:002010-07-08T14:32:53.661-05:00Anonymous 2:05- Why blame the ba'al hatanya fo...Anonymous 2:05- Why blame the ba'al hatanya for something he got out of Reb Chaim Vital? And specifically, the Lubavitchers are the ones that are always quoting the Tosfos Yomtov in Avos about Chaviv Adam shenivra be'tzelem applying to gentiles (when they're criticized for their Mivtza Sheva Mitzvos Bnei No'ach). I always say you can't judge a religious group on what their books say- you have to assess their behavior. Just like the Communist constitution- a fine document it was.<br /><br />As for hthe mashiach thing, when I mentioned to Reb Moshe that Lubavitchers were saying the Rebbe was the Moshiach, he answered vz'l "alevai."<br /><br />Yes, I know that weird hashkafa and general weirdness runs rampant in that group, and always has. But I love them anyway, at least from a distance. Their shittos are not as distant from normative frumkeit as some shittos among the Tanaim and Amoraim were from each other.Bnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955681.post-6273704511783988032010-07-08T14:11:58.364-05:002010-07-08T14:11:58.364-05:00Does anyone count this pasuq among the Taryag? If ...Does anyone count this <i>pasuq</i> among the <i>Taryag</i>? If not, perhaps this actually <b>is</b> <i>lifnei iveir</i>, and the <i>pasuq</i> here is adding the extent of the <i>onesh</i>, rather than a new <i>issur</i>.<br /><br />In general, though, I'm nervous about taking statements about <i>oneshin biydei Shamayim</i> too literally. We don't even know what they are, not being able to imagine what existence of a soul in <i>shamayim</i> is like. And HQBH doesn't just judge actions, He is the <i>bochein qelayos valeiv</i>. Who knows what all these <i>maamarei chazal</i> really mean?<br /><br />-michamicha bergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11612144735431285113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955681.post-47665593473170952712010-07-08T14:05:59.919-05:002010-07-08T14:05:59.919-05:00You write: "Whether you like their theology o...You write: "<i>Whether you like their theology or not, you have to salute their unquenchable enthusiasm and mesirus nefesh, and the myriad chasadim they have done for so many abandoned Jews.</i>"<br /><br />You can not just hand-wave over the theology issue. Lubavitch teaches some pretty problematic things. Including:<br /><br />1- Non-Jews are basically tomei animals that are capable of thought. According to the very first chapter of the Tanya, non-Jews do not have the soul that God breathed into Adam. Their souls come from k'lipois t'meiois, placing them on a lower level than those of cows, sheep or deer. They are only capable of being good when it serves their own interests.<br /><br />2- The generation's rebbe, from Moshe to the last Lubavitcher rebbe, was "the substance and essence of god placed in a body". This isn't some post-messianic craziness dreamed up during a leadership vacuum, Rabbi Shneerson described his predecessor and father-in-law in those words in 1951.<br /><br />3- Then of course, there is the whole messianism campaign, which also began all the way back with claims about the previous rebbe, before Rabbi Shneerson became rebbe, decades before his stroke and loss of control.<br /><br />Would you give credit where due to a Mormon group that was there whenever Jews needed them, helping out -- and preaching their idolatry?<br /><br />Lubachitch teaches about a dead messiah who is god himself and can also raise you into godhood. Its theology is more Mormon (and I saw one person suggest in a blog comment Buddhist) than Jewish.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955681.post-46778155657005508472010-07-08T13:59:57.604-05:002010-07-08T13:59:57.604-05:00First of all, the Noda Beyehuda I'm talking ab...First of all, the Noda Beyehuda I'm talking about is Tinyana YD 96, which, I believe, every Jewish boy and girl should know.<br /><br />As for meizid, of course you're right. I was mixing Horios with the Sifrei. Of course, where the Beis Din goofed, even if they're called gorem takala, they would not be chayav like meizidim. All I meant was that if the victim was chayav as a shogeg, I don't believe you can also be mechayeiv the gorem anything at all. We have to focus on one person, and it's an either/or. Only where the victim is an ONUS can you redirect liability to the gorem.Bnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955681.post-87159240850679995462010-07-08T13:41:34.766-05:002010-07-08T13:41:34.766-05:00>>>I can't believe that the Beis Din ...>>>I can't believe that the Beis Din is chayav like a meizid<br /><br />Why are you jumping from goren takalah to meizid? Moral culpability does not equal deliberate intent.Chaim B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955681.post-67256522693351590602010-07-08T12:50:20.257-05:002010-07-08T12:50:20.257-05:00Yes, that's exactly what I was aiming at. We ...Yes, that's exactly what I was aiming at. We pasken that a person that listens to Beis Din Hagadol and does chayvei krisos is chayav a korban. If he's chayav a korban, I can't believe that the Beis Din is chayav like a meizid. So the Noda Beyehuda in his teshuvos says that a person that's someich on a lying eid echad is called a shogeg, same with a Beis Din mut'eh; a lying eid is not an eid, and an erroneous psak is not a psak. But if you're somech on a Rove, you're called onus, because the Rove is a true Rove even if it didn't correctly point to the truth in this particular case. Assuming all that, why would a gorem be chayav, if the innocent party is called a shogeg? So I had to say that a husband is not just an eid echad; the Torah tells her that she should rely on him; so she's an onus, and it makes sense that he's chayav like a meizid on baal yacheil.<br /><br />I know that my postulates may be wrong. I assumed that only a gorem of an onus can be chayav, but it could be that a gorem of a shogeg is also chayav.<br /><br />And yes, according to me the mussar haskeil is weakened. Remember the article in Eretz Yisrael, where they asked Rav Eliashiv if Kupat Ha'ir could print untrue miracle stories about people who gave money to them, and he allegedly said it's ok, whatever encourages people to give to Kupat Ha'ir is fine? Same thing with the Sifrei.Bnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955681.post-70669808338486381132010-07-08T11:27:11.545-05:002010-07-08T11:27:11.545-05:00>>>should have been stated generically,
...>>>should have been stated generically,<br /><br />But it is -- that's the point of the conclusion, "hagoreim takalah..." If this is a special din in hafaras nedarim you lose the musar haskel.<br /><br />>>>Why, then, can the wife trust her husband? <br /><br />Who says she is? Maybe she heard his hafarah but not the retraction. <br /><br />I love the video.Chaim B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.com