1,277 reputation
159
bio website
location Haifa, Israel
age 37
visits member for 2 years, 7 months
seen yesterday

Jul
6
comment Is there positive proof that the Rambam did not accept Kabbalah?
@Yishai In Shlomoh ben Yosef's translation of Rambam's opening to his commentary on Sanhedrin Ch. 10 (Pereq Cheleq), in the section on the seventh foundation, it says "ויכנס בזה שיעור קומה ועניינו" ( see here, five lines before the end of the page). In Yosef Qafih's translation it doesn't appear, but in the footnotes he says that it was in the first edition of Rambam's manuscript, but was later erased from it. (See also here, s.v. "Earlier I noted ...")
Jun
25
comment Why did the Jews complain that the mon would kill them after they spent 39 years eating it?
@IsaacMoses I didn't realize I was implying an intention, or even an inclination, to smoke. I was only trying to be a little careful in my wording, to avoid a side argument over the dangers of smoking. What an exercise in futility!
Jun
25
comment Why did the Jews complain that the mon would kill them after they spent 39 years eating it?
Maybe they were saying that it's just a matter of time before regular consumption would bring about death. Smoking is claimed to kill people, even though few if any will drop down dead after smoking daily for 40 days, months or even years.
Jun
24
comment Getting body piercings
@Shokhet Maybe something like Ibn Ezra suggests in his commentary on Bereshit 24:22? (On the other hand, see what Tzafnat Pa'anach has to say about Ibn Ezra's commentary here, line 9 onwards.)
Jun
24
comment Getting body piercings
@DoubleAA I was only suggesting what the OP might be referring to. Do you think he was referring to something else?
Jun
24
revised Is there positive proof that the Rambam did not accept Kabbalah?
Link for Rambam's _Teshuvah_ on _Shi'ur Qomah_.
Jun
24
suggested suggested edit on Is there positive proof that the Rambam did not accept Kabbalah?
May
23
awarded  Necromancer
May
22
comment No mention of Korban Tamid in Amida
@DoubleAA The question you linked to demonstrates that some communities on some occasions don't mention the verses of the Qorbanot Musaf, but I don't see there a source there for it being only a Minhag, and not me-Iqar ha-Din. The only one I know of is the Mishneh Torah in the Seder ha-Tefilah (here). Are there any others?
May
21
comment Rambam on Olam Haba, Mashiach, and Techiyat haMeitim
Those are secondary sources, of which the first one doesn't seem to say where Rambam says (or infers) what is attributed to him, and the second references one source in general (the introduction to Pereq Cheleq), and lumps it with Ramban's Sha'ar ha-Gemul (who is, again, secondary), so I can't tell who was supposed to have said what. I found a direct reference for what I was looking for: In his Ma'amar Techiyat ha-Metim he says: "... ובארנו להם שתחיית המתים פינת התורה, והוא שוב הנפש לגוף, ולא יפורש זה. ושחיי העולם הבא אחר תחיית המתים ..."
May
20
comment Rambam on Olam Haba, Mashiach, and Techiyat haMeitim
Your order gives the impression that according to Rambam, an eternal Olam ha-Ba follows Techiyat ha-Metim. (@Yishai bases his question, "Why is resurection of the dead a fundamental of faith according to the Rambam?", on it.) Can you provide a source from Rambam for that part of the order? (I didn't see it in either of the links you provided for me.)
May
20
comment Maybe God lied?
What did we lack before we were brought into existence, that God gave us by creating us? In other words: Why is it good for us?
May
20
comment Is there a resource that shows all uses of a Tanach verse in the Talmud?
It's probably vastly incomplete (especially for links to resources other than the Talmud Bavli), but the Hebrew Wikisource has for every verse a page with links to other places in Wikisource that mention the verse (and link back to it's page). For an example, see the page for Devarim 33:4.
May
19
comment Maybe God lied?
Why is the creation of human beings an act of "an act of pure benevolence" towards them/us?
May
17
comment Which benchers have the harachaman for the state of Israel?
These lines appear (with variations) in Reform Zionist youth movements' versions of Birkat ha-Mazon. See in PDF downloadable here (on second page), and listed in differences from the traditional Birkat ha-Mazon in PDF here. The former has the Sarah/Hagar version, and the latter mentions the Yishmael/Yizhak one. They differ from the traditional Birkat ha-Mazon in more significant ways, as well.
May
16
comment Rambam on Olam Haba, Mashiach, and Techiyat haMeitim
(1) Can you provide source(s) (and, if needed elaborate on them) for the Rambam's order? (2) The link you gave in the answer doesn't seem to work.
May
14
comment Why Was the Idol of Micha Tolerated?
Based on the information in your question, my answer would be: (a) According to the Rashi you bring, Micha brought an idol out of Egypt. I'd say it wasn't the same one the tribe of Dan took, and was destroyed at around Matan Torah. The one they took he made after entering the land. (b) The tribe of Dan didn't worship - or even possess - an idol in the desert. What made the cloud not embrace them was their inclination to Avodah Zarah, which eventually manifested itself in their taking possession of Micha's idol later on, and using it. That's why no direct action was taken against them.
May
14
comment Why Was the Idol of Micha Tolerated?
Thinking this over, I have other problems with the idea of the tribe of Dan possessing the idol in the desert: (1) The tribe of Dan only came into possession of the idol when they moved from their alloted territory to the Zidonite city of Laish (Shoftim 18:17-20). (2) Micha himself wasn't of Dan, but of Ephraim (Shoftim 17:1), and in fact tried to stop them when they took the idol (Shoftim 18:22-26). (3) The idol the tribe of Dan took was made after settling the land (Shoftim 17:6).
May
14
comment Why Was the Idol of Micha Tolerated?
Actually, I think you were right. If the forbidden possession of the idol was known about, action should have been taken by the court, like with the blasphemer (even if not as drastic).
May
14
comment Why Was the Idol of Micha Tolerated?
My guess is that the idol was only possessed (but not worshiped) at that time, and it was allowed to exist in the same way Nachash ha-Nechoshet was allowed to exist after being used (Bamidbar 21:8-9), to become an object of Avodah Zarah by the time of king Hezekiah (Melakhim II 18:4).