Reputation
2,047
Top tag
Next privilege 2,500 Rep.
Create tag synonyms
Badges
10 14
Newest
 Necromancer
Impact
~57k people reached

31m
comment Bereishit 3 :22 Angels or Hashem
Rocks don't know good and evil. Angels only know gravity as theoretical knowledge, if at all, but they do know good vs evil. After all, not only to they behave as per Gcd's Design themselves, part of that following His Design is supporting us people when we do and resist us when we work against it.
1h
comment Why do people frequently change tunes toward the end of Lecha Dodi?
So do the first two verses. before we discuss exile: Shamor veZakhor and Liqras Shabbos. Perhaps it's just to link back to the original theme.
1h
comment “Gay” people in the Torah, Talmud, Kabbalah?
Who said they became gay? Nothing I said depends on knowing how much of homosexuality is nature and how much is nurture. You asked how Judaism responds to someone "being gay". Asking about the psychology of homosexuality is both off topic for this forum and not something I would hazard a guess about.
1d
comment Did God create color in Genesis?
The Ramban says #2.
Feb
4
comment What did the 70 elders see?
We scj(m) expats gotta stick together!
Feb
4
comment What did the 70 elders see?
There is no "and" at the beginning of either pasuq. Vav hachibur would take a sheva. These are instances of vav hamehapeches. (Personally, I think the pedantic translation of וַיִּרְאוּ would be past tense, future taxis, IOW, sight that happened before the sentence was uttered but after the point in time in the story that we're up to. Genesius would render vav hahifuch as past tense imperfect aspect -- "they were seeing", but there has been computer surveys of biblical verb usage since his day. But the main point: וַ- doesn't mean "and".)
Feb
2
comment How do you CYLOR after posting on judaism.stackexchange.com?
I email him the URL.
Feb
1
comment Weighing mitzvot/aveirot
@yEz thanks for the paragraph I just inserted at the bottom of aishdas.org/10YemeiTeshuvah.pdf#page=45
Feb
1
comment Meaning of “emunah shlaima”?
@sabbahillel: however, the Rambam was speaking about theological knowledge, knowing ABOUT G-d (or at least, ruling out what He Isn't). Most of us strive to know G-d, the way one knows one's parents, or that NIRC exists. The Rambam spoke about duties to learn proofs. This is an entirely different approach to religion. (One that, as Shuby's father, I find off-putting.)
Feb
1
comment How to explain a specific phenomenon
I often experience it to. I help out on a parashah sheet. It is very often that a thought I hadn't heard before shows up in multiple handouts and then again in the rabbi's speech Shabbo morning. There is a second reason why such things happen... common cause. This wouldn't explain your book, unless it's a new book, but it could be that something happened this past year that cause a number of people to think in the same direction.
Jan
28
comment Make for yourself a website?
What may be a more interesting question: Can you fulfill the mitzvah of "kisvu lakhem es hashira hazos" by answering questions here? Much like the question of whether it must be a sefer Torah, or would writing a sefer or buying sefarim also qualidy. It's where I thought you were going with the subject line. I connected to the pasuq, "pesal lekha shenei luchos avanim".
Jan
27
comment Parameters of schar pesios
Still, I now see the Maharal disagrees. Don't know about your "large many commentaries", though. Either way, the Maharal's main point is that sekhar halikhah is only part of the mitzvah when going to beis keneses or beis medrash, and otherwise it's part of hekhsher mitzvah. Doesn't necessarily touch the philosophical point, just the appropriateness of calling it halachic "sekhar halikhah".
Jan
27
comment Parameters of schar pesios
What may be the majority of the space is the Pele Yo'etz's quite generic "שכשהולך לדבר מצוה שכר פסיעות יש". Which explains why shopping for Shabbos would be included. In short, I reached the opposite conclusion from the page you linked to.
Jan
27
comment Parameters of schar pesios
I didn't find "מהר" in the text you linked to, but I am guessing that you are referring to the bit "ואמרו על מוהר"א הלוי", even though there is no alef in "מורינו הגדול יהודה בן בצלאל [ממשפחת] ליווא". Except that what they said about him was that he would walk around to shop for Shabbos, in order to get sekhar halikhah. That page also discusses the sekhar halikhah for Avraham's having to tease out the details in Lekh Lekha (moving to Israel) and which son for the Aqeidah (avodah, if not avodas halev), parashas Nitzavim (learning)
Jan
27
comment Parameters of schar pesios
@yEz: would you settle for a "complicated variant"? Who are these large many commentaries? Bar Ilan CD and I didn't do to well finding them (although I am under the weather).
Jan
26
comment God created both the written law and the oral before the world was created. Why didn't he make all of it 'written'?
The Oral Torah is the process and its accumulated results. That's why it's oral, so that it can conduct a dialog. You cannot ask "why have an Oral Torah, we could have had a process without it", because the two halves of that question contradict eachother. The second you have a process, results accumulate, Oral Torah. That's what Oral Torah is by definition. (Like a daughter is a female child by definition so you cannot have a daughter without having a female child -- they're the same thing.)
Jan
26
comment God created both the written law and the oral before the world was created. Why didn't he make all of it 'written'?
@DonCorleone: First, there is no fundamental of Judaism that G-d controls everything. That He could, certainly. But you are confusing modern (since the Ba'al Shem Tov and Vilna Gaon) understandings of Judaism with classical ones. I guarantee you, Rambam (Moreh 3:18,51), Chinukh, #546, Sefer haIqarim 4:10, Or haChaim (Bereishis 37:24), and others did not deny a fundamental. We have free will. Actually, I think only Izhbitz Chassidus goes as far as even attributing sin to G-d...
Jan
26
comment God created both the written law and the oral before the world was created. Why didn't he make all of it 'written'?
So He instead gave us a system for finding which of the many ways to grapple with the human condition work best for us. And in the end, there is no loss of surety. Had the Jewish People evolved differently, Beis Shammai's approach would have been the right one, and they would have won the dispute. (I am guessing now, but my feeling is that in the days during and after the fall of the 2nd Temple, Beis Hillel's willingness to respect Beis Shammai's opinion was a critical feature to internalize in halakhah. Far more than finding strict justice.)
Jan
26
comment God created both the written law and the oral before the world was created. Why didn't he make all of it 'written'?
As for the advantages of plurality... One size does not fit all. If Hashem were to give us a Torah that only provided one set of answers, He would also control how Judaism and Jewish Life evolved, because otherwise things would inevitably not fit. Second advantage... Surety is less important than depth of commitment. Hashem "Wants" our involvement in the process of finding our way to holiness. That is what makes us the "parchment" upon which the Torah is written, what makes the Jewish People and the Torah one.
Jan
26
comment God created both the written law and the oral before the world was created. Why didn't he make all of it 'written'?
My point was that oral = process, text = static. The process of extrapolating/interpolating itself and the results would are the Oral Torah. That's why you can't have a process of extrapolation without Oral Torah, it would be like having a daughter without having a female child.