משום מה יש תחושת אי נוחות כאשר אדם מטיף ממרום במתו לאחד מהקהל על גאוותו. אולי תוכלו להסביר מהיכן נובעת תחושה זו?
בורג
נשלח ב-16/6/2004 17:02
בוגי אני לא מיחס משמעות לניסוח,
הפואנטה כפי שאני הבנתי מדברי ולוז'ין ,
דברה אל ליבי וכבר זה זמן רציתי לכתוב בענין,
ומהי? הסובלמציה של הר"ג ודבריו, או אם תרצה ה"גיור",
שלא ניתן לעשותו, רק בתוספת שקרים לבנים (קדושים?) שברי אמירות, בתוספת מנה גדושה של שמאלץ.
וכבר באישי הערתי לאנשים והסכימו לדברי אבל עדיין לא היה בי העוז לכתוב באשכול וגם כשכתבתי מחקתי,
והנה בא אדם שניכר שהוא תלמיד(בשונה ממני) ומבטא את דעתי אין לי אלא לשמוח,
גם אם נראה שיש בניסוחו מן הגאוה, קודם כל יש בפורום זה הרבה שמתנסחים בצורה מתנשאת , וא"כ הוא בחברה טובה, ב)
למיטב שיפוטי הניסוח בא מכאב , והוא קבל צורה שכזו,
ג) לא הבנתי מדוע תחבת אותי לענין? מה לי ולו?
ואם בגלל הניקים, כבר הבהרתי שאין לי קשר לקעלעם, הישיבה,( האמת אולי גם להנ"ל אין קשר לישבת ולוזין אלא לעירה)
אלא להשאיר יד ושם למשפחת אבי שבאה משם, ורובה נספתה בשואה,
תוקן על ידי - קעלעמר - 16/06/2004 17:05:42
תוקן על ידי - קעלעמר - 16/06/2004 17:07:54
נשלח ב-16/6/2004 17:12
קלמר
סליחה אבל הבנתי שאתה מאמץ את דבריו (ואולי קשור להם). אבל עדיין האיכפתיות המובעת שלך עד כדי דיונים באישי וכו' והגדלת ולוזין משום שדבריו מתאימים עם מה שלחץ אותך ועוד נימות קינטור, מצדיקות עדיין את פנית ההודעה שלי גם אליך.
לגבי תיאור הדמות של הרב נדל, אינני יכול לדעת איך היה האיש באמת, אבל הרושם שלי הוא דוקא שישנם יותר המנסים לטשטש את המקוריות שלו כדי להכניסו להיכלי התהילה של יתד, חטא חטא וכו'.
גם לולא היתה דמות אנושית כזאת קיימת והיא כולה פיקציה, עדיף לי לקרוא את התיאור המרענן המופיע כאן מאשר לקרוא שוב על עוד איזה מורון בין מורונים. בקיצור גם לולא היה קיים הרב נדל כזה, היה צורך ליצור אותו!
תוקן על ידי - בוגיעלון - 16/06/2004 17:24:12
נשלח ב-16/6/2004 17:33
בוגי
אבל זה בדיוק ההפך -לעניות דעתי- ולוזין ,טוען שבאשכול זה נעשה פוסט מורטם "יתדי" לר"ג,
ובודאי זו תחושתי,
ובכלל עזוב אותך מניסוח ישיבתי מצועצע, אתה לא באמת חושב שאני התכוונתי.
והוא התכוון שהוא במדבר?,
על זה כבר נאמר "אל תסתכל בקנקן אלא ממי שאמרו" או משהו כזה.....
תוקן על ידי - קעלעמר - 16/06/2004 17:34:32
נשלח ב-16/6/2004 18:01
בוגיעלון:
וכי לשון ציורי מתפרש כגאווה? והלא כבר אמרו חכמינו דברה תורה בלשון הבאי ודברו חכמים לשון הבאי.
נשלח ב-17/6/2004 05:33
Chouteng,
I agree that we should do some historical research as to the level of civilization in the periods ascribed to Avrohom and Yitzchok. Actually we can see from the tale of Yitzchok that once Avimelech simply realized that Rivkah is a married woman he immediately returned her to Yitzchok, no coercion was necessary. Even by Avrohom in the Episode 2 there is a strong feeling that Avimelech wouldn't have taken her if he had known that she's married.
So from the stories themselves we see that we are talking about a civilized people to the point where it is not so self evident that they would kill and steal the wife of an innocent wayfarer.
Now the story of Dinah seems to point towards your assumption (the leaders grab the pretty girls etc.) but at the same time it also shows that;
A- It's quite risky to take a girl/woman from another clan [and remember Avrohom had quite a retinue ''es hanefesh asher osu bechorun''. Also the second time was already after Avrohom has battled with the kings and prevailed]
B- They were civilized enough to ask permission [but maybe that was out of fear]
C- Although she was a non married girl the rage due to her being raped was all consuming
Which leads me to another extremely strange facet of the story, the ease in them allowing/asking their wives to give themselves up. [In Yitzchok's case it seems to be absolutely and completely unwarranted, as is evident by the fact of him returning Rivkah once he smelled something fishy.]
Be that as it may, I still agree that more research would go a long way in ascertaining the likelihood of this story occurring thrice.
The Rambam clearly? I strongly disagree.
First off, the Rambam writes in his Hakdamah that many things have to be written in a hidden fashion so that the uneducated masses shouldn't understand him.
But more importantly in this particular issue the Rambam is not clear at all on the story of Adam, Chava and the Serpent. The Abarbenel [Al Hatorah] claims that according to the Rambam it's allegorical but I found it very difficult to decipher the Rambam in Moreh [also see there how Abarbanel disparages the Ibn Ezra for hiding his true interpretation on the story]
The more I look into it the more it seems that the Atlantis rediscovery has no bearing on our issue. I mean come on, they are talking now of having found the place through satellites no? Are you saying that they should've accepted this grand tale without a shred of evidence? Don't you agree that we shouldn't accept such a story on hearsay?
So the fact that in the end it turned out to be true should tell us to start believing every myth ever written.
How are you connecting it to my straightforward question as to why a place inhabited for many years should not leave any telltale signs? To be sure, you may argue that archeologically speaking it's too short a period to use this as a proof against anybody being there.. Well we shall then have to do the research on that, but the Atlantis issue just does not belong in this discussion [In my oh so humble opinion]
''With regards to my theoretical question''
That's exactly what I was afraid of, you looking at it as a ''theoretical'' question what I'm asking is to see it as a practical situation. Please do my a favor and really visualizes yourself as having taken over the education system for the Yelze Chasidim, I contend that you will not even entertain the idea that you can ''expose'' the lies with one fell shot.
The Jewish nation did not appear from within a vacuum, they had to have a culture before probably with a lot of paganism so the aforementioned question inevitably came up, how to neutralize the negative aspects of their culture and how to promote positive ones. Thus the rest of my post is surely relevant regardless of its uncomfortability and its discouragement.
נשלח ב-17/6/2004 06:28
נחזור לענין האשכול.
מה סבר ר' גדלי' בעניין לימוד תורה לנשים בזמן הזה?
נשלח ב-17/6/2004 18:43
הערב אמור להתקיים הספד על הרב נדל ז"ל בכולל "חזון איש" בבני ברק.. אני מעריך שבנו הרב שמואל נדל שהוא אחד מהמספידים יתייחס למהות תורתו של אביו הגדול "החכם האמיתי" כפי שמופיע במודעות על ההספד..
נשלח ב-17/6/2004 21:29
Hi all, im new to this, im from Omaha, NE who the heck is this G. Nadel? WITH ALL THIS TALK AND QUARRELING I STILL DON'T GET THE IDEA. I guess a 100-word obituary in the Omaha Chronicle gives me a clearer understanding who john doe is! Don't get me wrong; I do appreciate the intellectual babble but for got sake can't someone give a short informative deion of his history, views, and life!!!!!!!!! Please???????????????
נשלח ב-18/6/2004 15:02
G. Nadel, was a great scholar, a brilliant mind, with a unique way of looking at society, at man's responsibility, and various other issues.
Hope that helps.
הטקסט שלך כאן
נשלח ב-18/6/2004 17:48
No one is responding!!!! (choteng! please get real) is it because ive asked a difficult question (of course not) or is this reservation the symptom of an intellectually dishonest conversation with a political bent mixed with psychological complexes
p.s. somehow the questions about g. nadel on this form come across more sincere then the answers
נשלח ב-18/6/2004 19:00
Ipcha Mistabra:
I do not see the value of historical research in questions such as, whether or not Sarah lived in a society where kidnapping was the norm. Accurate information is impossible to come by, there are numerous unknowns. I have no reason to doubt the account in the Torah, and I do not believe there is any evidence which will throw substantive light in either direction.
With regards to the Rambam in his introduction to the guide. That particular text has been used to justify all sorts of claims regarding the Rambam's position on a variety of subjects. Starting with creation ex nihilo, continuing with whether sacrifices will be offered in the reconstituted temple, and whether the Rambam believed himself a prophet.
There is no way of disproving these claims. However neither can you prove it. As such, I adhere to what the Rambam himself writes, as you yourself noted, that as long as there is no reason to deny the literal explanation, then the literal explanation is the one to accept. So too, so long as you do not produce a reason which shows that the Rambam did not believe in the literal explanation of the text, viz. that Methushelah did indeed live 969 years, then I do not see any reason to accept your point of view.
I used Atlantis as an example of something that for thousands of years was assumed to be a myth,and yet just as quickly assumed to be true once corrobroating evidence was found.
I find it extremely difficult to visualise a purely theoretical situation of which I have no experience and decide how to act. I truly do not know what would be better for the Yelzer chassidim. I could see things going in either direction.
Of course the Jewish nation had a culture prior to Matan Torah. You have no way of knowing how much of that culture was myth, and how much of that myth was preserved or not.
נשלח ב-18/6/2004 19:04
Bill Gates:
I am not answering at length because I simply do not have the time. It has nothing to do with politics or psychology, your comments to the contrary notwithstanding.
