I'm sad to hear that you haven't made any headway with volume two. I'd like to repeat my suggestion I've made here in the past. If you would spend only 8 hours a day attacking Chareidim, instead of 9, that would give you an extra hour every day to actually be productive. This may not sound like a lot, but if you do this every day consistently, this will eventually add up. פרוטה פרוטה מצטרפת. I'm sure within a year or two we would have volume two all ready to roll.
But who will do your important work of Chareidi bashing while you're away, I hear you asking? Have no fear, I promise you the slack will be filled by many of your wonderful colleagues, from David Duke to Avigdor Lieberman. This is truly a win win for everyone.
I truly mean no offense, and I hope you don't take it that way.
I’ll volunteer the chareidi bashing while Rav Slifkin is engaged in slightly less important endeavors. However, that doesn’t mean that it’ll become my daily pursuit because not all chareidim deliver their minds to vapid indulgences of 5th century Hebrew tort law while warming their behinds on comfy kollel cushioned chairs. All to the disservice of their working spouses and employed non-chareidi and chiloni Israeli citizens and society.
From previous comments of yours, you seem to be an atheist. If I am off on my read, my bad - hearts can be tricky to read. But if I'm on the nose, there is a huge difference between you bashing Haredim vs. Rabbi Slifkin.
Just from this insensitive comment alone, "vapid indulgences of 5th century Hebrew tort law..." shows that you believe Judaism has absolutely nothing to offer. (Which, personally, is quite sad, dude, or just really ignorant.) Rabbi Slifkin otoh believes Judaism has a lot to offer. He ain't trashing the whole Judaism buffet. He's just adding more spice. Haredim may think his spice is ruining the soup, but hey, that's the fun here!
What you need to do, my man, is find a forum where you can take on religion as a whole. A lot of folks dig that stuff. They're all about debunking ancient vibes and outdated beliefs. But this blog is specifically about 5th century tort law and how best to apply it today.
The kollel chairs tend to be hard wood. Many of my good quality suits have worn out prematurely. Or, if you prefer, per the talmud, it's the sheidim that join the shiur that wear out rabbinic clothing.
I haven't gotten the full culture-war story yet, but coming with an outsider-ish perspective, I wanted to ask about the afterlife. The last few posts on RJ made me ponder a lot about this and I wanted to receive some clarification:
If there is an afterlife, I would think it follows easily that our time spent here on this world is kind of just to get there. Before I became religious I thought this life was a bit meh. Religion was like not a thing. So what we do don't matter. That simple. For some reason we all like to make meaning out of life, but it's all just to feel good. The afterlife card that religion offers makes this game meaningful. Working towards a goal, living for something beyond this grind.
Before I was very into science before. I especially loved quantum stuff. Not as a career and I was NEVER into the mathematics but man, Brian Greene's books were like the best things I've ever read! Actually met him once on a trip to New York at one of his fancy science festivals, really nice guy! But now with religion, I mean science is still cool, sure, but it pales in comparison to what's in store if there is an afterlife. Eternity?? That is freaky stuff. That's reality!
More and more I'm convinced of this Judaism thing, and that means this afterlife thing is legit. If this is all true, you can call me selfish, but like heck I'm not going to give this stuff up. I'm working with a study partner on Chinukh and Minchat Chinukh, getting the Mitzvot down pat (up to number 28 after a year plus!) Because I know that God wants us to learn His Torah and Mitzvot to get a picture of who He is before we kick the bucket. And three weeks ago I disabled my Netflix account and haven't watched a movie with girls since:)
Here is where I believe Haredim get it right. But I think there is a point that this ultra-focus on self perfection, even if correct, can breed selfishness. Now if I understand Luzzatto correctly, he explains that the reward is the connection with God, and being selfless is Godly, thus being selfless will actually help earn that reward. But does that flip the script and make it selfish again? This philosophy rabbit hole is giving me a headache.
The reason this has been bothering me now is because the Rationalists keep saying how Haredim are selfish, and do they have a point? Maybe. But their point is not actually against Haredim. It is against religion (with an afterlife) in general.
first of all, good for you with the torah learning and the movie thing! keep it up!
second, you're right on the nose! reb tzadok says that caring about your nefesh is actually selfless in a way. because no one cares about their 'soul.' selfishness is caring about the now and the immediate pleasures in front of you, or at least that talk to your senses. caring about your eternity isn't selfish, it's just wise. there is a strong point that you are bringing out, that this focus on self can lead to selfishness, and the chareidim need to work on that as a society, but the bigger and better of us who give up their lives for Hashem's torah are actually the absolutely most selfless people alive. most people don't even know how selfless someone can be through the levels of greatness they get for learning torah.
1. Hakarat hatov should be a completely natural thing. Indeed, it is said that Judaism has hakarat hatov (to God, for making us) as its very basis. When something is so natural, it means that when one spends nine years researching a topic, he's looking for reasons *not* to do it.
2. Something is seriously wrong with your educational system when you are raising kids and adults who are (supposedly) unable to grasp that people are complicated, and that someone you may not approve of 100% can still do admirable things, and thus appreciating the latter will not automatically make one go off the derech. It's bizarre.
This irony is that in the U.S., it's entirely normal for frum Jews to show hakaras hatov to the police and military. A rosh yeshiva even told me it's worthwhile to thank veterans - especially WWII veterans - on Veterans Day. Politics poisons everything I guess.
I suppose by the logic of this interviewee, you might be able to thank non-Jewish veterans (maybe) or Orthodox Jewish veterans (well, maybe charedi ones only), but not non-Orthodox ones.
(Rav Hirsch only allowed religious Jewish or non-Jewish teachers in his school.)
" When something is so natural, it means that when one spends nine years researching a topic, he's looking for reasons *not* to do it."
Or it could be that all the other topics to write a massive volume were taken. In any case, his book is just shy of 300 pages. Which has been made "obsolete" (perhaps) by a later rival volume which exceeds 500 pages. I'm not sure if that volume makes up the perceived lacuna by adding 200 pages of acknowledgements, but my sympathy is for the latter author. Because at 500+ pages, despite all his attempts at comprehensiveness, you just know he left out something!
In any case, I suspect you wanted Rabbi Haymann to shout out, "What are you talking about?! Of course you should appreciate our soldiers! I didn't write the book for such obvious things!", and then hang up,(without saying 'Thank you').
Mazel Tov on the release of your Hebrew-language encyclopedia. I have truly enjoyed reading the English-language version (and looking up things over and over).
No, I was hoping he would publish the book on Army, Work and Torah. I get a kick out of his guileless and bumbling missives on the topics. Let him advertise his am harartzus, kefira and his dilettante understanding of Charedi hashkafa to the whole world.
While he provides written mekoros in extensive footnotes for everything he states from rishonim and acharonim (goyshe academic style, I know) you merry yeshivish men rely on unveriable verbal reports, 'the mesorah', out of context soundbites, statements, anecdotes from 'gedolim' (with no clear explanations or sources) together with vague pashkevillim, vague aggadata, heresay, various schmussen, closed door meetings and similar. Plus statements that are admitted to be hyperbole or based on the godol's personal 'worldview' and personal 'priorites' etc with no further source. Plus of course, when you can’t attack the evidence, you simply attack the witness in good lawyer style, with allegations of heresy and tones of leitzonus.
When it comes to matters such as the torah, army and work you chaps provide very little in the way of verifiable source written material from rishonim and acharonim. Editorials from Yated don't count.
While the book might not contain heresy, it certainly contains serious mistakes. One blatant one, is the identification of the Shafan and Arneves. The Torah clearly declares any animal that walks on paws as forbidden. This certainly includes the hare and hyrax.
The Torah further states that the Shafan and Arneves don't have split hooves. Clearly it's talking about an animal that has hooves! The rabbit and hyrax certainly don't have hooves.
This whole discussion is nonsense regardless, because the hare and hyrax don't chew their cud! This gymnastics that you do is highly irrational nor is is scientific. Just admit you've made a mistake !
That's not what Rashi says! Selective sourcing! You found maybe one meforash that says that! Either way, it's certainly not the simple understanding of the Torah as you claim.
Correct, that's not what Rashi says. Not sure why you think Rashi's explanation is definitive. But anyway, according to Rashi, it means that "its foot is not split," which is also a perfectly valid description for the hare and hyrax.
What is wrong with questioning the authority and accuracy of Rashi? Is the Chasam Sofer a kofer too, because he wrote that Rashi got the anatomy wrong when it comes to nidda?
Do you mean Nehar Prat, the Euphrates? Well, technically it does flow from Israel to Bavel, if you take the most extreme possibility of borders of Israel, up at the northeastern edge of Syria. That it, the Euphrates starts in Turkey, forms a part of the border of Israel (maybe), and then heads down into Iraq.
But yes, Rashi made a number of geography mistakes when it came to Israel, for example believing that the Dead Sea empties out into the Red Sea (he wasn't alone here) and that there are large islands off the coast (again, not alone).
The literal translation of the Hebrew is "its hooves are not split." But literal is not always the actual meaning. The Hebrew could just as easily mean, "It does not have split hooves." That's the way language in general, Hebrew, and Biblical Hebrew *work*.
The reference to paws is a reference to tumah, a different subject, and only comes later. The Torah mentions shafan and arnevet *earlier* because you might think they're kosher. There are of course rules the Torah follows in describing such things.
Sorry, you're right- I was confusing it with the later term used for split. But I'm trying to be super-literal, in which case it would be "its hoof does not hoof" or something like that.
Everett Fox, whose translation is indeed super-literal, simply translates all three animals as "but a hoof it does not have". (He uses the same tense for all three.)
What is a 'hoof' in Hebrew? You should know with all your yeshivish kvetching when necessary that one word in Biblical and Rabbinic Hebrew can have multiple English translations and meanings. The treife Zionists made up more 'hebrew' words, true but in Biblical hebrew one noun can have multiple meanings. It is well within the realms of acceptable possibilites that 'parsoh' can include the appendage rabbits and hyraxes have at the end of their legs. The torah does not have many words to describe limbs etc - regel can mean foot and leg, for example. Yad can mean hand or arm.
And who says 'kapayim' means 'paws'? Secular scholars? What are 'paws'?
All of a sudden you are happy to use english translations from goyshee
apikirsoshe scholars, Greek, Latin whatever?
Do you know as a fact the translation of 'kapayim' as 'paws' has a heimish yeshivish acceptable mekor?
The point is that NS knows a lot more than you on this topic. How many hours have you spent on this issue? The torah words are not easily translated into English. Different terminology throughout, the torah can mean several things by one word.
Great. And do the things at the end of rabbits and hyraxes legs look much like cats paws? How similar do bear paws, dog paws and cat paws look to each other?
NS has spent much time researching this, you have spent nothing compared to him. He knows far more than you on this topic and I am not spending any more time on it.
Mazel Tov, this is great news!
I'm sad to hear that you haven't made any headway with volume two. I'd like to repeat my suggestion I've made here in the past. If you would spend only 8 hours a day attacking Chareidim, instead of 9, that would give you an extra hour every day to actually be productive. This may not sound like a lot, but if you do this every day consistently, this will eventually add up. פרוטה פרוטה מצטרפת. I'm sure within a year or two we would have volume two all ready to roll.
But who will do your important work of Chareidi bashing while you're away, I hear you asking? Have no fear, I promise you the slack will be filled by many of your wonderful colleagues, from David Duke to Avigdor Lieberman. This is truly a win win for everyone.
I truly mean no offense, and I hope you don't take it that way.
All the best!
What’s the big deal?
I’ll volunteer the chareidi bashing while Rav Slifkin is engaged in slightly less important endeavors. However, that doesn’t mean that it’ll become my daily pursuit because not all chareidim deliver their minds to vapid indulgences of 5th century Hebrew tort law while warming their behinds on comfy kollel cushioned chairs. All to the disservice of their working spouses and employed non-chareidi and chiloni Israeli citizens and society.
Hey U's W,
From previous comments of yours, you seem to be an atheist. If I am off on my read, my bad - hearts can be tricky to read. But if I'm on the nose, there is a huge difference between you bashing Haredim vs. Rabbi Slifkin.
Just from this insensitive comment alone, "vapid indulgences of 5th century Hebrew tort law..." shows that you believe Judaism has absolutely nothing to offer. (Which, personally, is quite sad, dude, or just really ignorant.) Rabbi Slifkin otoh believes Judaism has a lot to offer. He ain't trashing the whole Judaism buffet. He's just adding more spice. Haredim may think his spice is ruining the soup, but hey, that's the fun here!
What you need to do, my man, is find a forum where you can take on religion as a whole. A lot of folks dig that stuff. They're all about debunking ancient vibes and outdated beliefs. But this blog is specifically about 5th century tort law and how best to apply it today.
Love you buddy 😎
Yeah bro, I really love your vibe!
Love that language, especially the second paragraph!
agreed! epic imagery!
yo, you're a rockstar, straight up! and this is a rockstar comment!
The kollel chairs tend to be hard wood. Many of my good quality suits have worn out prematurely. Or, if you prefer, per the talmud, it's the sheidim that join the shiur that wear out rabbinic clothing.
🪑🤵
Have you heard a satisfactory explanation of ANY passage discussing sheidim?
👻👻👻
Don't feed the trolls. We're doing OK here ignoring them.
Hey David, I see you've been banned for this comment by our esteemed Doctor.
If you need any help getting around the ban, shoot me an email slifkintroll@gmail.com.
I'll be more than happy you help.
In no time we'll have Potty Mouth David back on the scene. All this free of charge!
At least you've upgraded to cursing in Yiddish now. An improvement.
No, it's business before pleasure. They don't teach you that?
Sorry, not related to this post but -
I haven't gotten the full culture-war story yet, but coming with an outsider-ish perspective, I wanted to ask about the afterlife. The last few posts on RJ made me ponder a lot about this and I wanted to receive some clarification:
If there is an afterlife, I would think it follows easily that our time spent here on this world is kind of just to get there. Before I became religious I thought this life was a bit meh. Religion was like not a thing. So what we do don't matter. That simple. For some reason we all like to make meaning out of life, but it's all just to feel good. The afterlife card that religion offers makes this game meaningful. Working towards a goal, living for something beyond this grind.
Before I was very into science before. I especially loved quantum stuff. Not as a career and I was NEVER into the mathematics but man, Brian Greene's books were like the best things I've ever read! Actually met him once on a trip to New York at one of his fancy science festivals, really nice guy! But now with religion, I mean science is still cool, sure, but it pales in comparison to what's in store if there is an afterlife. Eternity?? That is freaky stuff. That's reality!
More and more I'm convinced of this Judaism thing, and that means this afterlife thing is legit. If this is all true, you can call me selfish, but like heck I'm not going to give this stuff up. I'm working with a study partner on Chinukh and Minchat Chinukh, getting the Mitzvot down pat (up to number 28 after a year plus!) Because I know that God wants us to learn His Torah and Mitzvot to get a picture of who He is before we kick the bucket. And three weeks ago I disabled my Netflix account and haven't watched a movie with girls since:)
Here is where I believe Haredim get it right. But I think there is a point that this ultra-focus on self perfection, even if correct, can breed selfishness. Now if I understand Luzzatto correctly, he explains that the reward is the connection with God, and being selfless is Godly, thus being selfless will actually help earn that reward. But does that flip the script and make it selfish again? This philosophy rabbit hole is giving me a headache.
The reason this has been bothering me now is because the Rationalists keep saying how Haredim are selfish, and do they have a point? Maybe. But their point is not actually against Haredim. It is against religion (with an afterlife) in general.
If anyone can help me, I'd be delighted.
Yo 😎
first of all, good for you with the torah learning and the movie thing! keep it up!
second, you're right on the nose! reb tzadok says that caring about your nefesh is actually selfless in a way. because no one cares about their 'soul.' selfishness is caring about the now and the immediate pleasures in front of you, or at least that talk to your senses. caring about your eternity isn't selfish, it's just wise. there is a strong point that you are bringing out, that this focus on self can lead to selfishness, and the chareidim need to work on that as a society, but the bigger and better of us who give up their lives for Hashem's torah are actually the absolutely most selfless people alive. most people don't even know how selfless someone can be through the levels of greatness they get for learning torah.
Some say motivation can only come from 2 places. Within or Without. If it comes from without than we are not acting freely ( basically slaves)
God is not motivated externally.
His " desire " to be "meitiv " ( bestow good) is intrinsic to His Nature.
In as much as we cultivate in ourselves at our core , the desire to help others -even when we don't benefit- we are more similar to God.
We are however human and can never actually achieve Godliness.
Steps along the way - 1.help as often as possible.
Love this guy!
My English copy has fallen to bits. The binding is not adequate for the weight. Any chance of a good deal on a replacement?
Let me guess, you must be English or something.
Scottish, actually.
Really now? Are the Scottish even more miserly than the English? I don't know too many Scottish personally.
He's not a true Scotsman
There's a fallacy.
What's number one?
💷💷🤑
Yeah, right. Take NS's book into a yeshiva. You want to get me stoned?
🪨📖
Difficult as his name is on the front cover.
The OU does hechsherim for books? Maybe I could get a Badatz for my Substack!
Does it cost per word ?
Nichnas vyotzei spot checks?
I wonder if someone's gotten chatGPT to scan for kefira!
Congratulations! Is the publication through another publisher as well, or just the Museum?
And what is the eventual plan, three? I suppose domestic mammals have to be covered too...
Speaking of the IDF, I could barely stomach it, but check out the second-to-last speaker (Haymann, the South African) on the 12/30/23 podcast here:
https://headlinesbook.podbean.com/
I had two thoughts:
1. Hakarat hatov should be a completely natural thing. Indeed, it is said that Judaism has hakarat hatov (to God, for making us) as its very basis. When something is so natural, it means that when one spends nine years researching a topic, he's looking for reasons *not* to do it.
2. Something is seriously wrong with your educational system when you are raising kids and adults who are (supposedly) unable to grasp that people are complicated, and that someone you may not approve of 100% can still do admirable things, and thus appreciating the latter will not automatically make one go off the derech. It's bizarre.
Agree with both 1 and 2.
This irony is that in the U.S., it's entirely normal for frum Jews to show hakaras hatov to the police and military. A rosh yeshiva even told me it's worthwhile to thank veterans - especially WWII veterans - on Veterans Day. Politics poisons everything I guess.
I suppose by the logic of this interviewee, you might be able to thank non-Jewish veterans (maybe) or Orthodox Jewish veterans (well, maybe charedi ones only), but not non-Orthodox ones.
(Rav Hirsch only allowed religious Jewish or non-Jewish teachers in his school.)
Like I said, bizarre.
Teacher is a position of authority over children. It's very different than thanking somebody
Oh, of course. I was just drawing an analogy that perhaps these people's mindset is to be less forgiving of fellow Jews.
Al pi shmua- when the netziv sided with rav chaim soleveichik and hired non jews instead of non religious jews it was due to fear of influence.
Hired them to teach secular subjects or for some other job?
1. Some people like to study their assumptions out of a desire for self exploration.
2. This scares me .
As rav asher Weiss said in the clip played on that headlines.
You should step down and pass on the mantle.
" When something is so natural, it means that when one spends nine years researching a topic, he's looking for reasons *not* to do it."
Or it could be that all the other topics to write a massive volume were taken. In any case, his book is just shy of 300 pages. Which has been made "obsolete" (perhaps) by a later rival volume which exceeds 500 pages. I'm not sure if that volume makes up the perceived lacuna by adding 200 pages of acknowledgements, but my sympathy is for the latter author. Because at 500+ pages, despite all his attempts at comprehensiveness, you just know he left out something!
In any case, I suspect you wanted Rabbi Haymann to shout out, "What are you talking about?! Of course you should appreciate our soldiers! I didn't write the book for such obvious things!", and then hang up,(without saying 'Thank you').
What is the rival volume?
Search הכרת הטוב on HebrewBooks. Rabbi Haymann was not the first or the last.
Well, I suppose some things just aren't so obvious to some people.
Mazal Tov!
Mazal? Hey, that's not very rationalist of you.
Mazel Tov on the release of your Hebrew-language encyclopedia. I have truly enjoyed reading the English-language version (and looking up things over and over).
Why is the Hebrew edition much cheaper than the English one?
Being that you didn't need to hire a translator for the English edition, I would expect it to actually be cheaper!
No costs of shipping/warehousing to US.
Printing is cheaper in Israel.
Maybe the English is printed in the US?
Yes, he likes to soak us Yanks. Along with all other Israelis.
I think you mean the upcoming 20th banniversary…
It would be a pity to waste your time on those other things you mentioned. Stick to your strengths - animals.
No, I was hoping he would publish the book on Army, Work and Torah. I get a kick out of his guileless and bumbling missives on the topics. Let him advertise his am harartzus, kefira and his dilettante understanding of Charedi hashkafa to the whole world.
Be careful what you wish for.
While he provides written mekoros in extensive footnotes for everything he states from rishonim and acharonim (goyshe academic style, I know) you merry yeshivish men rely on unveriable verbal reports, 'the mesorah', out of context soundbites, statements, anecdotes from 'gedolim' (with no clear explanations or sources) together with vague pashkevillim, vague aggadata, heresay, various schmussen, closed door meetings and similar. Plus statements that are admitted to be hyperbole or based on the godol's personal 'worldview' and personal 'priorites' etc with no further source. Plus of course, when you can’t attack the evidence, you simply attack the witness in good lawyer style, with allegations of heresy and tones of leitzonus.
When it comes to matters such as the torah, army and work you chaps provide very little in the way of verifiable source written material from rishonim and acharonim. Editorials from Yated don't count.
Yo, listen up, I got a tale 'bout a bot named Test,
On the internet, he's just a pest,
Trolling RJ and IM, causing such unrest,
Talking 'bout cholent and kugel, he's on a quest.
-
He's got sheitels on his mind and coffee rooms too,
Bamboozling chavrusas, what else is new?
Circular arguments, making heads spin,
Deflecting like a pro, it's his favorite sin.
-
Test, Test, the Russian bot,
Spreading chaos, like it's his job.
Cholent and kugel, sheitels and more,
Driving us crazy, we can't ignore.
-
About the coffee room, he likes to preach,
Inane arguments, he loves to teach,
But when you call him out, he starts to screech,
Accusing everyone, it's within his reach.
-
He's the master of deflection, a true pro,
Changing up his argument, just to steal the show,
But when the tables turn, and the truth starts to glow,
He accuses you of the same, man, that's low.
-
So next time you see Test, just ignore,
Don't fall for his tricks, don't let him explore,
Cholent and kugel, sheitels and more,
He'll twist your words, then slam the door.
I'm still hoping you will complete the full translation of R' Gedaliah Nadel's work, B'toraso shel Gedaliah.
While the book might not contain heresy, it certainly contains serious mistakes. One blatant one, is the identification of the Shafan and Arneves. The Torah clearly declares any animal that walks on paws as forbidden. This certainly includes the hare and hyrax.
The Torah further states that the Shafan and Arneves don't have split hooves. Clearly it's talking about an animal that has hooves! The rabbit and hyrax certainly don't have hooves.
No, what it says is that the shafan and arneves do not form a hoof.
Just be thankful that Tribunal del Santo Oficio de la Inquisición has studied the book and declared it free of heresy.
📖🔔🕯️📖🔔🕯️📖🔔🕯️📖🔔🕯️📖🔔🕯️📖🔔🕯️📖🔔🕯️📖🔔🕯️📖🔔🕯️
This whole discussion is nonsense regardless, because the hare and hyrax don't chew their cud! This gymnastics that you do is highly irrational nor is is scientific. Just admit you've made a mistake !
Gosh, I've never of thought of that! You're right, the shafan and arneves must be the llama and alpaca.
Why can't it be the Llama and alpaca?
🤸♂️🩰🤸♀️
Then it would read ופרסה אין להם.
Nope
וְהוּא גֵּרָה לֹא יִגָּר
That's not what Rashi says! Selective sourcing! You found maybe one meforash that says that! Either way, it's certainly not the simple understanding of the Torah as you claim.
Correct, that's not what Rashi says. Not sure why you think Rashi's explanation is definitive. But anyway, according to Rashi, it means that "its foot is not split," which is also a perfectly valid description for the hare and hyrax.
Radhika knew wines, he didn’t know animals…he relied on his contemporaries who were not experts either
Ok, well I guess we do have kefira in that case - questioning the authority and accuracy of Rashi?!
No he's not the only pshat, but we don't just discount him either as you have flippantly done.
"Not sure why you think Rashi's explanation is definitive."
What is wrong with questioning the authority and accuracy of Rashi? Is the Chasam Sofer a kofer too, because he wrote that Rashi got the anatomy wrong when it comes to nidda?
Definitely. Ban him. The CS hired foreign language tutors for his kids, we always knew he was a bit dodgy.
Tosfos happily did. Practically every tosfos in shas questions and dismisses rashi's authority and accuracy.
Back in business. Tosfos was a heretic and we have found some heresy in NS's book.
Sorry dude. You're overreacting here. Not kefira.
Agree. He has enough real kefirah, no need to find kefirah where it doesn't exist.
people who defend kefira tend to kofrim 🤔
Rashi, Shabbos 65b, and Kiddushin 71b explains that the river poras flows from EY to Bovel. Completely the wrong way round.
It is accepted that rashi never saw EY and therefore did not get these things correct.
Go deal with it.
Do you mean Nehar Prat, the Euphrates? Well, technically it does flow from Israel to Bavel, if you take the most extreme possibility of borders of Israel, up at the northeastern edge of Syria. That it, the Euphrates starts in Turkey, forms a part of the border of Israel (maybe), and then heads down into Iraq.
But yes, Rashi made a number of geography mistakes when it came to Israel, for example believing that the Dead Sea empties out into the Red Sea (he wasn't alone here) and that there are large islands off the coast (again, not alone).
You're about 10 years late on this topic . . .
The literal translation of the Hebrew is "its hooves are not split." But literal is not always the actual meaning. The Hebrew could just as easily mean, "It does not have split hooves." That's the way language in general, Hebrew, and Biblical Hebrew *work*.
The reference to paws is a reference to tumah, a different subject, and only comes later. The Torah mentions shafan and arnevet *earlier* because you might think they're kosher. There are of course rules the Torah follows in describing such things.
Nachum, that is not the correct translation. The translation is "does not form a hoof".
Sorry, you're right- I was confusing it with the later term used for split. But I'm trying to be super-literal, in which case it would be "its hoof does not hoof" or something like that.
Everett Fox, whose translation is indeed super-literal, simply translates all three animals as "but a hoof it does not have". (He uses the same tense for all three.)
What is a 'hoof' in Hebrew? You should know with all your yeshivish kvetching when necessary that one word in Biblical and Rabbinic Hebrew can have multiple English translations and meanings. The treife Zionists made up more 'hebrew' words, true but in Biblical hebrew one noun can have multiple meanings. It is well within the realms of acceptable possibilites that 'parsoh' can include the appendage rabbits and hyraxes have at the end of their legs. The torah does not have many words to describe limbs etc - regel can mean foot and leg, for example. Yad can mean hand or arm.
Nice theory, but the Torah actually has a word for paws = כפיים
But who says what they do have are 'kapayim'?
And who says 'kapayim' means 'paws'? Secular scholars? What are 'paws'?
All of a sudden you are happy to use english translations from goyshee
apikirsoshe scholars, Greek, Latin whatever?
Do you know as a fact the translation of 'kapayim' as 'paws' has a heimish yeshivish acceptable mekor?
The point is that NS knows a lot more than you on this topic. How many hours have you spent on this issue? The torah words are not easily translated into English. Different terminology throughout, the torah can mean several things by one word.
Actually Rashi says paws like a dog, bear and cat Vayikrah 11
Great. And do the things at the end of rabbits and hyraxes legs look much like cats paws? How similar do bear paws, dog paws and cat paws look to each other?
NS has spent much time researching this, you have spent nothing compared to him. He knows far more than you on this topic and I am not spending any more time on it.
🐇🐰🐾🐶🐻😺
This is incredibly ignorant. A question doesn't change what they actually are.