R.David bar Chayim's wife passes away

[muman613]

The contrary view (that Keturah was someone other than Hagar) is advocated by Abraham ibn Ezra,[11] Radak, Rashbam, and Ramban. The Second Temple Book of Jubilees (19:11) makes it clear that Keturah is not Hagar and explains that Hagar died a few years previously.

Thank you. I was aware there were differing views but I consider the Medresh Rabba, Rashi, and other commentators on the topic to explain who Keturah was. Of course nothing is absolute and there are alternate opinions but as I have learned from many sources the identity of Keturah as being Hagar seems to be the predominant opinion.

Here is a good explanation according to semantic analysis of Rashis opinion:

http://www.rashiyomi.com/rule1510.htm

[Israel Chai]

Your point being what?  Please spell it out.  Please directly address the points I made.

Plastering the forum with long articles as demonstrations of piety, is not a means of articulating an argument.  Especially when the source you post, as in this case, covers a wide range of topics and it is unclear how it is even related to the ongoing discussion.

When you talk with endless insults and take offense to everything, it's low class.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

When you talk with endless insults and take offense to everything, it's low class.

Kindly point out the insult contained in this post:  "Your point being what?  Please spell it out.  Please directly address the points I made.

Plastering the forum with long articles as demonstrations of piety, is not a means of articulating an argument.  Especially when the source you post, as in this case, covers a wide range of topics and it is unclear how it is even related to the ongoing discussion."


I don't see it.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

When you talk with endless insults and take offense to everything, it's low class.

The offender is the troll of this forum who posts insanely offensive comments (not to mention, nutty comments).   You and Muman are defending the troll from "retaliation"  - You're like the EU.

[Yehudayaakov]

" Not everyone agrees to that. it says Keturah and not Hagar. Not everyone agrees it is Hagar. I personally do not as well.''

 agree ^^

We learned in last weeks parsha that our father Abraham, after the passing of his beloved wife Sarah, remarried with her maidservant Hagar (who was renamed Keturah) after he had buried and eulogized her.

Does anyone knows for sure that Abraham really had had a son with her maidservant Hagar  actually could have made it with anyone else passing near by and spread a lie to blackmail Abraham into accepting her child as any Arab would have  done to gain a prominent position in the world then eventually didn't do anything to refute it.

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

" Not everyone agrees to that. it says Keturah and not Hagar. Not everyone agrees it is Hagar. I personally do not as well.''

 agree ^^


Does anyone knows for sure that Abraham really had had a son with her maidservant Hagar  actually could have made it with anyone else passing near by and spread a lie to blackmail Abraham into accepting her child as any Arab would have  done to gain a prominent position in the world then eventually didn't do anything to refute it.

 I think the Torah specifies them. They were given gifts and sent out.

[Yehudayaakov]

 I think the Torah specifies them. They were given gifts and sent out.

It show that his maidservant had lied and turned out that her chantage failed.

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

It show that his maidservant had lied and turned out that her chantage failed.

 Not sure what you mean?

 They were from a Shivha (concubine) to begin with. To begin with they were not to inherit anything.

[muman613]

" Not everyone agrees to that. it says Keturah and not Hagar. Not everyone agrees it is Hagar. I personally do not as well.''

 agree ^^


Does anyone knows for sure that Abraham really had had a son with her maidservant Hagar  actually could have made it with anyone else passing near by and spread a lie to blackmail Abraham into accepting her child as any Arab would have  done to gain a prominent position in the world then eventually didn't do anything to refute it.

You have read the Torah, haven't you? It is as clear as Black and White in the story of Abraham and Sarah that Sarah herself asked Abraham to have a child with her maidservant Hagar.. There is no question about this as the Torah spends several paragraphs describing the conversation.

See Chapter 16 of Genesis (Lech Lecha)

1. Now Sarai, Abram's wife, had not borne to him, and she had an Egyptian handmaid named Hagar.
2. And Sarai said to Abram, "Behold now, the Lord has restrained me from bearing; please come to my handmaid; perhaps I will be built up from her." And Abram hearkened to Sarai's voice.
3. So Sarai, Abram's wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her handmaid, at the end of ten years of Abram's dwelling in the land of Canaan, and she gave her to Abram her husband for a wife.
4. And he came to Hagar, and she conceived, and she saw that she was pregnant, and her mistress became unimportant in her eyes.

[Israel Chai]

The offender is the troll of this forum who posts insanely offensive comments (not to mention, nutty comments).   You and Muman are defending the troll from "retaliation"  - You're like the EU.

Again with the offense. I already said he's a creeper, but if you're going to talk to him, do it without sounding like a trucker complaining about his hot dog.

Kindly point out the insult contained in this post:  "Your point being what?  Please spell it out.  Please directly address the points I made.

Plastering the forum with long articles as demonstrations of piety, is not a means of articulating an argument.  Especially when the source you post, as in this case, covers a wide range of topics and it is unclear how it is even related to the ongoing discussion."


I don't see it.

That's the offended part. Are you really going to pretend I can't bring up insults from you?

If the Satmar Rebbe came here and argued, there would be no argument, no advancement, just angry terms thrown around.

[muman613]

KWRBT,

What in tarnations are you all up in a tizzy about again?

Who said what to offend you this time? That Yerusha proposed that perhaps rabbi Bar Chayim may get remarried? Is that what you think is such an insult or offense? If you are not just trolling please explain yourself?

[Israel Chai]

And before you even begin, don't bother making an argument that it's ok for one person to say hurtful things but it's not ok for someone else to respond in kind.  We're not going to just sit back and let such people rampage the forum.

If he discusses his opinion, which you may or not find hurtful, but it has no personal reference to you, don't be insulted, or insult; attack the statement and not the man. That encourages healthy debate, and grants the conversation legitimacy, and attacking the person demeans everything that is said, in the current conversation and thereafter.

If someone made a comment at a funeral that he would get remarried, yeah, I'd sock him in the kisser: what kind of a sociopath is that? If you insult the argument, there will be a learning experience, and if you defame him for it, others that see it will not want to participate in the conversation, at the risk that venom is spit out at them. What reactions are logical in real life are not always so here.

[Israel Chai]

Plastering the forum with long articles as demonstrations of piety, is not a means of articulating an argument. 

I posted because it was interesting, and I'm glad you thought it was worth something. I'm not pious, though. I can't pull off 1/100 of the mitzvot, and I'm about to go run away from Judaism forever, even though I know it's right because I'd rather make 100k than 20. Most intentional and accidental sins, I've mastered. I'm not attacking you, or saying I'm better, or even close to someone who is religious and can keep everything. I'm just giving you what little I have of worth in me, because it might be of some benefit.

Nothing I say is personal, and no comment I make implies that I don't make the same problem, and worse.

[Israel Chai]

As a matter of fact, in a week and five days I'm gone forever, so lets not leave on sour terms.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

KWRBT,

What in tarnations are you all up in a tizzy about again?

Who said what to offend you this time? That Yerusha proposed that perhaps rabbi Bar Chayim may get remarried? Is that what you think is such an insult or offense? If you are not just trolling please explain yourself?

Read the post I responded to, and then you will know what comments I was responding to.  It is not about remarriage.  But there is no confusion because I quoted him in my reply.   So please stop obfuscating.

Accusing me of trolling is just stupid.  Plain stupid.  Don't play stupid.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

I posted because it was interesting, and I'm glad you thought it was worth something. I'm not pious, though. I can't pull off 1/100 of the mitzvot, and I'm about to go run away from Judaism forever, even though I know it's right because I'd rather make 100k than 20. Most intentional and accidental sins, I've mastered. I'm not attacking you, or saying I'm better, or even close to someone who is religious and can keep everything. I'm just giving you what little I have of worth in me, because it might be of some benefit.

Nothing I say is personal, and no comment I make implies that I don't make the same problem, and worse.

The comment you quoted here about plastering forums was directed at muman, not you.  I quoted him, not you.  What is the source of this confusion exactly?


Edit;  oh, my mistake.  That was you!  You have really adopted muman's style because that had me fooled.

[muman613]

R.Glick is taken out of action just as he was starting to make waves on the Har Habayis.

R Bar Hayim is out of action just as he was about to film tonight an important clip giving the Kahanist Halacha permitting ascent to parts of the Har Habayis.

Is this a hint from Heaven not to force the Har Habayis issue at this time, as the Vilna Gaon warns in Kol HaTor on the verse:
"I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem, By the gazelles or by the hinds of the field, That you do not arouse or awaken my love until she pleases." (Shir Hashirim 2:7)?!

KWRBT,

Was this the message you were upset or offended about? I still don't see how this is so offensive.

It seems like a question ('Is this a hint from Heaven...') rather than an assertion. And the question doesn't seem so offensive to me. I have heard rabbis refer to the Shoah as possibly a response by Heaven toward the reform movement which originated in Germany. I am sure such an assertion may be offensive to some (especially those who may have survived) but it is a valid thing to ask...

[muman613]

The comment you quoted here about plastering forums was directed at muman, not you.  I quoted him, not you.  What is the source of this confusion exactly?

I posted nothing other than what was required sources for the opinion I was posting. Im sorry if you have a problem with that, but there is nothing for me to be ashamed of. And it seems you have an inferiority complex (if you think that my posting sources for Jewish ideas is meant to make me look pious).

[muman613]

And KWRBT, you are factually incorrect.... You responded to LKZ's post with the following.

Your point being what?  Please spell it out.  Please directly address the points I made.

Plastering the forum with long articles as demonstrations of piety, is not a means of articulating an argument.  Especially when the source you post, as in this case, covers a wide range of topics and it is unclear how it is even related to the ongoing discussion.

http://jtf.org/forum/index.php/topic,78736.msg651336.html#msg651336

Are you capable of apologizing for your errors are are you too arrogant for that?

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

KWRBT,

Was this the message you were upset or offended about? I still don't see how this is so offensive.

It seems like a question ('Is this a hint from Heaven...') rather than an assertion. And the question doesn't seem so offensive to me. I have heard rabbis refer to the Shoah as possibly a response by Heaven toward the reform movement which originated in Germany. I am sure such an assertion may be offensive to some (especially those who may have survived) but it is a valid thing to ask...

Now you're equating reform with going up on Temple Mount or even just giving a shiur explaining the halachas involved?

It is offensive and insulting to take two individuals, both victims, one the victim of a crime and one the victim of a tragedy, and blame the victims by suggesting God is punishing them for their sins.  That is an uncalled for personal attack.  In this case, the supposed "sins" are actually righteous acts by any sane definition, so it is disturbing on whole new levels to make these kind of comments.  There are 100 reasons why this is not a comparison with what you referenced.

I am surprised that I had to spell that out.

[muman613]

Now you're equating reform with going up on Temple Mount or even just giving a shiur explaining the halachas involved?

It is offensive and insulting to take two individuals, both victims, one the victim of a crime and one the victim of a tragedy, and blame the victims by suggesting God is punishing them for their sins.  That is an uncalled for personal attack.  In this case, the supposed "sins" are actually righteous acts by any sane definition, so it is disturbing on whole new levels to make these kind of comments.  There are 100 reasons why this is not a comparison with what you referenced.

I am surprised that I had to spell that out.

I don't see it as blaming the individual, rather blaming the entire Jewish people, for the time not being right.

And I am not equating one and the other, just bringing an example of something which could seem offensive but is a question which may be asked.

I don't believe Yerusha (although I am not speaking for him) believes that the Rabbi deserved it. I will let him answer that if he wants to.

[Israel Chai]

Accusing me of trolling is just stupid.  Plain stupid.  Don't play stupid.

That's so cute.

The comment you quoted here about plastering forums was directed at muman, not you.  I quoted him, not you.  What is the source of this confusion exactly?


Edit;  oh, my mistake.  That was you!  You have really adopted muman's style because that had me fooled.

The comment you quoted here about plastering forums was directed at muman, not you.  I quoted him, not you.  What is the source of this confusion exactly?


Edit;  oh, my mistake.  That was you!  You have really adopted muman's style because that had me fooled.

This here post is one source of confusion.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

I don't see it as blaming the individual, rather blaming the entire Jewish people, for the time not being right.

And I am not equating one and the other, just bringing an example of something which could seem offensive but is a question which may be asked.

I don't believe Yerusha (although I am not speaking for him) believes that the Rabbi deserved it. I will let him answer that if he wants to.

He said they were "taken out of action" for being involved in matters relating to the Temple Mount and that it's a sign from Hashem that we should stop.  That is a ludicrous claim, it is blaming the victims, and it is implying they deserved it.   (Unless you're saying that Hashem isn't just, so he punishes when they don't deserve it?!  Clearly not what yerusha is saying).

It's a clown comment.  Quit trying to kasher it and turn it into a shita by giving it some kind of religious cover just because I reacted negatively to it.    Many times a negative reaction is justified.   You are not the forum policeman and you are not the arbiter of what is proper speech and what isn't.
 

"And I am not equating one and the other, just bringing an example of something which could seem offensive but is a question which may be asked."

They are two things which have nothing to do with each other, so saying "there are questions which can be asked" has nothing to do with this particular question (which to anyone with reading comprehension is not a question but an implication).

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

And KWRBT, you are factually incorrect.... You responded to LKZ's post with the following.


http://jtf.org/forum/index.php/topic,78736.msg651336.html#msg651336

Are you capable of apologizing for your errors are are you too arrogant for that?

Why do you constantly respond with insults and ad hominem, but then you project your own failings on to me by accusing me of using ad hominem when I'm not?

Do you truly believe that this:

Are you capable of apologizing for your errors are are you too arrogant for that?

is an appropriate comment to make to me?

I did figure out that I was mistaken in thinking I replied to you when actually I was replying to LKZ.   I literally said, "my mistake" when I realized.   
Where is the arrogance involved?    Another stupid claim.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

That's so cute.

It is trolling for you to make comments like this. 
"that's so cute"  ?   

But your buddy is calling me a troll for no reason and says not a word to you because you can do no wrong in his eyes.  Makes a lot of sense.