Sefer Torahs of the 20th Century

[muman613]

Umm.  You know that AGUDA is LITVAK, right?!   Litvak, aka Lithuanian Jewry, aka haredi, aka Mitnagdim.    Now read again and try to understand my point which was NOT what you thought it was.

I realize now that you were saying that because you felt we did not accept his decision because he was not 'approved' by any of the Rabbis of Litvish or Chassidish sects. But even understanding this I still feel you were taking what was being said in a way which was confrontational when what I read edu ask seemed completely innocent.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

KWRBT,

What is wrong with you? You seem to have basic problems communicating.

I was not SPEAKING FOR EDU you dummy... I was stating my opinion. NOWHERE DID I SAY I WAS REPRESENTING WHAT EDU WAS THINKING.

When someone says you are speaking for someone else you are accusing them of saying that they think or feel something which they did or did not feel or say. You did accuse me of speaking for edu. When a person stands up against a perceived slight against another person that is not 'speaking for them', it is 'speaking for myself' and as I did in my first post in this thread.

Let me see if I get this.  You equate "Speaking on someone's behalf" with "representing what the person is thinking."

For one thing, that doesn't necessarily mean the same thing.  But even if it did, what is wrong with representing another person's thinking?   That's called agreeing.   By expressing agreement, restating an opinion, reformulating a statement, and so on, a person represents what the other thinks by expressing it himself.    Is that an offense?   If someone makes reference to this action, is it an insult?    In what culture, exactly?

You did accuse me of speaking for edu

Accuse you?  I didn't accuse you of anything.   I stated a fact.   The fact is:  You spoke for edu.     The serial quotes I put in the circus music post display that quite clearly.   Why would that be an accusation?    It's only referring to what happened.   You said yourself in your own words: 

I don't think edu, nor myself, ever implied that the Rabbis opinion is not to be taken.

By saying that, you are speaking for edu (and for yourself).   So were you "accusing yourself?"  Or just saying something on edu's behalf because there isn't any crime involved in doing that.  I don't know, you tell me.  Maybe you were accusing yourself of something sinister.    What exactly?  Do tell.

[muman613]

One more thing, about 'speaking on behalf' of another person.

I take offense when I am accused of speaking for another person. I try to make it clear in every post I make that I am speaking for myself. When I defend a fellows position I am not doing it on their behalf, and I do not even begin to suggest I really know what their question or issue is. But I try to explain why I am saying what I am saying.

You still want to argue about the 'majority decision' of a beit din. According to all sources I have found on the Internet (and I am going to ask two Rabbis about it this Shabbat) the majority decision is not only in the Sanhedrin (which doesn't exist today) but it also is the way decisions in lower courts are made. If you would like me to review the reason you argue otherwise please provide a link, or a reference to the source.

http://www.torah.org/features/spirfocus/majority.html

The Sanhedrin, the highest court in Jewish law, makes its decisions by majority vote. Questions of life and death, war and peace, were decided by a majority of the 71 sages who sat on the Sanhedrin. But in Judaism majority rule is taken a cosmic step further: once the vote is taken, the minority is subsumed in the majority, and it is no longer the majority of the Sanhedrin, but the Sanhedrin as a whole, which has ruled. This principle applies to lower courts, councils and communities, as well.

Nor is majority rule limited to the judiciary. In Jewish law, the concept of majority rule has many and varied applications. When forbidden and permitted foods get mixed together, the status of the entire mixture may be determined by which is the greater quantity. For example, If one accidentally mixes forbidden and permitted food and the ratio of permitted food to forbidden food is 60:1, one is allowed to eat the mixture.* The lesser amount of forbidden food is subsumed into the greater amount of permitted food, and it no longer exists. As a consequence, any particle thereafter separated from the mixture retains the status of the majority ingredient of the mixture.

Video from Chabad on the topic @ http://www.chabad.org/multimedia/media_cdo/aid/1731277/jewish/Majority-Rule.htm

[muman613]

I don't think edu, nor myself, ever implied that the Rabbis opinion is not to be taken.

By saying that, you are speaking for edu (and for yourself).   So were you "accusing yourself?"  Or just saying something on edu's behalf because there isn't any crime involved in doing that.  I don't know, you tell me.  Maybe you were accusing yourself of something sinister.    What exactly?  Do tell.

So this is your 'logic'.... If I 'think' edu did not imply something I am speaking for edu. I don't know how to continue arguing this because it seems to me you are making a leap of reason, which doesn't exist.

If I say 'I think Obama knew about Benghazi' this means I am speaking for Obama? To me, as the one who said it, it is a simple statement of how I perceived edu's statement.

But enough of this... These kinds of threads lead to sinat chinam..

[muman613]

If Rabbi Abadi were to rule that electricity could be used on Shabbat, would you start using electricity?

I think any innovation regarding technology needs to be reviewed by the Torah greats of the generation.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

If you say "No, I don't think edu meant that"
Then yes, you are speaking on edu's behalf, and yes you are "representing what he was thinking" (or trying to, at least) and no there is nothing wrong with this.     

Good job though taking offense at something completely harmless.   What's next?  You will take offense at a suggestion that you like oranges?     How about you take offense at the suggestion that you say things on behalf of Judaism and then use that to attack your perceived enemies on the forum?   That would be just grand! 

Let's get started.   Muman sometimes says things and post things on behalf of Judaism.   

Are you offended?