tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post5740829331524892580..comments2024-03-25T09:43:27.402-04:00Comments on Divrei Chaim: a mitzvah to believe in angels?Chaim B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-70717990512685055722019-02-13T23:42:36.637-05:002019-02-13T23:42:36.637-05:00No, I would not have.
Still, the idea is that the...No, I would not have. <br />Still, the idea is that there is some degree of separation, just as there are seven levels of shamayim, and working through a malach, I suppose, is just another way of saying that Hashem's will is enacted indirectly, just as our tefillos usually need a malach to transport them upwards.Eliezer Eisenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16036989084122930226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-39552754806391965682019-02-13T19:39:50.975-05:002019-02-13T19:39:50.975-05:00Put aside the use of the word ikar -- let's sa...Put aside the use of the word ikar -- let's say it means "very important thing." <br />The point is that R' Bachyei sees belief in angels as so important as to nearly equate it with belief in G-d. Even if it's important, would you have off the cuff said it was that important?Chaim B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-79653155945517578942019-02-13T17:57:29.322-05:002019-02-13T17:57:29.322-05:002) "putting lechem ha'panim on the shulch...2) "putting lechem ha'panim on the shulchan is...part of...building a shulchan"<br /><br />indeed the package deal concluded at 40:23, 'v'ya'aroch alav erech lechem', seems to be in answer to psalm 78:19's question, 'ha'yuchal K'eil la'aroch shulchan bamidbar?' -- Hashem replies clearly, 'the leavening in your question shall be met with unleavened bread; the common craving in your question, met with priestly chew'...alonzo maccabihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13177738305527364094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-21432429211854235152019-02-13T16:24:25.572-05:002019-02-13T16:24:25.572-05:001) "the keruvim are there to remind us of the...1) "the keruvim are there to remind us of the existence of angels"<br /><br />if Hashem chose to reify His words in stone, then why don't we have-- according to His Will --the reified words of malachim, inscribed* in gold, atop each end of the kaporet, rather than winged bodies? at one upraised end, 'kadosh kadosh...k'vodo'; at the other end, 'baruch k'vod...mi'm'komoh'? {not a matter to take up with R' Bachyei, evidently, but to take up with Him!}<br /><br />*engraved by B'tzal'el, or by [keruvim class] angels<br /><br />{design challenge #2 -- why not place the luchos atop a shtender zahav in the kodesh kodashim, rather than in an aron?} alonzo maccabihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13177738305527364094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-69159350866227811612019-02-12T16:06:19.803-05:002019-02-12T16:06:19.803-05:00The aron too is interrupted to tell you the luchos...The aron too is interrupted to tell you the luchos go inside (37:15, in the middle of 37:10-21). And a parallel explanation to the one your son proved would explain why they didn't make a new aron for Bayis Sheini -- there is no aron without luchos to put in it.<br /><br />However, there is a difference. It is possible that the kapores (and keruvim) is a different keli from the aron, and that the order of the pereq is aron, its purpose (to house the luchos), the kapores, its purpose (to cover the aron, and to be the point from which Hashem "Speaks").<br /><br />I also have a problem because there were two aronos -- the one in the Miqdash, and the one that went out to war. If an empty aron is pointless, what was in the 2nd aron?<br /><br />But the notion that this is why there was no empty aron in bayis sheini is given by numerous sources.micha bergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11612144735431285113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-70611480707351330972019-02-12T15:39:49.549-05:002019-02-12T15:39:49.549-05:00More emphasis on the idea that different rishonim ...More emphasis on the idea that different rishonim use the word "iqqarim" differently...<br /><br />In Seifer haIqqarim, R Y Albo uses "iqqar" to refer specifically to mandatory <b>postulates</b>. Beliefs that are mandatory but derive from those postulates are labeled "shoresh". And finally an "anaf" is a belief that Judaism asserts (and all are shown to be theorems of the iqqarim) but that there is no chiyuv to accept as true.micha bergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11612144735431285113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-79385276464802049492019-02-12T14:49:32.892-05:002019-02-12T14:49:32.892-05:00Rabbeinu Bachaye, as his interpreters say, sometim...Rabbeinu Bachaye, as his interpreters say, sometimes uses the word Ikkar not meaning it like the Rambam or the other rishonim. He just means important. He is quoting the Rambam in the Moreh, where he says <br />כי הדעה במציאות המלאכים נספחת לדעה וכי בכך תתקיים הנבואה במציאות הי והתורה ולחזוק הדעה ביסוד הזה צוה יתעלה לעשות על הארון צורת שני מלאכים לבסס מציאות המלאכים בדעת ההמון שהיא השקפה אמתית שניה לדעה במציאות ה והוא המקור לנבואה ולתורה ומבטל עבודה זרה כמו שבארנו ואלו היתד צורה אחת כלומר צורת כרוב אחד היה בכך מקום הטעיה והיו מדמים כי הצורה הזו האלוה הנעבד כמו שהיו עושין עובדי עבודה זרה ושגם המלאך פרט יחיד ואז יביא הדבר לשניות מסויימות וכיון שנעשו שני כרובים עם האמירה בפירוש נתקיימה השרשת ה אלהינו ה אחד ההשקפה במציאות המלאכים ושהם רבים והבטחנו שלא יטעו בהם שהם אלוה כי האלוה אחד והוא ברא את הרבוי הזה <br />which is a lot more parev than Rabbeinu Bachaye. Eliezer Eisenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16036989084122930226noreply@blogger.com