« first day (1467 days earlier)      last day (3259 days later) » 

3:51 AM
-1
Q: Why is torah different to other studies

chamWhy is it that 1000 who go into medical college, most qualify as doctors where 'Elef' a thousand who go to yeshiva or kollel dont qualify as talmidai chachomim. Must it really be like that?

[bbiab bl"n]
 
 
2 hours later…
5:29 AM
That's a poorly asked question IMO. First of all, it's founded on two facts, neither of which it cites any support for. Second of all, the second fact, "'Elef' a thousand who go to yeshiva or kollel dont qualify as talmidai chachomim", isn't even clear. I suppose he/she probably meant "of a thousand who..., most don't...", in contrast to the other factual claim.
Third, I doubt the second purported fact can be substantiated: what definition of "qualify as talmidai chachomim" would have been used? Fourth,
Are you trying to ask a question, or are you trying to make a point? — Daniel yesterday
I would vote to close it had I a non-binding closure vote, but I don't know on what grounds. "Unclear what you're asking" (because it doesn't define "qualify as talmidai chachomim") works, I suppose. Or maybe "primarily opinion-based" (for the same reason)? Or a custom closure reason based off of the rule against questions that are "just a rant in disguise: '______ sucks, am I right?'".
 
5:47 AM
@msh210 I'm pretty sure he's asking about this: "אדם אחד מאלף מצאתי. בנוהג שבעולם אלף נכנסים למקרא אין יוצאים מהם להצליח שראוייה למשנה אלא מאה ואותם מאה שנכנסו למשנה אין יוצאים מהם לגמרא אלא עשרה ואותן עשרה שנכנסין לגמרא אין מצליח מהם אלא אחד להוראה הרי אחד מאלף " Rashi on Koheles 7:28
 
6:06 AM
0
Q: Why does patrilineal descent determine who is royalty?

Mr. BultitudeIn the Jewish Virtual Library, I came across this: For tribal affiliation, priestly status and royalty, patrilineal descent determines membership. I'm specifically interested in the aspect of royalty. Where (either in the Tanakh or the Oral Torah) is this outlined? Is rationale given in tha...

@msh210 @Daniel Would it be at all proper for me to expand the question to ask about all three things (tribal affiliation, priestly status and royalty) rather than just royalty? I've just realized that I really meant to ask about tribal affiliation.
Or would it be better to ask a new question?
 
@Rish Maybe so. As you commented there, if so, he should clarify as much in the question.
@Mr.Bultitude No one's answered it yet. Why not just edit out 'royalty' in favor of 'tribe'?
@Mr.Bultitude Yeah, I'd say it's probably better to ask another question.
 
@msh210 Okay. If I hadn't asked any question yet, would you be of the opinion that asking about all three would be too broad?
 
@Mr.Bultitude Probably not.
@Mr.Bultitude But now that someone's answered re royalty, it's probably better to ask about tribe separately. Just MHO.
That the crown passes through the male line. (Which kinda implies that there are no queens, but that's a different issue.) — msh210 ♦ 2 mins ago
^ No pun intended.
 
@msh210 Alright. I think I'll wait for Daniel's opinion. Since he answered the question already, if he's cool with me modifying the question and can modify his answer accordingly, I'll go with that. If not, I'm cool with asking a new question.
 
@Mr.Bultitude I have edited the answer with a translation and citation to the Rambam. I think since the answer that I gave doesn't apply to tribal affiliation, it would probably be best to ask that separately.
 
6:19 AM
@Daniel That's what I'll do then. But later. :P It's 2:20am where I am, so I'm going to bed.
I suppose I'll also ask about priestly lineage to complete the trifecta.
 
@Mr.Bultitude Good night!
 
@msh210 Good night. Thanks for helping me with the question, guys. It's always appreciated.
 
6:54 AM
@msh210 I voted for "Unclear," but POB is maybe even more fitting, as the only question in the post is "Must it really be like that?"
 
 
4 hours later…
11:20 AM
Just figured I'd share this insane story
Someone's got a few wires crossed
 
 
11 hours later…
10:27 PM
@Daniel Nice little bit of Jihad-envy in the comments.
 
@TRiG you read the comments? On a random site on the Internet? I thought you knew better. :-)
 
@MonicaCellio Heh.
 

« first day (1467 days earlier)      last day (3259 days later) »