sholom 3aleicham wara7amei Aloheem ubeerchotho brothers and sisters. is there a question on the site about the masoro of ashkanazim with proper answers? im pretty sure ashkanazim dont have any masoro going to the jaonim of boval and 7azal but i am trying to see if there is even atleast some claim for it with proof. thx wa sholom
Is there a meta question about the other topic that was discussed in chat? (Namely whether to edit a user's answer away from their intention or in a manner they would find objectionable. One view was that if the edit qualifies an unsourced blanket assertion, such an edit is desirable even if the answerer may disapprove of the qualification. Another view was that we should not tamper that way with another user's answer, though any user has the discretion to utilize comments or downvotes).
@Shokhet ^^^^^ @DoubleAA @HodofHod @Yishai @IsaacMoses @msh210 @Shokhet @Scimonster Also pinging @MonicaCellio @TheOne @YeZ though I didn't notice y'all weighing in on that particular topic.
@Fred I'm referring to reviewers. In the "review suggested edits" dialog, there's an option to reject the edit, with a canned comment that says something like "conflicts with author's intent" or some similar phrasing
@Shokhet Would that suggest that Isaac's edit here was improper, considering that R' Tzadok may very well consider positions about later dating of the Zohar and Bahir to be unacceptable? @IsaacMoses
@Fred Unfortunately no. Everyone else got sidetracked about niceness and forgot about the issue we were discussing. I didn't want to ruin the party.
@Fred Isaac's edit doesn't make any statement about those opinions. The previous edit might have been construed to, so Isaac edited to an uncontroversial formulation.
@Fred To your general question, I stand by my response to @Yishai:
@Yishai It is an unsourced claim of the OP's. Either he (or someone else) can source it (and thereby imply "according to this source [XYZ follows]") or someone should edit in "according to myself, the grand Mr. OP, [XYZ follows]" to help make it clearer in the post what is being sourced and what is the OP's whim. This is no different then any other unsourced claimed on Mi Yodeya, AFAICT.
@DoubleAA It's not especially controversial, but it sort of implies that there is a range of acceptable views. The author may specifically disagree with that implication.
@Fred I don't see such an implication in the slightest. That's like saying that "according to othodox judaism, reform judaism's conversions are invalid" somehow grants legitimacy to the reform movement.
@YeZ Editing in to clarify that a certain point is the OP's own assertion (sometimes a valuable thing to do, eg if it is adjacent to something properly sourced) doesn't preclude a comment asking for more sources or a downvote if teh situation warrants it.
If the OP is for opposed to clarity on ideological grounds (as, lets pretend, RMT may feel in this case), I'm not sure, but I think clarity has to win, and the OP can disassociate himself from the post if he wishes.
@DoubleAA On second thought, even adding "according to X" might sort of impinge on the author's style. Isn't it the answerer's prerogative to choose to avoid phrasing that he thinks might even possibly imply legitimacy (even if that phrasing could also be understood not to carry that implication)?
@Fred If he can think of alternate phrasing that is equally clear without any bad implications, he can further improve the post. An editor can't be worried about every possible whim of the OP. So long as his edit is In Good Faith, let him do it and someone can always rollback if necessary.
@DoubleAA Let's say RMT is so opposed, for example. There would be a more longwinded way to offer clarity without giving a hint of offering legitimacy: e.g. "The following sources say that it is totally unacceptable to disagree with the principle of early authorship of the Zohar and Bahir. Although some sources disagree, I believe that they are in the minority and don't represent a legitimate view. Therefore, the notion of gilgulim clearly traces at least back to the Tannaitic era."
But let's say the author doesn't want to expend the effort to write something like that. Is it better then, in the interest of qualifying unsourced remarks, to override authorial intent? (I guess you would say yes, @DoubleAA).
@Fred I'd still prefer a "in my opinion" after "Therefore", but that would work.
@Fred I don't think we need to be worried a priori about his opposing the edit in this case, as it's pretty clearly a reasonable Good Faith edit.
@Fred I don't think laziness on his part is reason to have an unclear post. He can find a way to write a clear post or disassociate (this would be rare)
@DoubleAA Not laziness, per se. Sometimes people only have a couple of minutes to write a post, don't have time to provide sources, and they think contrary opinions are marginal and don't require mention. Is it better for them not to write the answer at all, even if their answer might include substantive and helpful material?
@Fred Either way, it seems they should be open to reasonable edits. (I am not sure if the extent of "reasonable edit" is also part of this discussion). If your post is incomplete, for laziness or shortness of time, then it's open-season for editing.
@YeZ "I am not sure if the extent of "reasonable edit" is also part of this discussion." I suppose so.
@YeZ I was under the impression that editors should be more aggressive about editing questions, to ensure that they are answerable and not closeworthy, whereas editors should be conservative and err on the side of authorial intent when it comes to answers (though perhaps being liberal with helpful comments might still be good in some cases).
@YeZ IMHO, if you want to alter an answer because you disagree with content that the author thinks is correct, you must prove unequivocally with indisputably correct sources that you are correct. A mere assertion, as is the case with this edit, will not do.
@YeZ In other words, you must prove that it was a mistake on the author's part, not just that you have a disagreement over the facts.
@Fred I went a step further - I assumed even if you had indisputably correct sources, you should downvote, but don't edit it. It's his choice to delete or fix his incorrect answer.
OK gnite y'all. Someone ping me when consensus is reached.
@YeZ I personally would comment (and downvote, if the mistake formed the bulk of the answer) rather than edit. But if an editor could show that the answerer made a mistake and that the answerer himself would almost certainly acknowledge that he was wrong, I would probably let the edit through (since you can predict with confidence that the edit is consistent with the answerer's future intent).
Is it allowed to murder (any human from anywhere with any race and any belief) to fulfill the prophecy of relocation of all Jews to Israel, gathered from the four corners of the earth (Deut. 30:3-4; Isa. 11:12, 27:12-13) ?
Details regarding different Jewish movements (especially Chabad) would be...
@Andromeda Because it's a question of a sort thousands of which can be asked for no good reason, and no motivation was supplied in the question for why you might ask this one. It shows no effort and is uninteresting. "choice: You could relocate all Jews to Israel by murdering one human being (who didn't attack you, and didn't do anything). What would you have to do" can just as well be "choice: Tithe by driving on the sabbath" or "choice: Light the Hanukkah lights by bribing a judge".
(Plus other problems with it, like its lack of cohesion (rambling).)
@Andromeda Are you here to learn or to debate? If it's the former, I and (I expect) others here would be happy to help you work on your question and make it answerable, and hopelfully clear up some questions along the way. If it's the latter, Stack Exchange is not the right place for that.
@Andromeda ... And if you're here to learn, I'd suggest approaching people with an attitude that would preclude saying dismissive things.
Thanks for linking to practicalhalacha.com . IT occupies an interesting point on the public-Halacha-teaching spectrum, explicitly putting itself forward as a source for pesak with R' Heinemann's authority in cases where one's own rabbi is unavailable or inadequate, but also disclaiming at the bottom that it's "no substitute" for consulting one's own rabbi. — Isaac Moses2 mins ago
... very interesting. It intentionally includes no sources, saying instead that the authority for everything in it is RMH. It's like a mini Yad Hachazaka.
@Fred @DoubleAA (Not rhetorical:) What would you say to someone who went through Halacha answers and edited into them the preface "According to those who consider Halacha binding" or "According to those who consider the Pharisaic 'Oral Law' legitimate"? What about in theology questions "According to those who believe in one God"?
(Just in case that discussion thread didn't have enough open cans of worms.)
@IsaacMoses Are the answers such that doing so improves their clarity? I suspect in most cases on this site adding those phrases in makes the post harder to read.
Assuming we all exist, think, know and interact with our actual surroundings etc.
The Ontological Proof
The first class of Divine Proof is the Ontological proof. It goes basically like this:
God as a concept is perfect.
Perfect things must have the quality of existing, else they wouldn't be ...
I'm ok with the downvotes on my answer there. It's all the upvotes on the top answer that are frustrating.
@DoubleAA I'd rather add a rule that discourages such an answer (like on mi-yodeya-series discouraging lazy gematria. It is interesting for someone to point out a Yartzeit and give a biography. Less so to just throw out a name. Not sure how to do it, though.
They used a half of a lug of oil in each candle every night, in order that it would last through the longest night of the year (Menachos 88b). A lug is 6 egg volumes. An egg volume is disputed, but it's accepted to be either around 57 (R' Chaim Naeh) or 100 (Chazon Ish) mL.
So the volume per ca...
@IsaacMoses I'm not sure what the axes were on that graph. I thought it was views, but it has the highest value as low 5k. We have questions with 30k views.
@IsaacMoses I want to know about questions asked on days that have an S and a U in them, but not on leap years.
I love how Sefaria provides a way to point directly to a phrase in the Gemara. Of course, that I love this is a manifestation of yeridat hadorot, at least according to R' Rakeffet, who says that early sources would make references at the masechta level, later ones would refer you to a chapter, and more recent ones have to condescend to pointing you to the daf. But still.
@YeZ BTW, if you're ever afraid of clicking a goo.gl link, you can copy the link URL, manually paste it, and edit before going to it to be goo.gl/info/5yG3RP (notice the info part) to see where it leads to.
@msh210 Upon further review - The last line of my question is not a dupe. I would rephrase it to make that the focus of the question, but there is already a +3 answer which would be invalidated. What's proper procedure here? — YeZ2 hours ago
I don't see how this isn't too broad. It ended up as just a list of Jewish-related apps. The question doesn't even ask for what an app they're looking for would do -- just "be Jewish". Voting to close. — Scimonster30 secs ago
@YeZ I think this would be more appropriate as a comment, possibly a DV as well. That shouldn't be an edit. (catching up)
@IsaacMoses I'm very annoyed at that website that they'll just say things, but not explain their reasoning or sourcing. That reduces its usefulness to me drastically.
Assuming we all exist, think, know and interact with our actual surroundings etc.
The Ontological Proof
The first class of Divine Proof is the Ontological proof. It goes basically like this:
God as a concept is perfect.
Perfect things must have the quality of existing, else they wouldn't be ...
They used a half of a lug of oil in each candle every night, in order that it would last through the longest night of the year (Menachos 88b). A lug is 6 egg volumes. An egg volume is disputed, but it's accepted to be either around 57 (R' Chaim Naeh) or 100 (Chazon Ish) mL.
So the volume per ca...
