I'm not quite sure what you're asking. I was wondering how it was concluded that the Rebbe's brother authored that paper, and how we came to "know" that this Mark Gurari was indeed just a pen-name. Now I'm watching the video you sent me and it's all very clear. Apparently the Rebbe had this information.
@HodofHod: an interesting side note, is that when the Rebbe was writing letters to the Rogachover Gaon, he signed his letters with the pseudonym "Mordechai Gurari". Here his brother's using the name "Mark Gurari". kestenbaum.net/content.php?item=1431
@Charlie G-d does not approve of suicide. If one prays to G-d to die, and G-d does not answer, then no harm, no foul (or at least, it's not equivalent to suicide). If G-d does acquiesce, then surely it is not a punishable offense; after all, G-d made the decision, not man.
@HodofHod If you pray to God that you should sin, and God lets you, is that because He decided it was a good thing or that you didn't deserve special prevention to save you from sinning?
@DoubleAA That seems to be a faulty comparison. For suicide the issur is by definition on the man himself. G-d killing the man != the man killing the man. Your case has the man still performing the forbidden action, whereas in mine, the man leaves that action to G-d.
@Shmuli No, I'm referring to the paragraph in your linked article that says:
" The letter reveals that there was prior correspondence as well. The Rebbe writes, “in my previous correspondence I asked if one could find a source for those that write in letters ‘Baruch Hashem’ or ‘Be’ezrasHashem’….”"
Aha; that explains it. I once read a letter regarding this. I knew that there had been such a discussion between the Rogachover and "someone". I guess I didn't read the entire article before linking.
@Shmuli Just a tip: in chat you can click on the arrow on the bottom right of someone's message to reply to it. That way it's clear which message is connected to which.
As Christianity is Avodah Zarah, is a Christian cross which people kiss, pay respect to, and pray facing towards considered to be an idol?
Here is a brief excerpt from a scholarly christian source which sheds more light into their form of worship and how cross is used:
Now, it was clear from...
The current list of integrated (we call this onebox, or oneboxing, ala search engines) sites is:
Stack Exchange sites: Questions / Answers / Users / Comments
Stack Exchange Chat: Messages / Rooms / Bookmarked conversations
Area 51 proposals
Posts from the Stack Exchange blog, the Server Fault b...
In addition to the issues of whether the philsophical proof to God's existance is a proper approach, my own analysis of Sha'ar HaYichud is that the particular philosophical proof he uses is simply incorrect. Some mathematical premises that he relies on were proved incorrect in the 19th century.
@DoubleAA: Can you clarify your response to good_ole_ray in the second answer here?
@Shmuli I'm not sure what you want me to elaborate on. I tried to use terms and concepts as accepted in the broader world unless I say otherwise. He uses a new concept called "actual infinity" which he doesn't define rigorously, and he also claims that his "actual infinity is "in the real world" and that "you cannot have infinity apples - in reality" so I really don't understand what he's saying.
@DoubleAA He was bold enough to propose that the Chovos Halevovos was "proved" to be incorrect, yet he wasn't clear as to how he specifically understood the Chovos Halevovos. I was hoping you could shed some light.
@Shmuli Ray was trying to defend the Chovot Halevavot. He wanted to say that the kind of mathematical concepts that CH was using were "actual" real concepts instead of "abstract mathematical" ones, so modern proofs don't affect the CH. I don't understand what his concepts are.
@DoubleAA So then I think Ray was taking the stance that the mathematical concept of infinity - such as the concept addressed in Zeno's paradox of the achilles and the tortoise (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…) - isn't a true infinity. It's only a mathematical infinity, which doesn't carry over into "real" infinity. The CH is addressing a G-dly infinity which cannot be explained in mathematical terms. Where do you differ (if you do)?
@DoubleAA In the G-dly sense, infinity is the idea of "boundlessness". It's got nothing to do with numbers. Numbers are not a "real" infinity, as even mathematics is bounded by its own rules. Numbers are strictly guided by these laws.
@DoubleAA Because at the end of the day, they have their limitations within the law and theory of math. They are also not "all-capable", as G-d is. This is where we have 2 different definitions for the idea of "infinity" - as Ray suggested in his post. There's the countless, and there's the boundless.
@Shmuli Ray is not talking about the power to create or move things or whatever. He's talking about the infinity that CH uses which is one of amount not strength.
"That the infinite should have parts is inconceivable. ... Let us assume that a thing is actually infinite, and that we take a [finite] part from it. The remainder will undoubtedly be less than it was before. If this remainder is infinite, one infinite will be greater than another infinite, which is impossible. If this remainder is finite, then when we put the part we took back together with the finite remainder, the result should be finite [thus contradicting the premise]."
Obviously the number 7 is limited in that it can't walk. We're not discussing that.
Hi all. I try to be reasonably self-aware, but I must admit that the downvotes on my most recent question has left me scratching my head. Can anyone enlighten me as to what people might dislike about it?
We say in the V'hi She'amda passage of the Pesach Hagaddah that in each and every generation there have been those who rose up against us to destroy us, but Hashem saves us from their designs. Has anybody ever complied a list identifying who the Jews' oppressors were in every generation?
As Christianity is Avodah Zarah, is a Christian cross which people kiss, pay respect to, and pray facing towards considered to be an idol?
Here is a brief excerpt from a scholarly christian source which sheds more light into their form of worship and how cross is used:
Now, it was clear from...
In addition to the issues of whether the philsophical proof to God's existance is a proper approach, my own analysis of Sha'ar HaYichud is that the particular philosophical proof he uses is simply incorrect. Some mathematical premises that he relies on were proved incorrect in the 19th century.
We say in the V'hi She'amda passage of the Pesach Hagaddah that in each and every generation there have been those who rose up against us to destroy us, but Hashem saves us from their designs. Has anybody ever complied a list identifying who the Jews' oppressors were in every generation?
