Is ל"ג בעומר R E A L L Y the day that רשב"י passed away?
Yes, you אויפגעקלערטע חברה, it is! But the truth is, it's not about Lag BaOmer, now is it? You just found a topic you think you can be right about. But you have general issues with the veracity of Jewish customs and laws.
chattering won't ever stop, IMHO, but at least it will tell those that want to stay true to the age-old beliefs that we have and enjoy that we don't just believe, it's based on rock-solid sources.
At least bring the letter to Zevin, about which he says the Rebbe wouldn't have writted had he been as knowledgeable as him!
In that letter the Rebbe accepts the possibility that perhaps Rashbi's passing was not on Lag Be'omer and offers another reason as to why Lag Be'omer is connected to Rashbi
the new ms. is just as confusing as the other mss. and early printings. the new ms. leaves both SM', which doesn't clarify whether the second should be "shemeis" while the first is "samach", or what. Then he brings a bunch of contradictory ms. evidence at the end. So this article isn't dispositive at all.
Tzig, I just finally read the article, and I don't see the problem resolved. If the second "shin-mem" means "shemes" then why does it mention at all that he was a talmid of Rebbi Akiva, it's of no relevance, the simcha is because he was niftar on that day. Also the word "shemes" doesn't fit in over there. There's something strange here. I would love to hear what Mondshein says about this. Maybe you have a way of contacting him through your L friends?
This is supposed to be so definitive as to put all the chattering to a halt?
ReplyDeleteThis is nonsense! What evidence?
ReplyDeletechattering won't ever stop, IMHO, but at least it will tell those that want to stay true to the age-old beliefs that we have and enjoy that we don't just believe, it's based on rock-solid sources.
ReplyDeleteI don't see how the new reading explains the part about Rashbi being a Talmid of Rebbi
ReplyDeleteAkiva.
MBA
ReplyDeleteyou don't even get what the discussion is all about,
At least bring the letter to Zevin, about which he says the Rebbe wouldn't have writted had he been as knowledgeable as him!
ReplyDeleteIn that letter the Rebbe accepts the possibility that perhaps Rashbi's passing was not on Lag Be'omer and offers another reason as to why Lag Be'omer is connected to Rashbi
Babruisker
ReplyDeleteI think that Rav Klauzner quotes it
the new ms. is just as confusing as the other mss. and early printings. the new ms. leaves both SM', which doesn't clarify whether the second should be "shemeis" while the first is "samach", or what. Then he brings a bunch of contradictory ms. evidence at the end. So this article isn't dispositive at all.
ReplyDeleteTzig,
ReplyDeleteI just finally read the article, and I don't see the problem resolved. If the second "shin-mem" means "shemes" then why does it mention at all that he was a talmid of Rebbi Akiva, it's of no relevance, the simcha is because he was niftar on that day. Also the word "shemes" doesn't fit in over there. There's something strange here. I would love to hear what Mondshein says about this. Maybe you have a way of contacting him through your L friends?
Tzig went to a Misnagdish Picnic instead of Kan Tziva and the Meshichist plane for Lag Bomer for Achdus al Kol HaLuckshun?
ReplyDelete