30 replies to this topic

[Snag]

Ah ok thanks..



How can we get inside the mind of the sofer - to determine if it was lishma or not?

We can't. Luckily, he is trusted to say that he wrote it lishmah. Although another way would be for him to verbalize his intent.

[int]

We can't. Luckily, he is trusted to say that he wrote it lishmah. Although another way would be for him to verbalize his intent.

So then how can a get ever be written without intent (so that the concept of stama lishma would even be applicable), if we always presume it was written lishmah?

[Snag]

So then how can a get ever be written without intent (so that the concept of stama lishma would even be applicable), if we always presume it was written lishmah?

We don't assume it was always written lishmah( we trust the scribe of he /says/ he wrote it lishmah.

[int]

We don't assume it was always written lishmah( we trust the scribe of he /says/ he wrote it lishmah.

Right, but when you said "A get, which needs to be written lishmah, cannot be stama lishmah", did you mean that we don't apply the concept of "stamah lishmah" to this case (of a sofer writing a get) - where an application would be : even if he didn't have any intent, by 'stama lishmah' it would still be ok, as if he had intent. Instead we simply presume he did have intent.

The end result is the same though..so what's the difference?

[Snag]

Right, but when you said "A get, which needs to be written lishmah, cannot be stama lishmah", did you mean that we don't apply the concept of "stamah lishmah" to this case (of a sofer writing a get) - where an application would be : even if he didn't have any intent, by 'stama lishmah' it would still be ok, as if he had intent. Instead we simply presume he did have intent.

The end result is the same though..so what's the difference?

But we don't presume he had intent. Een if we did, that would be different than stama lishmah, with the nafka minah being where the sofer acknowledges a lack of intent; if s"l, then it's good, if we're presuming intent, we can't do that when he contradicts that presumption.

[LoveToLaugh]

Yes, like G-d, she often seems capricious and vengeful, but you must have faith tht she has your best interests at heart... (but she's always a woman to me )

And you're right, ltl, the seforim do compare the marital relationship to the one between man and G-d quite a bit. In fact, that's one interpretation of the Talmudic dictum "if a man and woman are worthy, the shechina rests between them" that if they managed to work out a way to make their marriage work, they are that much more likely to be at peace with G-d as well.

I like that twist on it.

So does that mean those with working thriving marriages are more likely to be closer to God?

[Snag]

I like that twist on it.

So does that mean those with working thriving marriages are more likely to be closer to God?

yep.

[LoveToLaugh]

yep.

This premise correlates to the premise of Belle's thread from last year: http://www.hashkafah...ng-to-the-left/

[Snag]

This premise correlates to the premise of Belle's thread from last year: http://www.hashkafah...ng-to-the-left/

interesting.

[Dan]

... and if the intent cannot be default (e.g. A get, which needs to be written lishmah, cannot be stama lishmah, since stam isha lab legerushin kayma= a woman is not presumed to be getting divorced by her husband).

you sound like shemmy (i know, it was a typo)

[Snag]

you sound like shemmy (i know, it was a typo)

That woulda been labh