- This topic has 173 replies, 48 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 11 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
I’m not sure what your point was, but entirely covering the knees is halachah. Tefach is regarding krias shema, and hair covering according to R’ Moshe (which is misunderstood by many, as an aside).
Halocha: when borrowing money must pay back
Minhag: not to pay
chumra: to make believe don’t owe
shtuss: to remind daily that you owe
Patur Aval Assur is right on target.
“then Adam went to Chava and said ” Hashem said not to eat from and not to touch this certain tree”
“but really adam told chava that she cant eat and then she out the extra chumra on herself”
It’s a machlokes who added the touching part. See the Kli Yakar 3:1
iBump +1!!
Halacha: Make chumros, ??? ????? ???????
Minhag: A custom, tradition (like second day yom tov)
Chumrah: Beyond the letter of law
Shtus: To be held in sway of mockers (??? ???? ???? ????????)
I’m not sure what your point was, but entirely covering the knees is halachah. Tefach is regarding krias shema, and hair covering according to R’ Moshe (which is misunderstood by many, as an aside).
I’m going to hijack this thread to ask the following. What is the source that a women must cover in public, that which needs to be covered for a man to say Shema in her presence?
Actually, how she dresses in public is more stringent than k”s. The halachos are derived from the Gemaras about a woman losing her kesubah based on lack of proper attire.
I have a question about the idea of covering hair:
Why is there a difference between a married and single woman? By every other erva, it either is or isn’t and doesn’t matter what the woman’s marital status is. Furthermore, we find in this week’s parsha, that the kohen uncovers the hair of the sota. If hair is a true erva, then wouldn’t this be a problem? Especially to then say hashem’s name in her presence. Obviously, hair is the type of erva that is not always an erva. Can this possibly be a limud zchus for those who are not makpid on this?
Mod 42, just the opposite; the source for hair covering mid’Oraisa is the fact that until then, her hair was covered. Sotah is a unique case.
The fact that the standards are different for married and unmarried women has been used for the halachos of tefach (R’ Moshe) and krias Shema (Aruch Hashulchan), but never by mainstream poskim for actual heter.
Be careful with limud z’chus; it’s nice to be melamed z’chus on those who didn’t or don’t, but you don’t want to be machshil anyone into not covering their hair based on the notion that there’s solid halachic basis, when there really isn’t.
halacha: giving kohen kedima
minhag: not giving kohen kedima
Look who’s talking:)
But you’re right.
Halacha: 1. To Have betachon in “Hazon umefarnes lakol”. 2. To do Hishtadlus for parnassa.
Minhag: To Do minimum bitachon and Maximum hishtadlus.
Chumrah: To be extremely machmir in the chiyuv of hishtadlus and extremely meikel in the chiyuv of bitachon.
Shtus: To bash and berate anyone who chas vesholem is more pro bitachon then pro hishtadlus.
Halacha: 1. To Have betachon in “Hazon umefarnes lakol”. 2. To do Hishtadlus for parnassa.
Minhag: To Do minimum hishtadlus and Maximum bitachon.
Chumrah: To be extremely machmir in the chiyuv of bitachon and extremely meikel in the chiyuv of hishtadlus.
Shtus: To bash and berate anyone who chas vesholem is more pro hishtadlus then pro bitachon. (i.e “working boys” chas v’shalom)
“why do we Ashkenazim not eat kitniyos?”
Because we picked up a stupid minhag centuries ago, and Rabbi Yaakov Emden couldn’t convince us to stop holding by it. Most of us hold more strictly by kitniyot than by chametz — talk about insane!
“Halacha: anything written in shulchan aruch”
Mechitzah isn’t in the Shulchan Aruch. Does that mean I can go to a non-mechitzah synagogue to daven?
What a chutzpah, and what small-mindedness, calling a minhag accepted by a very large segment of klal Yisroel “stupid”.
“Halacha: anything written in shulchan aruch”
Mechitzah isn’t in the Shulchan Aruch. Does that mean I can go to a non-mechitzah synagogue to daven?
He didn’t say Halacha is limited to what’s found in S”A.
“Mechitzah isn’t in the Shulchan Aruch. Does that mean I can go to a non-mechitzah synagogue to daven?”
How about to services led by a Baptist minister in your shul?
Or led by some lady singing?
But thank you for showing us so many examples of shtus.
Dr Hall: By definition, Chumros on Pesach, however outlandish are not “stupid”.
Re: Mechitza, you most certainly can daven in a non-mechitza shul. Many Orthodox Jews do so on a regular basis. I would just be surprised that you would daven in a shul that does not allow women at all.
Halacha: Go out without a hair covering for men.
Minhag- Wear hair covering
Chumrah- Not walking 4 amos without hair covering.
Shtus- Bashing people for wearing the ‘wrong type’ of hair covering.
Halacha: Stand while a Sefer Torah is carried.
Minhag: Stand while the Aron Kodesh is opened.
Chumrah: Stand for the entire Kriyas HaTorah.
Shtus: Stand for Obama’s prayer.
Whether Charlie is right or wrong, it was already called a stupid minhag by rishonim
We should not consider ourselves able to call stupid what rishonim called stupid.
Moreover, when the rishonim called it stupid, it had not been a minhag already for several hundreds of years. Which is why you may notice that no modern day ashkenazi posek calls it stupid, or suggests you can be meikel with it in any way.
Charlie is stupid.
“Which is why you may notice that no modern day ashkenazi posek calls it stupid, or suggests you can be meikel with it in any way.”
Ever heard of R’ David Bar-Hayim?
Ever heard of R’ David Bar-Hayim?
Is that your best example? He isn’t Ashkenazi, what he practices is what he believes was practiced before the exile.
“Is that your best example?”
Do you have a better one?
“He isn’t Ashkenazi”
He is.
“what he practices is what he believes was practiced before the exile”
That is somewhat accurate, although that is not his reason for permitting kitnios. His reason is as Charlie said “Because we picked up a stupid minhag centuries ago, and Rabbi Yaakov Emden couldn’t convince us to stop holding by it” and as I said “it was already called a stupid minhag by rishonim”.
Ever heard of R’ David Bar-Hayim?
No, I haven’t.
Why was my post taken down?
It violated the rules – “demeaning Torah, halacha and gedolim is not okay”.
Assuming that the content was “demeaning Torah, halacha and gedolim” I was just quoting the aforementioned Rabbi’s response to R’ Ovadia Yosef’s psak. It was not intended as a demeanition of Torah, halacha and gedolim, but I commend you for fulfilling your duty to remove what appeared to be such.
Not everything written should be quoted.
It is said that the Divrei Chaim of Sanz ZY’A once remarked, if you do what you remember from the heim and not vus shteit in shulchan aruch, you will end up shlugging kaporos with an esrog.
you will end up shlugging kaporos with an esrog.
He grew up in an odd heim.
He probably meant shlugging the shliach tzibbur with esrogim.
Actually, he meant there is no substitute for learning the halacha.
Assuming that the content was “demeaning Torah, halacha and gedolim” I was just quoting the aforementioned Rabbi’s response to R’ Ovadia Yosef’s psak.
If the quote is what I think it is, it just shows Bar-Hayim’s narrow-mindedness. While I usually don’t quote the Forward on YWN, I think they got this one right:
His halachic points are:
1) R’ Ovadia holds that ????? ???????? ???? ????? ???? ????? ???? ?-220 ??? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ????? ??????? ????? ?? ?? ?????? ?????? ???? ????? ????? ?????
2)The Tur writes ?????? ????? ??? ?? ??? ???? ??
3)The Beis Yosef writes ?? ????? ????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ????? ?? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ????? ???
4)The Yaavetz writes ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ????? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?????
I will leave out the rest because that’s what got my post taken down before.
None of those are halachic points. They are all naarishkeit points.
1. So what? Quite a stretch to apply that to those who came en mass after the war and outnumber the sfardim.
2. That was hundreds of years ago.
3. That is the beis yosef — not ashkenazi.
4. Also hundreds of years ago, and a cherry picked source from that era.
I saw the now deleted post. Aside from the fact that he contradicts himself, we do not accept the halachic conclusions of someone who could be so disrespectful. (Although I could nitpick, I think pba over all did a pretty good job of showing how this particular “psak” takes various legitimate sources out of context.)
“None of those are halachic points. They are all naarishkeit points.
1. So what? Quite a stretch to apply that to those who came en mass after the war and outnumber the sfardim.
2. That was hundreds of years ago.
3. That is the beis yosef — not ashkenazi.
4. Also hundreds of years ago, and a cherry picked source from that era.”
Disagreeing with the application of the points does not make them not halachic points.
“Aside from the fact that he contradicts himself”
Where?
“we do not accept the halachic conclusions of someone who could be so disrespectful”
I am not advocating that anyone should follow his halachic conclusions. I was just responding to the claim that “no modern day ashkenazi posek calls it stupid, or suggests you can be meikel with it in any way.”
Also, I’m sure you won’t even need my help in finding Rishonim/Acharonim whose halachic conclusions we accept, who were disrespectful to other Rishonim/Acharonim.
Disagreeing with the application of the points does not make them not halachic points.
Well, in that case, here are my halachic points proving that you should not wear techeiles even when moshiach comes.
1. The aseres hadibros don’t mention techeiles.
2. The torah says that Hashem kept shabbos and that’s why we have to keep shabbos–but what does that have to do with techeiles.
3. If you have a house full of sifrei torah, do you still need a blue string?
4. Korach is the same root as kerach which means ice. Ice is blue. So korach = techeiles, and the torah says not to be like korach.
I know you may disagree with the application of some of these points, but you’ll certainly concede they are halachic points.
“Aside from the fact that he contradicts himself”
Where?
You can’t accuse someone of being disingenuous and then expect to promote your opinion by quoting his. V’hamaynin yovin.
I was just responding to the claim that “no modern day ashkenazi posek calls it stupid, or suggests you can be meikel with it in any way.”
Kol haposel b’mumo posel, so you can’t expect Antone to take him seriously as a posek. Again, v’hamayvin yovin.
Also, I’m sure you won’t even need my help in finding Rishonim/Acharonim whose halachic conclusions we accept, who were disrespectful to other Rishonim/Acharonim.
First of all, it’s more than just an issue of disrespect, it’s really, although he would deny it, almost complete nullification. Second, and more importantly, there’s a certain hierarchy in Klal Yisroel (earned), and you can’t compare one person or situation to another. This fellow isn’t in the same league.
Popa:
The only one that I will even marginally concede is a halachic point is #3.
When I say “halachic point” I mean that it is a point that has halachic weight, even if in a particular instance we don’t pasken in accordance with that halachic weight.
So your first point is not a halachic point because the fac that something is not written in the aseres hadibros does not have any halachic weight.
Your second point regardless of whether it is a “halachic point” or a “naarishkeit point” has nothing to do with Techeiles.
Your fourth point is not a halachic point because the fact that korach is the same root as ice does not have halachic weight and the fact that ice is blue (which itself is debateble) does not have halachic weight and the fact that Korach = Techeiles (which doesn’t follow) does not have halachic weight and the Torah saying not to be like Korach is a specific prohibition which has no halachic weight in any of Korach’s other actions.
Now your third point also has no halachic weight, but at least it is a Torah-related sevara.
This is in contrast with quoting opinions of Rishonim and Acharonim who all have halachic weight, even if we don’t pasken like them in this particular instance.
As an aside, thank you for bringing up Techeiles. Every time it is mentioned raises awareness of this important issue and might cause someone to check out the Techeiles thread http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/techeiles
“You can’t accuse someone of being disingenuous and then expect to promote your opinion by quoting his. V’hamaynin yovin.”
It was the opposite – He was attempting to prove that someone was being disingenuous and part of his proof (whether valid or not) was via quoting his opinion. (Sorry for all the pronouns but I don’t want this post to get deleted.)
“Kol haposel b’mumo posel, so you can’t expect Antone to take him seriously as a posek. Again, v’hamayvin yovin.”
I will have to confess to not being a meivin – I don’t get your point. If a posek accuses another posek of an improper psak then that make the first posek not a posek?
“it’s more than just an issue of disrespect, it’s really, although he would deny it, almost complete nullification”
It might be a nullification of the psak but it is not a nullification of the person. Same as the Rishonim and Acharonim.
“there’s a certain hierarchy in Klal Yisroel (earned), and you can’t compare one person or situation to another. This fellow isn’t in the same league.”
This point I actually agree with somewhat.
That’s an arbitrary place to draw the line. I think that if the words of the point include torah words, then even if the application of those words to a specific halacha is invalid for whatever nitpicky reason, it is still a halachic point.
But, if you must, I will now prove the we do not wear techeiles even when moshiach comes, from rishonim and acharonim.
1. The Tur says that there is no chanan by shaar issurim.
2. The Rambam says that abortion by an eino yehudi is chayav misah.
3. The mizmor l’dovid has a novel approach to why yekke’s wait 3 hours.
4. Rav Ovadia Yosef ztz”l said that the first ashkenazim who came to Eretz Yisroel should have adopted sfardi minhagim which was the minhag hamakom.
See my objection to your second point above. Something cannot be a halachic point unless it is a point. Abortion has nothing to do with Techeiles so quoting the Rambam about abortion is not a “point” vis-a-vis Techeiles.
It was the opposite – He was attempting to prove that someone was being disingenuous and part of his proof (whether valid or not) was via quoting his opinion.
I read it that he was supporting his position on kitniyos, but you might be right, and I can’t see it anymore anyhow.
“there’s a certain hierarchy in Klal Yisroel (earned), and you can’t compare one person or situation to another. This fellow isn’t in the same league.”
This point I actually agree with somewhat.
My other points are based on this one.
I will add, though, and clarify, that if someone is accused of being disingenuous in psak, his status as a posek has been put into serous question.
“I read it that he was supporting his position on kitniyos, but you might be right, and I can’t see it anymore anyhow”
Yes he was using it to support his position on kitnios but his accusation of disingenuousness was based on (what he perceived to be) compelling halachic support the most compelling of which was the other person’s own psak. (most compelling to the other person)
“I will add, though, and clarify, that if someone is accused of being disingenuous in psak, his status as a posek has been put into serous question.”
It depends who is accusing whom, and under what circumstances, which was my point.
Abortion has nothing to do with Techeiles so quoting the Rambam about abortion is not a “point” vis-a-vis Techeiles.
Neither is citing the beis yosef about an ashkenazi minhag.
PAA, if he wants to disagree l’halachah, that’s one thing. But just because he doesn’t like his conclusion, doesn’t give him the right to question motive. Kol haposel b’mumo posel, so I assume that he himself paskens based on ulterior motives, and he projected his own shortcomings on a huge talmid chochom. As far as I’m concerned, that’s not a posek, and popa’s right.
I also agree with popa, no matter how much you want to nitpick, that taking a psak out of context and misapplying it is naarishkeit, not halachah.
“Neither is citing the beis yosef about an ashkenazi minhag”
The Beis Yosef is citing Rabbeinu Yerucham. Everyone agrees that that has halachic weight with regards to whether one can eat kitnios. The issue of contention is whether it has more halachic weight then the current ashkenazi custom and those who endorsed it. You (and most Poskim) feel that it does not; R’ Bar-Hayim apparently feels that it does.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.