- This topic has 120 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 10 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
I guess my extortion didn’t work.
Ben Levi Continuation of Discussion on R’ Slifkin and Weiss from Manchester Eiruv Thread
ROB
I have no idea how you understood the Rambam.
The Rambam states quite clearly that he is discussint the three general approaches taken towards Mamorei Chazal. No where does he state in any way that he is only talking about specific cases. Not only that but if he would be discussing specific cases I would think he would mention which ones.
Secondly he states clearly that the problem is that these people feel they know more then Chazal.
A
I have no idea how you can possibly come out of this Rambam that it is possible to “question the paremeters” of Chazal when the Rambam is takes great pains to state exactly the opposite.
Furthermore this Rambam is discussed by other’s (the Shelah comes to mind) and no one ever understands it the way you are stating.
As for Slifkin himself, I have read one of his books and afterwords went on his website to confirm his beliefs.
Another core principle of his belief is actual having a “rational” approach, he rejects mysticism, so I have no idea how you can infer this Ramabam as agreeing with his approach, he states quite clearly that in his view Chazal got their knowledge from Pliny afact the Rambam clearly disputes.
And I would add that I have studied these matters and I can pretty confidently state that there is virtually no source that adopts the approach he takes.
An example being would be that he is correct that RSRH does take one aspect of the the view he advocates in a famous letter regarding Aggadita, however the conclusions he takes of of that in his approach towards Mitzvos (what he considers the Rambams approach) is one that RSRH bitterly attacks and belittles in The Nineteen Letters, Letter 18, RSRH writes regarding it that it did more damage to Klal yisroel then Moses Mendelsohn’s teachings!
So in other words Slifkin uses one letter where RSRH endorses one aspect of his views to imply that RSRH is a traditional source” that endorses his philosophy, when in fact RSRH wrote so strongly against it that when the Nineteen Letters was originally translated into Hebrew, the Chazon Ish himself advised the publishers to leave it out for fear that RSRH would be taken out of context in attacking the Rambam in general instead of one understanding of the Moreh Nevuchim specifically.
And the vast majority of the sources that Slifkin qoutes do the exact same thing.
There is virtually no one who endorses his approach or his conclusions. It has been used by Hellenists, By Maskilim, and by the founders of Conservative’s and at every time that it has reared it’s head it has been bitterly and vociferously denounced.
I DO NOT KNOW WHO SUGGESTED THAT THE OPPOSTION TO THE LONDON EIRUV IS “PURELY POLITICAL”, BUT THEY SHOULD BE AWARE THAT HAGA’ONIM R; PINCHOS ROBERTS, R’ GERSHON HAGER, R’ CHIM FELDMAN F MUNKS AND R’ DOVID KOHN ARE ALL OPPOSED, AND ALL HOLD THAT CAN STILL MAKE AN EIRUV CHATZEIROIS WITH A BROCHO.
.
NONE OF THEM HAVE PUBLICISED THEIR VIEWS OUT OF THEIR OWN KEHILLA, IN FACT RABBI KOHN WILL ONLY ANSWR THE SHAILO WHEN DIRECTLY ASKED, NONE HAVE REFUSED ALIYOS OR THE OMUD TO PEOPLE WHO LISTEN TO OTEHR RABBONIM, AND NONE ARE INVOLVED IN POLITICS.
.
R’ Y.M. FREEDMAN IS ALSO OPPOSED, AS IS RABBI B. KNOFLER, AND IF YOU KNOW WHAT IS HAPPENING IN GOLDERS GREEN, YOU WILL UNDERSTAND THAT IT CANNOT BE POLITICAL.
.
THE BIGGEST RAYOH IS OBVIOUSLY WHAT CAME FIRST THE CHICKEN OR THE EGG, AND THE MATIRIM HAD A GOOD RELATIONSHIP WITH THE OISRIM BEFORE THE WHOLE STORY.
WHOEVER COMPARED BENEI BERAQ AND THE GUSH DAN AREA TO LONDON IS MAKING AN ELEMTARY MISTAKE, FOR THE SIMPLE THAT THERE GATES IN B”B.
.
??’ ???? ??????? ??: ??????? ?????? ????? ??????, ?????
Golders greener if you want to know more about socks google “sock treatment for latecomers.” There has been at least one other school were it was done.
RR44_ thank you for the information. I (and others) did not know that there are gates at the end of the streets in Bnai Braq.
RR44: R’ Gershon Hager & R’ YM Friedman (saigura rebbe) can hardly be called eruv-opposers. I’m not sure if they explicitly mattir it, but they have come close to doing so (not to mention others such as RZR).
I myself am not a eruv user. My rabbonim say my kehillah is to be machmir like R’ Moshe and consider it to have shishim riboi and the A1 where it meets the A406 to be very problematic, and so I follow them, and especially since R’ Roberts thinks so, but please don’t misrepresent the views of other local rabbonim.
I do agree it’s not political, and it only became political when the baalei batim decided to publish and sponsor pamphlets.
The original psak from (the present) Dayan Padwa was not make a brochoh eruv chatzeros! Even now, they are apparently “noheg” to do so but it’s a very grey area and I personally include it in my eruv tavshilin (“al miztvos eruvin”).
Sorry, we don’t allow that.
Rabbi YM Friedman – for the uninitiated is the k’void kedushas sadigurer Rebbe and a member of the moietzes gedoilei hatoira.
He learnt in fallsburg was accepted into Brisk, and learnt in ponevezh, and is a musmach of R’ meir brandsdorfer and a massive talmid chochom – besides for numerous other ma’ailos.
He feels that there is mokom to be dan about the eiruv, but le’ma’aseh one should not carry.
I have put his opinions about shabbos shoes on RR’s other thread.
DASH2 – I am close with the Sadigerrer rebbe shlita, and have discussed the eruv matter with him at length. His shul is affiliated with the UOHC and he will not openly allow that which they forbid. He has given private sanction (in cases I am aware of) for individuals not affiliated with the UOHC to use the eruv.
Mods, could we move all the slifkin posts to another thread?
Mods, could we move all the posts regarding the LONDON to another thread? This one is for the Manchester Eruv. Thank you
We all wish Reb Moishe Katz, Eruv Project Manager, Mazeltov on the birth of a baby daughter last week! Lots of nachas. (He said that for the first Shabbos in 9 months his wife can go out in the street without carrying anything!)
The Rabbonim are working with the committee to implement changes to the eruv which will satisfy MOST rabbonim and shitttos. Obviously there will always be those who will still consider it problematic. The changes will take several months to complete.
In the meantime, though I do not yet carry in the eruv, it delights me to see those who do use it push their babies in the street etc on Shabbos, allowing them the freedom this gives them to be invited out for meals and go for a pleasant walk with their spouses.
But some people may think that EVERYTHING is now permitted to be carried. Many things are not, even with the eruv, and these complicated halochos need to be learned.
For example, it is not permitted to carry things that you will not need again this Shabbos. One should therefore not carry their tallis home after shul.
What about carrying your house key to shul for mincha on shabbos if you will only be returning home after maariv on motzei Shabbos?
PLEASE WOULD POSTERS GIVE OTHER EXAMPLES OF THINGS THAT MAY/SHOULD NOT BE DONE EVEN WITH AN ERUV. THANK YOU
Ken Zayn – Wonderful news. I wish the Manchester eruv askonim every success. The Perisha (OC 395) says that allowing people to enjoy their shabbos in this way is one of the primary purposes of an eruv.
Regarding bringing taleisim home after shul, see Shemiras Shabbos Kehilchasah 28:89 (new edition) who permits this.
How about playing ball in the street?
J: as far as taking taleisim home, many people do it and,not having seen the Shemira shabbos, I would imagine that fear of having it stolen or just plain mislaid would be enough to take it out of the concept of “meichim meshabbos lechol”, especially as these are probably special shabbos taleisim.
Ken Zayn – see the sources brought here regarding ball playing:
http://theyeshivaworld.com/weekly_torah.php?id=729
Rabbiofberlin – in SSK it states that bringing home one’s tallis from shul is a routine activity that is not considered hachono at all. Some are machmir on this though (see Nishmas Shabbos).
Ken Zayn
the manchester eruv is not applicable to the toon
Toon?
J. the impression i recieved from the sadigere rebbe was that he feels there is a mokoim lehistapek about the eiruv, however bottom line he feels there are too many separate kulois involved to rely on it (shishim riboi, karfifois, kula’s in lovud, etc…) however obviously a member of R’ Eherentrau’s shul etc.. can rely on it, and that there is definitely no need not to invite guests over shabbos if they carry etc…
I recived a similar impression from rabbi eisner shlit”a
If you close to him it is possible that he was more open with you.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.