- This topic has 78 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 10 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
GAW -“Why not? Mitzva Ba’ah LYadcha Al T’Acher! Al Tomar Ephne V’Eshne Shema Lo Tipane!”
Ok your opinion is – there is nothing wrong with a shotgun wedding?!?!?!
You seem to be the only one with this opinion!
Never seems to stop you 🙂
OK, now you sent us on a wild goose chase and wasted our time looking for your Shulchan Aruch source; but of course, it was no where to be found. So where is the source in the Shulchan Aruch as you claimed? It should be quite easy for you to let us know so that we can verify your statements.
cherrybim -“but of course, it was no where to be found. So where is the source in the Shulchan Aruch as you claimed?”
Look I’m not your Rebbe. You argue on almost all my posts -why don’t you ask your Rabbi(s)?
But just so you don’t think I’m lying -here it is:
Even Hazer -Simon 1 Halacha 13.
And noone agrees with the Baer Haytive’s Pshat.
It is not a halacha for a Jewish woman to marry. At best, it is an eitza tova, good advice. On the flip side, once married, because of chashada, there are opinions such as the Rama that she should stay married.
Health – “You argue on almost all my posts”
No, I don’t.
cherrybim -“It is not a halacha for a Jewish woman to marry. At best, it is an eitza tova, good advice.”
Look I just posted that noone holds of the Baer Haytiv and you go and say we hold like him. No, we Pasken L’halacha that a woman has a Chiyuv to get married. We don’t Pasken like a Daas Yochid!
I gave you the Daas Yochid above and now you turn it around and say we Pasken like him. Sorry we don’t, no matter what you say!
“Health – “You argue on almost all my posts”
“No, I don’t.”
Of course you do -you just argued on me now!
No, I didn’t.
cherrybim -“No, I didn’t.”
Of course you didn’t. Whatever you say. At least you believe You are always right.
Not always.
cherrybim: rabbinic mitzvah according to some see Magen Avraham 9 http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=9729&st=&pgnum=465&hilite= , also see the Bais Shmuel Even Haezer 1:2
But that’s a long way from,”S’A Paskens there is a Chiyuv!”.
There are two reasons pru revu and leshevet(different definitions),the Rema says because of chashad and the Magen Avraham because of leshevet(it is best to read it inside to get the whole picture).
I see that you decided to drop the subject and yet I feel I must say something. I got married a few month ago. I didn’t want to. I didn’t have much of a choice though. I didn’t feel ready and I wasn’t. I knew it then and I tried talking to people but all they did was tell me it’s ok things will be fine great…. As I said I didn’t have much of a choice anyway. And now I’m married and this past few month have been one long trauma. I can’t forgive myself and feel like I ruined it. Yes, I had issues and maybe if I would have waited a time would come when I’d actually want to get married. I can never express in words what I’m going through. I can’t sleep and eat normally and only function enough so that outside people will (hopefully?) not realize what’s going on. I don’t know how long I’ll be able to live like thi. I’m losing my strength and hope every day. PLEASE DONT PUSH HER TO THIS!!!!!!
cherrybim -“But that’s a long way from,”S’A Paskens there is a Chiyuv!”.”
Wrong; that is Poshut Pshat in the Rema. And only the Baer Haytiv changes this Pshat, noone else!
The mitzvah of pru urvu is incumbent on MEN, not women, because pregnancy and childbirth are ALWAYS a sakana (hence the making of birchas hagomeil after childbirth), and you cannot force a woman to put her life in jeopardy for the sake of a mitzvah. If you want to argue that point, look at one of the the halachos of bris milah. If two male infants have died in the same family because of their bris, the next male infant is NOT gehmahled. Obviously the halacha teaches us that skanos nefashos is of prime concern, even when it comes to mitzvos that are clear directives, much less those that are not.
An Italian pope was criticized after he stated his position on marriage. He was told, “If you no playeh de game; you no makeh de rules.”
A woman is patur from procreation and is therefore, patur from marriage.
oomis1105 -“The mitzvah of pru urvu is incumbent on MEN, not women,”
This is true, but the Halacha is women have to get (are Mechuyav to get) married for other reasons.
“because pregnancy and childbirth are ALWAYS a sakana (hence the making of birchas hagomeil after childbirth), and you cannot force a woman to put her life in jeopardy for the sake of a mitzvah. Obviously the halacha teaches us that skanos nefashos is of prime concern, even when it comes to mitzvos that are clear directives, much less those that are not.”
While this is a nice Shtickle Torah -I’m sure it’s not accurate because we hold there is a Chiyuv to get married -so I doubt this “Sakana” is enough to stop the Chiyuv of getting married for women, but you might say it’s enough to stop the Chiyuv of Pru OOrevu.
Without me doing any research into it – I’d say maybe they aren’t Mechuyav in Pru OOrevu because it’s a Mitzva Shehazman Gromoh. There are times when it’s Ossur to be together.
Without me doing any research into it – I’d say maybe they aren’t Mechuyav in Pru OOrevu because it’s a Mitzva Shehazman Gromoh. There are times when it’s Ossur to be together.
ROTFLOL!!!!!!!!!!
I guess Oomis is more learned than Health.
Health: Women are Pattur because it’s a G’zeiras Hakasuv. Yevamos 62b I think. Also, not being allowed to be together Mid’rabbanan on Yom Kippur, Tishah B’av, etc. does not make something a Z’man G’rama. And even if there are times when it’s Assur to be together, the Mitzvah of P’ru Ur’vu would still be there, only that you are not allowed to perform it at that time.
Oomis: Your reason is an idea that I have heard from a lot of people, but has no source that I can recall. The reason that women are Pattur is because there is an explicit Limud from a Passuk like that. In fact, one Tanna holds that women are Mechuyav. It would be very hard to say that we hold of a P’tur due to Pikuach Nefesh but another Tanna held there was a Chiyuv (though I think there’s a Minchas Chinuch that sounds like that, so my proof could be wrong).
Sam2 -“Health: Women are Pattur because it’s a G’zeiras Hakasuv. Yevamos 62b I think.”
I was just saying a Pshat in the Din -so it shouldn’t be a Chok!
I wasn’t sure if you could apply her reason to why they aren’t Mechuyav in Pru OOrevu. You definitely can’t for the other reasons of their Chiyuv.
“Also, not being allowed to be together Mid’rabbanan on Yom Kippur, Tishah B’av, etc. does not make something a Z’man G’rama.”
Whose talking about D’rabbonon? -Nidda is a D’oraysa!
“And even if there are times when it’s Assur to be together, the Mitzvah of P’ru Ur’vu would still be there, only that you are not allowed to perform it at that time.”
So during the Zman of Nidda you can’t do the Mitzva. Prove that this isn’t considered a Zman Gromoh!
Man is m’chuyiv in p’ru u’rvu, not the woman. But a man can’t just go around procreating. However, kiddushin is a matir for the act; hence he is obligated to marry as a hecha timtza to procreate.
The woman, however, is not m’chuyiv in procreating so there is no obligation of marriage; but she has the option of kiddushin if she wants children and companionship.
?? ??,? ???? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?’ ????? ???? ?’ ????? ??’ ????? ??? ??? (?????? ?) ????? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ????
Health: Niddah isn’t bound by time. Zman Grama implies a set time, meaning a certain day or time of day. Niddah isn’t influenced by that. Rav Schachter has a whole Shiur on this. If I get bored sometime soon maybe I’ll try and find it on YUTorah for you. And like I said at the end, the Chiyuv would be there even when she’s a Niddah, there is just a separate Issur preventing it. That’s not considered Z’man G’rama.
cherrybim -“The woman, however, is not m’chuyiv in procreating so there is no obligation of marriage; but she has the option of kiddushin if she wants children and companionship”
Wrong again. She has an obligation to get married!
Repeating the same line is just repeatedly arguing with S’A!
Sam2: It’s Pashtus Rashi in Keddushin on the Mishna. Ayin Shom.
gavra_at_work –
“?? ??,? ???? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?’ ????? ???? ?’ ????? ??’ ????? ??? ??? (?????? ?) ????? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ????”
I actually was Mechaven to this and was going to post it and I didn’t recall the Gemoroh, but maybe it was buried in my subcon.
SAM2 -“Health: Niddah isn’t bound by time. Zman Grama implies a set time, meaning a certain day or time of day. Niddah isn’t influenced by that. Rav Schachter has a whole Shiur on this. If I get bored sometime soon maybe I’ll try and find it on YUTorah for you. And like I said at the end, the Chiyuv would be there even when she’s a Niddah, there is just a separate Issur preventing it. That’s not considered Z’man G’rama.”
I could argue with both your Sevaros. But let’s say you’re correct -you could still say this is the Taam Hakra and it isn’t a Chok because the Torah only gave them Mitzvos that apply always.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.