- This topic has 61 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 5 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
As for Torah V Morals: its an issue when one could care less about kavod habrioys, ahavta lereacha kamocha, forgets the 5th chelek of shulchan aruch, and uses aggadah in the wrong context without appreciating the time, audience and subtleties it was intended for.
Feivel, the point is that iti s questionable if shaking hands in a business situation is derech hibba v’taava or simply a formality. Rav Herschel Shachter and Rav Aharon Solveichik permitted it – and Rav Yaakov Kaminetzky said in Emmet l’Yaakov on Tur Shulchan Aruch p. 405 note 4 “Regarding returning a handshake to women when they extend their hand first in greeting, not in an affectionate manner, this is a very serious question and it is difficult to be lenient. However, in circumstances where the woman may come to be embarrassed, perhaps one could consider being lenient. This requires further study”. Rav Moshe himself (Iggerot Moshe EH 1:56 at the end) that there are yirei Hashem who shaker hands when women initiate it and suggested that they hold that it is not derech hibba v’taava although he said that it is “difficult” to rely on this.
On the hand, there are issues of embarrassing someone,causing hatred, losing a job or job possibility. These all might be good reasons to rely on lenient opinions.
As for your smart-aleck examples, what is wrong with eating in a gentile home per se? If they offer you unopened certified kosher cold cuts on paper plates with plastic knives and forks and cold drinks in paper cups (although really if their utensils are cold it is not a problem b’diavad) it is totally permitted. The other examples do not deserve a response.
Joseph- Have you ever spoken to Rav Dovid on the topic? Also, can you point me to the third teshuva?
My “smart aleck examples” were for the purpose of starkly illustrating the dangers of what appeared to be the foundation of your post. That it was mutar to shake hands with women.
If you now are saying that no, it’s not mutar but there are extenuating circumstances in which some Poskim allow it, then I retract the farcical aspects of my post.
feivel:
Yosi. Wait. I must be very dense today.
It appears to me you are saying essentially:
I have reliable sources that tell me they heard directly from Rav Moshe’s son that Rav Moshe actually held directly opposite to how he poskened in his seforim. That he wrote these false psakim so that he wouldn’t be criticized.
And that you believe your reliable sources that this is (or is even remotely possible)the truth.
Are you saying this??
Yes, very important. I’m surprised Rav Moshe didn’t think of this.
That’s why I shake hands with women. In certain situations I have no choice but to hug them also.
I also frequently eat at my goyish neighbor’s house. I don’t want them to think I’m some kind of nut case. Even worse they might be insulted. And we all know that is against The Torah!
I suppose I could figure out some way to explain to women why I can’t shake their hand; or explain to my neighbor why I can’t eat his food. But nah, they still might think I’m lacking Derech eretz.
Besides bacon is delicious.
+1
feivel: My “smart aleck examples” were for the purpose of starkly illustrating the dangers of what appeared to be the foundation of your post. That it was mutar to shake hands with women.
If I may, you misstated. We can talk about whether there is such a Shittah that it’s Muttar and how legitimate that Shittah is and under which circumstances. Even if we would decide that it’s Assur, being Halachically incorrect is not the end of the world nor worthy of derision. Worthy of correction, certainly, but not being rude.
What you (very correctly, IMO) railed against is the notion that it’s actually Assur, but that we can do it anyway to save face. Such a concept is the beginning of the uprooting of the entire Torah.
Sam, agreed, and well said.
The tone I pick up from some of these posts is that if the need is great enough, and not necessarily by a halachic definition of need, halachah can be broken.
That’s very different than saying that there’s a shittah that’s meikil, and perhaps that can be relied upon in difficult circumstances.
Feivel, if you mean not muttar l’chatchila that is what I meant, not because I am deciding between the poskim c”v but becuase it might be a safek d’Oraita and anyway it is at least an almost universally accepted hanhaga. However, just as in other areas of Halacha we can rely on lenient opinions in certain situations so too in this matter.
Avi
Apparently I misread your first post then. Sorry
“And this query of yours proves that you do not believe the Torah to be the ultimate morality. “
Actually it is the people who support the death penalty in the US for whom that is true. The way it is administered clearly violates the standards set down in the gemara and codified by Rambam for Noachide courts.
Charlie, not correct. The authorities can rely on circumstantial evidence (Guide 3:40). The purpose of the secular criminal justice system, unlike battei din, which are concerned with atonement for the criminal, is to maintain public order(Iggerot Moshe Chohsen Mispat 2:68 and see Ran Derasha 11). In fact, Noahides can be executed for being over on any of the sheva mitzvot. Thus, if a Noahide who has a record longer than our combined arms is executed, even though he did not commit this specific act the only unjust result is that the real murderer thinks he got away scot-free (although really it is just a matter of time until he gets his). In fact, even if a Jew is a three time loser he is locked up in a tower and left there until he dies (Rambam Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:5).
“Actually it is the people who support the death penalty in the US for whom that is true. “
So you are arguing with R Moshe Feinstein’s psak. Not at all surprising.
But, as usual, you are obfuscating.
Your comment above was whether we would have moral problems with the US administering the death penalty for petty theft.
Now everyone knows that the US does not administer the death penalty for petty theft. The point of your inane comment was to suppose that the US would issue the death penalty in accordance with halacha (Sheva Mitzvos Bnei Noach). And your insistence was that administering the death penalty in accordance with halacha is amoral.
Once again you attempt to twist what you said. Because the clear implication of your earlier comment was that that the administration would be in accordance with the Torah, but that is should be clear to everyone that doing so is immoral.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.