Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Yahud: The aruch halshuchan says this din. However, he says it regarding Rabbeim being michuzak their talmidim. He similarly says it by kriyas hatorah; the ba’al korey can say amen louder so that everyone realizes that laining is about to begin. (I learnt this a while ago and don’t remember were to find it).
Why exactly is it a problem? There isn’t any yichud.
I heard a really interesting joke (though used in an entirely different context):
If you told smokers that all the cigarettes they used were made with lard, they would stop smoking. If you told them it’s an issur di’oraisah to damage your body, and smoking damages your body, they’d continue anyway.
yitayningwut: The term “derech eretz” doesn’t mean getting paid; it means working. By being self-supporting, you improve you person which is a fundamental part of Torah growth. Look at Avraham, Yitzcahk, Yaakov, and the Shvatim. They were all shepherds, which the Abarbenel calls the “avoda kedusha”.
Google “rupture and reconstruction the transformation of contemporary orthodoxy” to see R Haym Soloveitchick’s say on psak
gavra_at_work: I’m not sure what you’re trying to say.
Toi: I don’t think the current kollel system in effect now is the one the Gedolim 50 years ago advocated. If you look at what Rav Aharon Kutler intended for the original kollel, it was only a few year program for a smaller number of people.
Toi: I don’t get what was so funny
I can give you some summaries of the derech halimudim of the popular rosh yeshiva:
Rav Hershel Schachter: he explains the basis and shittos of the tanaim, amoraim, etc. For example, he would say there’s a machlokes between tosfos and the rambam on how to understand what a niddah is. The rambam says a niddah is an arvuh, tosfos says a niddah is not an arvuh. Where does tosfos get his opinion from? He would then proceed to take you on “the tour of shas” and answer up all difficulties as such.
Rav Mordachai Willig: I’m not as familiar with his style, but he is very halachick. He learns the mishna, gemara, rishonim, achronim, then shulchan aruch, pointing along chiddushim on the way. My friend once described his shiur as the whole thing being chiddushim.
Rav Rozenswieg: Brisk like no other
But you can see for yourself on YUTorah.org
popa_bar_abba: “Avi, I will teach you something interesting. Sometimes, the same words can mean something different! Imagine that!”
That’s true (though harsh). But it may or not be applicable here. But even if one were define derech eretz as work in all situations, I think the kollel system would still not be undermined. Jost because it beautifies Torah does not mean it’s necessary. And even within the current kollel system, no expects you to learn as a parnasah for ever. You’ll work eventually.
I once asked this exact question to Rav Schachter. He responded, “I don’t know. It’s complicated.”
2sense: If you let what people think of you stand in your way, you won’t become very much. If the Rambam never stood up to the Geonim, he wouldn’t have become the Rambam. If Moshe hadn’t stood up to Korach, who knows where the Jews would be?
Sam2: Even if you know 51%, we say Safek Di’Oraisuh li’Chumrah.
That said, I’m still not sure why one would say you can’t revive the mitzvah. If the gemara gave us qualifications, that it self indicates you should be testing to see if its the real techeiles. Additionally, if you know 100% what the real techeiles is, what does the mesorah add?
It happens to be a mitzvah do’arisah to live in eretz yisrael. You kind of need to move there, regardless of how good America is.
I heard Rav Schachter himself speak on the topic. Here’s how it breaks down:
PRO-TECHEILES: Because of the enormous amount of archaeological evidence pointing to the fact that this trunculus murinex (I definitely spelled that wrong) is the chilazon, we should use it as techeiles.
ANTI-TECHEILES: Despite the enormous amount of archaeological evidence pointing to the fact that this trunculus murinex is the chilazon, we should NOT wear techeiles because we don’t have the mesorah for it.
>NOTE: Those who are anti-techeiles don’t think (necessarily) that the tunculus murinex is not techeiles, they think it just doesn’t matter, because if you lose the mesorah for something, you can’t reinstate (obviously, referring to before mashiach comes). It would be ridiculous to suggest that those who are anti-techeiles say the reason that you shouldn’t wear techeiles is because were not sure if its the chilazon. If theres EVEN A LITTLE BIT of evidence pointing to that fact, we say SAFEK DI’ORAISAH LACHUMRAH and we would wear it anyway. The debate is whether you can “revive” a mitzvah or not.I would recommend the Kerem Yehoshoua (an English sefer; I forget the author… his name is probably Yehoshuoa). I used it a few times, and thought it was fantastic. He gives a study plan (which I no longer use) and a methodology for chazara (which I still try to use). Both are great
HaKatan: “Zionism is certainly not part of the Jewish faith”
Zionism happens to have basis in the Torah. The pasuk says “?????????????? ???-???????, ????????????-?????: ???? ????? ???????? ???-???????, ???????? ??????.” (Bamidbar 33:53). The Ramban believes this is a mitzvah di’oraisah to establish the medina (Mitzot ShShichach Harambam — Mitzvah 4), and while the Rambam doesn’t count it as a mitzva to have a medina before mashiach comes, he does believe that one MUST continue the medina if already established. [T]here’s a fantastic shiur by Rav Shachter on the topic
Edited for link. Please just give directions how to google for it.
MDG: You might want to check out the Rambam’s 4th Perek of Hilchos Teshuva. Lashon Harah about large groups of people/organizations is really awful.
But why should white shirts be the uniform for yeshiva students?
yungerman1: Modern Hebrew is actually lashon HaKodesh according to Rav Shachter (I heard him say it myself). His svara was that all languages evolve. Biblical Hebrew is not the same as the Hebrew used in the Mishna, which in turn is not the same Hebrew used by Rambam, Rashi, etc. Nonetheless, we consider all of these lashon HaKodesh. So too Modern Hebrew, which is simply another point in Hebrew’s history, is Lashon HaKodesh.
PBA: That’s completely true. Just because a talmid chacham said something nice about him doesn’t mean he is a gaon and talmid chacham. He is a goan and talmid chacham in his own right.
PBA: Well I have smicha from someone who is a greater talmid chochom than the person who gave you smicha who is a greater talmid chochom than Rav Schachter, and that person also respects my Torah knowledge and also called me a “Rav Hagadol B’Torah U’vyirah”
And since I think that Rabbi Dr. Norman Lamm is a Talmid Chacham, and the person who gave me smicha is a bigger tamid chochom than the person who gave you smicha who is a greater talmid chochom than Rav Schachter, that means Dr. Norman Lamm *is* a Talmid Chacham (unless of course, someone else comes along, who was given smicha from a greater talmid chochom that the the person who gave me smicha who is a greater talmid chochom than the person who gave you smicha who is a greater talmid chacham than Rav Schachter, and that person also respects his Torah knowledge and also called him a “Rav Hagadol B’Torah U’vyirah” and he thinks Rabbi Dr. Norman Lamm isn’t a talmid chacham.)
Charn: With all due respect, you seem to be over-generalizning, over-exaggerating, and ignoring legitimate approaches in Judaism, simply dismissing them as “wrong”. This is what the Netziv said destroyed the second bais hamikdash (HaEmek Davar: Psicha Lsefer Bereeishis/Sefer HaYashar).
Charn: So then we both agree that R Wasserman says one can go to college.
Dr. Suess, do you have a source for that?
If you were to look in the back of Kovetz Ha’aros you will find a tshuvah given by Rav Elchonon saying that secular college — let alone YU– is permissible assuming you don’t fraternize with ovrei avairuh, you dont learn/ study and kfiera, and a third requirement which I don’t recall.
I think you may want to verify any statement you make before ascribing it to someone, because then you portray that person (in this case Rav Elchonon Wasserman) as espousing a belief which he did not.
Who says all our tzaros will go away?
It seems as though, from the definitions given above, that most “MO” people I know would not consider themselves “MO” if this is what “MO” means. If you looked at me, you would probably think I’m “Modern” because of the clothes I wear and the kippas I have. I don’t fit into any of these definitions more than the average “yeshivish” guy. It really seems that the definition of MO and yeshivish is your clothes and kipppa, in which case the whole differentiation ruins achdus. (Unless you think that other kippas are so inferior that those who wear them are not as religious, in which case you have other issues)
2scents: What do think makes someone Modern Orthodox then?
They don’t.