Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
A woman who learns gets sechar although not as much as a man (Rambam, Hilchot Talmud Torah 1,13). This apparently is a case of people getting sechar for doing mitzvot in which they are not obligated (Baba Kama 87a). I would imagine that her sechar for learning those halachot which she must keep (most of Orech Chaim and Yoreh Deah and all of Choshen Mishpat) would be the same as a man’s as she is obligated to learn them.
Let the dead language rest in pieces (the various and sundry dialects). ???? ???
Lilmod, she can by it herself and rely on Rambam’s opinion (http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14276&st=&pgnum=265) that she has her own obligation of simcha. The Shaagat Arieh, in teshuva 65 (http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1832&st=&pgnum=119), says that anything that gladdens a person is part of the mitzva (he also rules that a woman has her own mitzva).
Gofish, I hope that they gave them to you as a gift on condition that you return them. Otherwise you were not yotze on the first day.
You can buy in the shuk area as well as Geula and Mea Shearim. I spent 111 shekels including a set of aravot for each day (6 shekels per set) but that was from a family on my settlement so you might have to pay a little more.
Golfer, buying a kosher etrog and using the rest to buy your wife a nice dress is a segula for a happy marriage. Pushing expensive etrogim is a segula for parnassa if you sell them.
I bought all of them packaged with hechsherim from people in my community so I did not spend more than a few minutes. All together (I bought six sets of aravot as they dry out quickly) I paid NIS 111 (a bit less than $30).
Winnie, as a matter of fact, there is a certain community that wants to eliminate the cherem as today a family cannot live on only one salary.
That also means multiple mothers-in-law. LOL
??? ????? ????
Johnson is a flake. Moreover, he supports legislation that will force people to participate in toeva weddings (he explicitly said that a Jewish baker should be forced to bake a cake for a Nazi event).
Time,
The key word is “search”. The Maharal says that the difference between emet and emet l’amituta is that being that the bet din has permission to pasken it’s pesak is truth. What is seen in Shemayim is emet l’amituta. As the dayanim only have what their eyes see it may be different.
I hate to burst your bubble but poskim are human, not computers and not demigods. They have hashkafot and these hashkafot will affect the pesak. This is not a difficulty if it follows logically from the hashkafa, On the contrary, the Gemara in many places explains the opinion of a Tanna or Amora based on a general rule by which he holds (e.g. does a person put himself into a doubt, does a person care if his wife is dragged into court, etc.). You yourself immediately backtrack and say “That doesn’t mean it stakes place in a vacuum or an Ivory Tower”. The pesak is not subverted. It follows logically from the posek’s sheeta. Thus eilu v’eilu divrei Elokim chaim.
Regarding how one becomes a gadol, that is simply being on the first tier of poskim. This comes about when the posek is recognized by the Torah world as a gadol. It is a matter of consensus not applying for a position or being elected.
As for your statement “This says more about the writer,than…”, to whom are you referring? If to me regarding what I posted I thank you for complimenting me on my insights.
TY, lilmod ulelamaid. Gemar chatima tova.
?????,
?? ????? ????? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ??????
?????? ?? ??? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ?????,
??? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?????…
????? ????? ????? ????
???? ???? ????? ????? ???? ??? ??? ??? ????…
??? ?? ??? ????
– ??? ?????? ???????
Actually the term is over 200 years old although in different contexts. In the 18th century, the term “politically correct” occurs in the case of Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419 (1793). Associate Justice James Wilson, of the U.S. Supreme Court comments: “The states, rather than the People, for whose sakes the States exist, are frequently the objects which attract and arrest our principal attention… Sentiments and expressions of this inaccurate kind prevail in our common, even in our convivial, language. Is a toast asked? ‘The United States’, instead of the ‘People of the United States’, is the toast given. This is not politically correct.” (Wikipedia)
In fact, each group has its political correctness. This is why in shuls that identify with certain factions not only is the prayer for the State of Israel omitted but even the misheberach for the soldiers.
Joseph, how is it that you are always wrong? The oaths are not found anywhere in he codes. Thus, they are not halacha. If they were used they were used to assuage gentile authorities who were very nervous about possible rebellions (in fact, the Czarist governemt outlawed the Zionist movement until it was convinced that it was an emigration movement and the Netziv felt constrained to write in the mitzva to appoint a king that different countries need different forms of government rather than different generations even though the mitzva clearly only applies to Am Yisrael in EY).
In any case, I have already posted several times why they no longer apply even if they once did. I will repeat the main points to jog your memory.
1. The gentiles violated their part of the bargain. Certainly the pogroms and Holocaust, both of which were government instigated, constitute persecuting us too much – and both occurred after Rav Kalischer.
2. The other nations gave us permission at the San Remo Conference so it is not rebellion (Rav Meir Simcha).
3. Hashem called on several occasions (Rav Soloveichik).
4. They were only for 1,000 years (Rav Chaim Vital).
So far as this Karaite is concerned, so what? The Reform movement was against Zionism until the establishment of the state and then a splinter group that called itself the American Council for Judaism continued to scream. So if you put in the company of a Karaite I will put you in the company of Reformers.
Softwords,
1. That is not what Rav Moshe said. He was asked by a secular reporter how he became accepted as a gadol and he replied that people asked him questions and liked his answers. They asked more questions and he became known. In fact, while sometimes gedolim tell avereichim to go into the rabbanut (e.g. the Chofetz Chaim with Rav Kook) once they start paskening a consensus develops in the Torah world. Sometimes it happens “by accident”. After Rav Shlomo Ganzfried got married he opened a liquor business (this was a common Jewish business then and there). While he was waiting for customers he learned and wrote. Customers never came and he was more or less compelled to agree to be a the rav of a city.
2. Rav Kook’s positions on Zionism were more from hashkafic and kabbalistic perspectives. Perhaps that is why non-Zionists are quite willing to cite his halachic opinions.
3. While often a pesak is purely halachic (e.g. opening bottles on Shabbat) it is often the result of hashkafa. For example, those who are meikal about Ashkenazim eating in Sephardi homes during Pesach feel that the unity of a mixed community is more important. Those who are machmir feel that communities should be separate (even to the extent of ethnic discrimination in school admissions).
4. Some who call it apikorsut are using the traditional Jewish tool of exaggerated language (lashon guzma). In fact, once Rav Aahron Kotler referred to a certain rav as an am ha’aretz. The Satmar rebbe was very upset until someone said “The rav says ‘am haaretz’ like the rebbe says ‘apikoros'”.
Truth (sagi naor),
1. TY for calling my targets easy.
2. Obviously none of the RZ gedolim (Rav Tzvi Yehuda, Rav Soloveichik, Rav Herzog, Rav Avrahma Shapira, Rav Mordechai Eliahu, etc.) agreed with the SR. In fact, he himself admitted that he wasa daat yachid.
Joseph,
1. Reish Lakish says that Hashem hates those who did not go to EY en masse (Yuma 9b).
2. The Pnei Yehoshua on Ketubot says that if the gentiles persecute us too much they will cause Hashem to bring aboutthe Geula early.
3. R. Avraham Galante lived in Tzefat so apparently he was not opposed to aliya. I do not know what the comment about asking the “shem hameforash” means. Did they have nevua in Shmutz laAretz? Perhaps they should have used it to transport themselves to EY. The Gra wanted to use it to free Avraham ben Avraham so apparently he did not consider it rebellion. Besides, if it is rebellion to cancel gezerot shmad then it is rebellion to defy them in any way.
MLK,
1. They are not paskened in any of the codes.
2. Rav Chaim Vital says in his introduction to Sefer Etz Chaim that they were only for 1,000 years.
3. The pasuk quoted refers to the klei hamikdash not to the people.
4. Rav Meir Simcha says that the San Remo Conference cancelled them as now we have permission from the other nations.
5. Rav Soloveick says in “Kol Dodi Dofek” that Hashem has called several times.
5. Tgey violated their oath on several occasions (Crusades, Khmielnitzki massacres, pogroms, Petlura massacres, Holocaust). Thus, the deal is off (Sotah 10a with Rashi d”h huchal shevuato shel Avimelech and Shulchan Aruch YD 236,6).
Joseph, what makes you think that you can give grades to gedolim? Are you a navi? Are you saying “My gadol is bigger than your gadol. YA ya ya ya ya”?
Softwords,
1. Your response makes no sense to me. Gedolim do not retire. They pasken until they die. While I would certainly expect a young oncologist to recommend an older and more experienced doctor for a difficult operation when several are more or less on the same level I would not expect one to send me to another. Chazal pointed out that even great sages do not see when they are wrong in a monetary dispute. However, just as the young doctor will recommend his teacher so too will a rav recommend his rav.
2. My understanding is that “daat Torah” means that gedolim have either a mystical power (if they are Chassidim) or a superior analytical power (if they are Litvaks) to decide questions which are not halachic. For example, a few years ago a construction company in Israel went bankrupt after the owner absconded to Europe. Many Chareidi families lost everything because their rabbanim advised them to accept the offer of a discount on the apartments under construction in lieu of the bank guarantees that are accepted business practice. Of course, this is nothing compared to the error made in advising Jews not to leave Europe when it was still possible as there would be nothing more than some old-time discrimination. I do not believe in this concept. Of course, if a rav is also an expert in some secular field (e.g. Rav Hutner’s talmid muvchak Rabbi Prof. Israel Kirzner is a renowned economist – and BTW he studied Economics with Ludwig von Mises, who was an anti-religious Jew) that is something else. But then he is speaking as a secular expert and not a rav.
AY,
1. There are generally several orthopedic surgeons who are considered top level. I personally would not ask an OS because he would be hard put not to say himself. Similarly, there are a number of rabbis who are known to be top level. Moreover, it often happens that one is more knowledgeable in one field and another more knowledeable in another fiels. Thus, we generally (but not always) pasken like Rav regarding prohibitions and Shmuel regarding monetary matters.
2. There is no one RZ movement but a number of movements that have support for the state in common. The fact of the matter is that all agreed on the concept of gedolei hador but they coalesced around different gedolim. The two main figures of the last century have been Rav Soloveichik and Rav Kook (and his son Rav Tzvi Yehuda who was his continuation). Even if some faction denied the concept that does not mean that it did not exist and that there were not those who supported Zionist goals even when they opposed some aspects. A tool does not have to recognize the existence of the artisan in order to be a tool.
3. Regarding consulting rabbanim on political matters, the fact of the matter is that there have always been rabbanim in the various incarnations of the RZ political party. However, as Rav Chaim David HaLevi said, the Torah does not set forth which political or economic system should be adopted (in fact, the Netziv, in “HeEmek Devar” on the mitzva to appoint a king says that the people decide the former). it sets forth goals and parameters. The professionals in various fields then have to break their heads and figure out how best to attain those goals. To what may that be compared? A rav tells you if you can drive on Shabbat in a certain situation but he does not recommend which model car.
4. The whole concept of daat Torah did not start until the advent of the Chassidic movement. It then trickled into the Yeshivish sector with a slight switch – instead of possessing supernatural powers the rav has superior wisdom. If the gedolei hador also had wide advanced secular knowledge that would be true but they do not and I doubt very much if that is humanly possible. In fact, neither Rav Kook nor Rav Soloveichik would make personal decisions for their talmidim. They would merely set forth the alternatives and their ramifications and leave the person with the responsibility for making a decision (much to the consternation of those who wanted someone else to blame for a mistake).
Gofish, I do not see the irony. I did not comment on all Chareidim or MOs. “There are” only means that some are like that.
Popa, were your RY’s objections halachic (some claim that there is a problem of asmachta) or hashkafic (some say that one should not go into marriage thinking about divorce)?
Zahavasdad, why are you generalizing? There are Chareidim who get along very well with others and MOs who are intolerant. In fact, I was unfriended by an MO because I dared to ask for sources that there is supposedly no problem of kol isha. Of course, I was accused of intolerance,as is the way with leftists (kol ha posel b’mumo posel).
MLK,
1. If it touches issues which he must keep (e.g. gezel) one may teach him.
2. There are situations where it is permissible to ask a goy to do something. There are also situations where it is not but one may ask a goy to ask another goy. You should ask a rav. You should also learn the halachot both tho know what you may and may not do and to know when you have a question and how to ask it.
Regarding the issue of lights, it is my understanding that you can ask him to skim through a book or magazine and tell you what he thinks. After he turns on the light for himself you can tell him not to turn it off. If the light is fluorescent it is easier as lighting it according to most opinions is d’rabbanan.
Both Rabbenu Becahye and the Gra on ch. 3 of Pirkei Avot say that someone who does not know seven secular fields (Astronomy, Measurement, Physics, Geology, Logic, Music and Psychology cannot be called a sage and will be seventy times lacking in Torah. Rambam counts studying Astronomy as one of the Taryag mitzvot and says that studying Math and Physics prepares one’s mind to learn Toah.
Why can’t shuls enforce dress codes? Even places of public accommodation have dress codes such as no entrance to men who are not wearing ties. Offices and schools, even public schools, have dress codes. Shuls have even more authority as they are not only private bu religious organizations.
You can certainly tell them about the sheva mitzvot. While not everyone agrees the Rema (Teshuva 10) says that they must adopt all of Choshen Mishpat so you can tell them about the laws of neighbors, torts, etc.
I would think several times before telling them about the CR as the multiplicity of opinions might confuse them (unless they have legal minds) and the lack of civility might turn them off.
Neville, to whom did Chazal cater when they instituted the ketuba, which is essentially a pre–nup?
Joseph, India? Perhaps the world center of avoda zara. As Zahavasdad pointed, the gedolim say what the askanim want them to say. It can also be pikuach nefesh. When Rav Eliashiv reached a compromise with the government on moving remains he was stoned.
Joseph, if the CC said that he was referring to the anti-religious stream. In fact, when a speaker at the first Aguda convention disparaged Rav Kook he walked out in protest. As for gedolim criticizing Rav Kook (@Mlk), what else is new? THe Raavad sharply criticized Rambam and Rambam sharply criticized Rashi (without naming him) for his statement regarding the geniza of Sefer Refuaot. The Maharshal also sharply criticized gedolim. See Chavat Yair Responsa 152 regarding this tendency.
MLK,
1. When Rav Kook made that statement women’s suffrage was very rare. Rav Kook’s points were that he considered it immodest (see Levush, Likutei Minhagim 36 that this is relative to the time and place) and would disrupt shelom bayit (apparently the voting in question was not by secret ballot).
2. I do not know who this Rabbi Shapiro is. If you are talking about the “Kook shmook” libel, I asked an acquaintance of mine who is a talmid of Rav Gorelik. He said that he never heard him say it iand does not believe that he ever said it. It is also inconceivable that the CC, who literally wrote the book, would accept derogatory information and make a comment to others on the basis of a newspaper article. The only possibility is that the CC was dismissing the article. See what his son-in-law Rav Aharon HaKohen had to say (available on-line).
3. What about all the gedolim who supported it? The Netziv, Rav Meir Simcha, Rav Shlomo HaCohen of Vilna, Rav Soloveichik, Rav Shlomo Zalman (BTW, as a bachur he was a regular at Rav Kook’s seuda shelisheet and RK was his mesader kiddushin – Rav Elaishiv said that Rav Kook was a gaon olam and when someone brought the chief editor of the Encyclopedia Talmudit to a din Torah for firing him after he excluded RK from an article RE said that he too would have fired him), etc. In any case, I have already pointed out that we now know that Rav Kook was right. If you cannot be of help in making things better at least stay out of the way.
Froggie, he was a giant of a man but so was Rav Kook and he also had ruach hakodesh. However, even the nevi’im did not se clearly and the chozim even less so (see the Gra at the beginning of Sefer Yeshayahu). In their time it was a valid machloket as to the future of the Zionist enterprise. The British were in firm control of EY and much more inclined to support the Arabs. The Zionists had no country backing them. Even many politically influential Jews were anti-Zionist because they saw it as a threat to their status as British, Americans, French or (before the rise of Naziism) Germans. However, with 20-20 hindsight we see that Rav Kook was right.
Mik, you are forgetting that there is also religious Zionism. Even secular Zionists, as Rav Kook (who was a gadol) pointed out, were Hashem’s tools. If you want more gedolim in favor of Zionism how about the Netziv, Rav Shlomo HaCohen of Vilna (who greeting Herzl with a sefer Torah in his arms) and Rav Meir Simcha (who personally contributed to the JNF). As for the Chofetz Chaim, he was not anti-Zionist. In fact, he had planned to make aliya to Petach Tikva (which was founded a a Zionist settlement)but for some reason could not. He was only opposed to anti-religious sentiments among some Zionists.
In any case, the State of Israel is a fact. The only question is whether we are going to do our part to advance the Geula and bury our heads in the sand or worse support the enemies of Am Yisrael as do certain apikorsim.
AY, in “Aderet Eliahu” the Gra says that these types are:
1- Those that create strife and talk Lashon haRa
2- Those who pursue their desires
3- The swindlers who pretend to be Tzaddikim but their hearts are not straight.
4- Those who pursue honor and build great synagogues to make a name for
themselves
5- Those who pursue money and strife
He also says that the sin of the spies will attach itself to many who hold on to the Torah.
Huju, Obama called our presence in the heart of our land occupation.
Prof, the Gemara does say that but we do not pasken it. In any case, according to the position of the gedolim you cited only secular Zionism would be apikorsut. The question is what they would think of frum Jews who prevented Israel’s establishment as a Torah state by not coming when they could.
Akuperma, if one holds that it is an aveira to establish a Jewish state in EY someone who supports Zionism because of various advantages is a mumar l’teiavon. According to your definition of apikorsut If you hold that it is a mitzva anti-Zionism is apikorsut. Of course, one could simply say that it is a legitimate machloket and neither are apikorsim.
Parodies of avoda zara are a mitzva.
Joseph, Rav Schach strongly opposed discrimination against the Eidot HaMizrach. What do you think he would have done if he were on the court?
AY, he who pays the piper gets to call the tune. You cannot take money on the one hand and insist on no conditions on the other hand. Of course, you can argue that some particular condition is unreasonable but the public has the general right to verify that it is getting the product for which it is paying. This is no different a potential wealthy donor inquiring into the policies of an institution he is asked to support. For example, it is highly doubtful that a Satmar chassid would donate to a school that has the prayer for the State of Israel in it’s tefilla, celebrates Yom HaAtzmaut, etc.
Wrong again (so far you are batting .000), Joseph. The electric company was originally a Zionist enterprise established by Pinchas Rutenberg. Phone service has indeed been privatized for decades but the infrastructure is provided through eminent domain. Trash colection ad stret lights are provided by municipalities, which receive a good part of their money from the Ministry of the Interior. In fact, Chareidi extremists increase the trash problems by starting fires – in their own neighborhoods – to protest something they do not like.
American Yerushalmi, the daat Torah is not of the gedolim but of the katanim who surround them like medieval courtiers. They control whom the gedolim see and what information they receive. One gadol (out of respect and I will not mention his name) even stated explicitly that he signs what “his rabbis” sign. The fact that he is not alone was proven by the banning of books in English by gedolim who do not know English and without interviewing the author. In some cases their have even been forgeries. Their is one tzedaka request that shows a picture of Rav Kanievsky purportedly learning from a sefer. A close examination shows in to be a New Testament (obvious a Photoshop job).
1. The money the US government is “giving” (how much is actually in the form of loan guarantees) is far less than what it would have to spend to maintain a sufficient presence in a Mid East without Israel. Moreover, the amount that Israel must spend in America is beinggradually raised until it is almost the full amount of the aid.
2. Chareidim who do not believe in the State should not take money from it.
3. What do you mean by “influence the policy”? Are there officials who insist on giving shiurim? As for welfare payments to Chareidim, the government has every right to insist that they undergo job training and register for placement according to their abilities. Obligations must be mutual. If the public has an obligation to help poor people (which it does)individuals have an obligation to do their best not to be a burden on the public (which they do). Thus the government has every right to send inspectors to check (without prior warning) if the number of learners registered is, in fact, the number who are actually learning. It also has the right, through the Chief Rabbinate, to insist on exams in order to verify that it is getting the product for which it pays.
A friend of mine who has diabetes said that she looked like he has felt after an attack. This would explain why she was fine not long after going to her daughter’s apartment – she received the food and rest she needed. If this is correct it would not disqualify her for the Presidency but lying about it is a symptom of a serious character flaw.
HaLeiVi, please cite your source. Science and Math are, in fact, necessary for learning Gemara. The sugya regarding the minimum shiur of a round sukka is a case in point.
As for studying Kabbala, Rav Ashlag differentiates between taamei mitzvot and practical Kabbala, which is only for those who have mastered Shas and poskim and reached a very high level of observance. However, in any case, that Zohar seems to say that one who is not ready will be prevented. When Rabbi Hiyya was a bachur he wanted to join Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Eliezer but a wall of fire surrounded their house. There are also stories about people falling asleep as soon as the shiur started and waking up as soon as it was over. Interestingly, the Maharshal was very upset when he heard that the Arizal, who was his grand-nephew, had begun to learn Kabbala. He wrote him a very harsh letter in which he threatened to put him in cherem. The Arizal wrote back very respectfully explaining why he had done so.
So far as I know the only English translation was put out by a known apikoros. Some say that the translation is correct but say that the page with the name of his organization should be removed. If you read Hebrew, there are reputable Hebrew translations as well as commentaries such as the “Sulam” and “Metok miDevash”.
Flatbusher, a judge is not supposed to represent the interests of a particular community. That is the job of politicians.
Joseph, Rav Yaakov Ariel said (and paskened for some l’maaseh)that it is a mitzva for a judge who knows how to go about bringing more Jewish law into Israeli law (and, in fact, many judges do cite Jewish law and some laws establish principles of Jewish law into civil law) to do so. Moreover, Israeli judges can refer litigants to mediation or arbitration (secular courts here are extremely congested and judges try to pass on cases as much as possible) and some have referred them to battei din. In the US this is more problematic because of the separation of religion and state although not impossible (both Earl Warren and Antonin Scalia cited Jewish sources in their opinions). As for a Jewish judge presiding over a civil court see “Serving as Judge in Secular Courts” (on-line). I heard of a case where a frum judge reprimanded two Chassidic groups for not taking their case to a din Torah.
The Tzitz Eliezer (9:50 – http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14508&st=&pgnum=208) citing the Terumat HaDeshen is meikal as today women commonly walk in the street. Similarly, the Levush (Likutei Minahgim 36) defends the practice in his time of mixed seating at weddings by saying that being that men and women do business together (already over 400 years ago) men do not consider being in the presence of women a big deal. In my experience, in the centers of cities it is not possible as a practical matter to completely refrain from walking behind a women.
Lilmod ulelamaid, I would add a caveat to your caveat. Many times whether or not something is permitted depends on custom and can vary from place to place, time to time or community to community. Tzeniut is an example. To cite two examples that have been discussed in the CR, in some communities it is unacceptable for women to drive and in others it is not. In some calling someone by his/her first name is considered closeness whereas in others it is not. One can also add the issue of wigs.
In some cases the copyright has expired. This varies from country to country. According to the opinion that the issur is only because of dina d’malchuta this apparently would also apply. Some poskim say that it is a derivative of hassagat gevul (@Yekke) and that the Halacha itself does give proprietary rights to intellectual property. There are a number of articles on-line about this issue.
Lilmod ulelamaid, how do you know? are you making an assumption based on your definition of “religious”? If so, that is very sad.
Learn “Messilat Yesharim”. First make sure that you keep the basic Halacha (zerizut and nekiut) then think about chumrot. Be especially careful about ben adam l’chavero and chillul Hashem (i.e. dealings with non-frum Jews, gentiles and the government). The fact that none of the above commenters has mentioned these matters is extremely disturbing.
It is empirically true that one can have several successful marriages (widow/er). The Zohar discusses zivug rishon and sheini (not necessarily in chronological order).
CTl, your answer is an enigma. If the marriages were successful then they were maintained for at least the life of one of the partners. Unless you mean that they were successful and getting a woman to agree, which I do not think is the subject of this thread.