Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
DY (nice to talk to you too),
I didn’t mean to say that after Ravina and Rav Ashi there could be no more new ideas and applications of halacha. I meant that nothing post Ravina and Rav Ashi can be a horaah that binds Klal Yisroel. If Rabbeinu Gershom makes a takanah it will only bind the population of the geographic area where Rabbeinu Gershom is the accepted authority. If the Rambam paskens one way in an ambiguous Gemara his psak was not binding outside of Egypt (or wherever he was the accepted authority).
Similarly we cannot make new Gezeiros in the post-Talmudic period.
DY,
I think it depends on what you mean by Torah Shebaal peh. When someone comes up with a chiddush today that is Torah Shebaal peh. What Sam means, I believe, is that psak that is binding on all of Klal Yisroel ended with the Ravina and Rav Ashi.
It is gemara in Baba Metzia 86a.
?? ??? ?????? ??? ?????
HaLeivi,
The distinction between the Sanhedrin and post-Sanhedrin is not “invented,” it is the meaning of the posuk. Look up the Rambam’s introduction to Mishnah Torah.
Yiftach and Shmuel were each the head of the Bais Din HaGadol in their days.
After the close of the Talmud every town and city is governed, in matters of halacha by its own Bais Din.
I am not saying that there isn’t an inyan of Yiftach B’doro even as it pertains to the individual Bais Din or Posek, but that cannot create binding decisions on the entirety of Klal Yisroel.
I do agree with you, however, that the realm of psak halacha is signficantly larger than people sometimes think it is and the items you raised are certainly within the realm of psak.
PAA,
I believe you are either misunderstanding me or misunderstanding Reb Yaakov. Reb Yaakov is referring to a “Talmud Chochom,” like a Rosh Yeshiva, who is giving shiurim or publishing chiddushim without being well versed in Shas and poskim.
I am referring to a bochur in high school and early bais medrash who is just getting going in his learning career.
Little Froggie,
Are you sure that the statement of Rabbi Avigdor Miller ztz”l wasn’t written regarding the Sanhedrin and not statements by Gedolim today?
PAA,
You are missing the point. I am not saying that bekiyus isn’t important, rather I am saying that constant chazarah and perfect recall is not AS important as it once was.
I have seen that line from Rabbi Shachter. This doesn’t take away from my point that bekiyus when you don’t know how to learn is not worth very much.
To add to Frumnotyeshivish’s points. Bekiyus if one does not know how to learn is of little value today (b/c seforim are widely available). The theory behind the modern Yeshiva system, as I understand it, is that we go slow in order to teach the Talmidim how to learn. As they get older they will be able to learn faster and faster until they can start covering a lot of ground while maintaining a high level of understanding.
In other words, the extreme iyun today is meant to be temporary. For example, many boys will learn very slowly in America and then go to the Mir in Yerushalayim and finish two large mesechtos a year.
streetgeek,
I don’t think people can and do control everything, or ever will. But that doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t try and control nature for the benefit of mankind. Furthermore, this doesn’t mean that Hashem isn’t ultimately in control.
Dealing with kochem v’otzem yadi is a nisayon that we are meant to deal with. There is no gezeira that I am aware of to the effect that we should not harness nature for a good purpose becuase it might lead to kochem v’otzem yadi.
In the times leading up to the destruction of the Bais Hamikdosh, may it be rebuilt soon, there was a Sanhedrin and there could be one official policy of the Chachomim. Unfortunately that is no longer the case and there are very few issues for which there is unanimity among Talmidei Chachomim.
Sam2,
I think you know very well that it is the pashtus of the Gemara in many places (e.g. Rav Tanna u’paleg) that Amoraim cannot argue on Tannaim in Halacha matters unless they have a Tanna to rely on.
Considering that hypnotism increases a person’s suggestibility, and considering that hypnotists that “show” you your past lives charge for their services, I would be very, very, skeptical of any “past lives” one “remembers” in these sessions.
Patur,
I don’t think anyone holds there to be an obligation to follow Rabbinic pronouncements on halachic issues. People may want to follow such pronouncements but nobody holds it is an obligation. You cannot be munned after 120 for not voting the way the Rebbe said you should.
I think that some of the arguments here are confusing what is prudent with what is obligatory.
midwesterner,
The person discussed in the Gemara (that I think you are referring to) is probably not the Yoshke of the Christian religion.
“The issue is when this said person issues a statement, without providing a Torah source (or where other people bring in conflicting Torah sources) and people say that these statements are binding on klal yisrael as determined by the percieved stature of the issuer of the statement.”
Patur Aval Assur,
There are two separate issues that you raise. I think that when a person is struggling to determine what Hashem wants him to do, there are often no clear-cut, black on white answers. Sources can inform the answer but he is going to a Chacham for his intuition as to what Hashem would want, not for a source (which can always be distinguished).
The issue of being binding on Klal Yisrael are issues of halacha, and whether or not the ruling of a great sage in modern times (post-Talmud) can be binding on Klal Yisrael. I don’t think anyone maintains that non-halacha advice of a great sage can be binding on someone who didn’t ask for the advice (or even someone who did). And I don’t think anyone holds that even the halachic ruling of a single great sage, when there are other sages who disagree, can be binding on someone who didn’t ask for the ruling.
My understanding of Daas Torah is very simple:
When we had neveim, if you were uncertain as to what Hashem wanted you to do, you would go ask the Navi. Today, b’avoisainu harabbim when we have no neveim, it makes sense to go to someone who spends most of their time contemplating Hashem’s will (and who knows you) to guide you in making your best guess at what Hashem wants you to do.
Frankly, I have a hard time seeing how anyone can disagree with this but I am open to hear any counter-argument. Note, however, that these are “best guesses” they are not nevua.
CODA is a good short strategy game.
Jewishnes,
Thank you for the information from Divrei Hayamim. I never knew that. Can you give me the perek?
I knew about the nevua in Melachim and had the same question there.
zahavasdad,
Benyamin definitely made a comeback after the story of the Pilegesh. King Shaul, Mordechai and Esther, were from Benyamin.
Shimon was still a tribe after Baal Peor (albeit a smaller tribe).
HaLeivi,
Where was the rest of Shimon?
Slightly off-topic: Why do people always refer to the 10 lost tribes, when there should only be 9 lost tribes?
When the Rechavam’s kingdom was split, he kept Yehuda, Benyamin and Shimon (which was within Yehuda). Yerovam took Rueven, Yisaschar, Zevulun, Dan, Naftali, Gad, Ashar, Menashe, and Ephraim.
Levi was split across both Kingdoms.
I think it is obvious on a fundamental level following professional sports is inane. I love baseball, and to a lesser degree other sports, but I acknowledge that my enjoyment and interest in these sports is compeletely irrational. On the other hand I don’t think sports are harmful in any way and as entertainment goes they are among the best. (definitely better than 95% of video games and movies).
I hope one day to be on a level where every action I take is l’shem shomayim and sports will be of no interest to me, but I am very far from that point and sports are way down on the list in terms of what I need to work on.
For someone who has never followed sports and first comes across the phenomenon in adulthood, it would be surprising if they didn’t mock it. I don’t think it is so terrible for a Rebbe or a Rav to occasionally remind his flock that professional sports are hevel, but without declaring them ossur or denigrating his students for enjoying them.
Yeshivaguy45,
I will admit going to a baseball game is not the cleanest entertainment you can get. My point was only that in various yeshivish circles it is considered acceptable even if in others it is not. Agav going to a zoo in the summertime is also not the cleanest entertainment you can get.
yeshivaguy45,
I don’t know where you are hailing from, and maybe out of town is different, but when I grew up the Yeshiva used to take the (elementary school) kids to baseball games for lag b’omer and it was quite common for yeshiva bochurim to go to baseball games bein hazmanim.
I know that in Lakewood they don’t allow it and for the most part it is not done, but I think that in most American cities baseball games are considered good clean entertainment.
In terms of the 150+ year discrepancy, I believe that in the past few decades all sorts of problems have arisen with the consensus Egyptian chronology and various alternative chronologies have been proposed.
I would not put much stock in whatever the current guess is.
The display of chibah that is forbidden is a display that would cause hirhurrim in onlookers. Putting a ring on the Kallah’s finger is not that kind of chibah.
Nishtdayngesheft,
That isn’t why Rabbi Broyde was removed from the BDA. The reason is what Sam2 explained. What you wrote is motzi shem ra.
HaKatan,
The opening poster wanted to know what source existed for the practice of married women not covering their hair. Rabbi Broyde wrote an lengthy piece on that very subject. Neither I nor Rabbi Broyde said that this was a normative halachic ruling, but that doesn’t mean that generations of ehrliche women didn’t have anything to rely upon. Ask your local Talmud Chacham about the concept of limmud zechus.
What are the other reasons that pants are problematic, other than beged ish and Daas Yehudis (aka tznius)?
Sam2,
Thanks for the citation. I will look it up when I get a chance.
First of all the practice of frum women not to cover their hair was almost universal outside of Chasidim before WWII and afterward for a couple of decades.
Rabbi Michael Broyde published a lengthy limud zechus on those frum women that did not cover their hair. In an extreme nutshell there are multiple Rishonim and some Acharonim that understand the Gemara in Brachos 24a to be arguing on the Gemara in Kesubos (72?a-b) and those Rishonim pasken like the Gemara in Brachos that hair is only problematic m’drabbanan. We can then apply the Aruch HaShulchan and Reb Moshe’s reading of the Gemara in Berachos to say that hair could be erva but is not erva if in that society it is typically uncovered. Therefore in the societies of these women, where haircovering is uncommon it is permitted not to cover one’s hair.
The primary problem with pants is lo yilbash. But once women’s pants become widespread it is hard to see how it can be lo yilbash. If there is no lo yilbash then the only problem would be tznius which would depend on the local Daas Yehudis.
Wolf,
I have heard it that way as well. However that doesn’t really make sense because the minhag of Gebrokts arose well after we already had a set calendar (although hadavar kal v’chomer hu).
My understanding hashkafically is that the Torah is in favor of humans manipulating and improving nature for the betterment of humans. We are partners in creation.
There is a maaseh brought down in the Gemara where a Roman argued to Rabbi Akiva that bris milah was a perversion of the nature that Hashem created. Rabbi Akivah brought the Roman a cake and asked the Roman if he would rather eat a slice of cake or chew some wheat, raw eggs, raw sugar, drink some oil, etc. The Roman got the point.
I don’t think humanity will ever be fully in control of everything but it is certainly noble to try and harness nature for the betterment of as many people as possible.
My understanding was that because the 8th day is d’rabbanan and Gebrokts is a safek and safek d’rabbanan l’hokil.
Furthermore we are meikil to show that Gebrokts is a veite chashash and that those that do not keep it are not, chas v’shalom, eating chametz.
Chachem, there are many minhagim which are post-Talmud in origin.
There is no Yeshiva in Pittsburgh (where Carnegie Mellon is). However there is a Lakewood Kollel where one can pretty easily get a chavrusa for night seder.
The University of Maryland at College Park is 15-20 minutes from the Yeshiva of Greater Washington. A substantial number of the Yeshiva students also take classes at Maryland.
Secular Frummy,
The answer to that question is that unless there is a final psak din from the Sanhedrin, each person follows there own Rav. Or, if they are capable of learning themselves, they can learn up the sugya and follow their own conclusions.
The requirement to listen to the Chachomim even when they are wrong is only in reference to the Sanhedrin. In the post-Talmud era, where there is no centralized body about which there can be a “nimnu v’gamru” a person who concludes, after learning up the sugya, that the halacha is not like the majority of poskim, is not required to follow the majority, and should not follow the majority. In the present day there cannot be a zaken mamre.
Now if one’s conclusions are far from the norm, it would be wise and prudent to discuss the sugya and hash things out with another Talmud Chacham but if at the end of the day you still believe you are right you have to follow the halacha as you see it, not as others see it.
I am copying my post from the other thread.
Logician,
You wrote:
It is my understanding that Emunas Chachomim means trusting that the Chachomim are being honest and doing their best to preserve the mesora and apply the halacha. In other words, to say that the “rabbis” are just trying to control the people, or “where there is a rabbinic will there is a halachic way” is a failure of emunas chachomim. Similarly if someone says that Chazal made up the story of the pach shemen, chalila, in order to give the Chanukah story a religious spin (like some historians claim), that is a failure of Emunas Chachomim.
I have unfortunately met people who lack Emunas Chachomim and they are always coming up with conspiracy theories as to why the Gedolim are doing X or Y, or why Chazal said X or Y. But learning up a sugya in halacha or hashkafa and happening to conclude differently than the majority of the Gedolim of nowadays is a good thing not a bad thing.
Logician,
You wrote:
It is my understanding that Emunas Chachomim means trusting that the Chachomim are being honest and doing their best to preserve the mesora and apply the halacha. In other words, to say that the “rabbis” are just trying to control the people, or “where there is a rabbinic will there is a halachic way” is a failure of emunas chachomim. Similarly if someone says that Chazal made up the story of the pach shemen, chalila, in order to give the Chanukah story a religious spin (like some historians claim), that is a failure of Emunas Chachomim.
I have unfortunately met people who lack Emunas Chachomim and they are always coming up with conspiracy theories as to why the Gedolim are doing X or Y, or why Chazal said X or Y. But learning up a sugya in halacha or hashkafa and happening to conclude differently than the majority of the Gedolim of nowadays is a good thing not a bad thing.
Logician,
I did not follow the discussion, I just don’t like that statement being used out of its proper context.
“-And yes, the concept has been applied to at the very least a attitude towards their opinions, in myriads of seforim for eons.”
Please cite some seforim, preferably halachic or non-chasidishe seforim, applying that concept to statements by post-Talmudic gedolim. I have never seen it applied as such. Sources discussing requirements to follow a psak when you ask a rav a specific shaila are not really relevant.
“-And the statement is explained Iin Rishonim) both in the sense of being binding when they’re wrong, and to a wise assumption that usually the error will be on your part.”
I am fine with starting with a presumption that they are correct prior to examining the issues yourself. But if you examine the issue yourself and you conclude they are wrong, then I don’t think you are allowed to listen to them.
Logician,
“Afilu omrim al yemin she-hu smol” is referring to rulings by a Sanhendrin, which are binding even if they are wrong. It does not apply to the statements or rulings of modern poskim/gedolim.
“Lapid can easily persuade the Chareidim by offering the option to leave kollel without joining the IDF and the Chareidim can easily persuade Lapid by offering to accept the same.”
I think the former is true but not the latter.
I have wondered about this question before as well. It seems to me that the reciter of the Hadran thanks hashem for being one of the yoshvei Bais HaMedrash which would imply that simply finishing a mesechta is either a siba or a siman that one is one of the yoshvei Bais HaMedrash and not a yoshvei kranos.
I don’t know how inebriated a person has to be before they are “drunk” but it seems to me that few if anyone here has any issue with responsible adults sitting around a purim suedah and getting inebriated to the point that they mix-up the details of the Purim story.
People have an issue with: (i) people hurting themselves and each other in their drunkeness; (ii) people acting drunk in public.
I don’t see why we can’t have a fulfillment of the mitzvah of simcha on Purim and still make efforts to stop violence and public drunkeness.
Maybe we should have community wide takanos limiting purim drinking to the seudah?
I can think of two reasons:
1) Ukraine is not a US ally.
2) Russia, while no longer the power it once was it is no pushover and war with Russia would be catastrophic for the United States.
I haven’t read through this entire thread but it seems to me that there is confusion going on between the klal and the yachid.
Many, many, mamarei chazal apply to the rov, the majority of the population. It does not mean that there are no exceptions or even that exceptions are exceedingly rare. Furthermore, circumstances can change such that exceptions will become more common.
Now I think that in general women and men are quite different and suited for different roles in a frum society and in society in general. But that does not mean that individual men and individual women cannot be exceptions to that general principle and be suited for a role that is typically for the opposite gender. So although the average woman is not suited for learning Gemara (and I acknowledge the possibility that this has changed), an individual woman who has a cheshek to learn can and should learn Gemara and shteig. And although the average man is suited for learning gemara, an individual man might be ill-suited and, upon discoverying that fact, should spend his time learning and doing other things.
I have never been in a Bais Yakov, and I don’t really know how things are taught there. I suspect that different girls going through the system fixate on different things that are said and different messages that are being sent. Thus even if some level of nuance is inserted into the Bais Yakov message about motherhood being the foundation of klal yisroel (an undoubtably true statement), it might very well get lost in the transmission.
It seems to me that a woman’s ultimate accomplishment/purpose is the same as a man’s ultimate accomplishment/purpose. The nature of that ultimate accomplishment/purpose is a machlokes between (and I am sure there are other shittos out there) the Ramchal (to come close and derive pleasure from Hashem) and Rav Shamshon Raphael Hirsch (to aid the Klal). The difference between the men and women, in general, is in the path to that accomplishment. However that is only in general terms describing the bulk of kahal, not an individual prescription.
Back in the days of yore when there were neveim one could go to the navi to find out one’s path to the ultimate accomplishment, but nowadays, because of our many sins, we do not have neveim and therefore it is much more difficult to find one’s path.
crisis,
That is not true. That is a claim made by some but it doesn’t have much basis in history or genetics. The genetic studies I have seen have seen have estimated that only 12 or 13% of Ashkenazi Jewish blood is from the Khazars and other geirim.
I think that marijuana should legalized and regulated like smoking currently is (i.e. heavily taxed, not allowed for minors, not allowed in public buildings, etc.).
David Bar-Magen,
I humbly disagree with you in this case. While it is true that “Talmudic Judaism’s logical structure stands on a base of spiritual BELIEF” we are not dealing here with someone who has a positive disbelief but a person who is wavering.
And the reason she is wavering is because she doesn’t understand the logic behind what she is doing, especially as compared to her secular job. The rules and regulations appear to be random -the product of modern rabbinic fiat. A look at the inner workings, an understanding of the halachic process and the rigor of Talmudic thought can strengthen one’s resolve in keeping halacha and provide a mature intellectual religious satisfaction that reading an Artscroll book cannot.
BYM,
As Lakewood001 said, the Gemara is rarely scientific (i.e. based on observation). The closest secular disciplines to Gemara are philosophy and law (Gemara has the lomdus of philosophy and the logic of law).
Science and Torah, for the most part, operate in different paradigms. Gemara helps to understand the Torah paradigm from within (not judging between paradigms as a whole). However understanding the internal workings of a paradigm makes it much easier to accept that paradigm and work within it than if that paradigm was a black box.
Once again, I encourage you to find a rebbi and learn. Kesiva V’Chasima Tova.
LevAryeh,
You wrote: “The Gemara itself says, ‘If you are a woman, put me down.'”
I don’t mean to attack your learning ability or your sincerity in any way (finishing Bava Kama is nothing to sneeze at) but that is not what the Mishna says.
???? ???? ?? ????: ???? ??? ???? ?? ??? ????, ??? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ??. ?”? ????: ?? ????? ??? ???? – (?????) ????? ?????. (Sotah 20a)
Ben Azai uses the language of “chayiv” but R’Eliezer does not respond with an issur but rather a statement that demonstrates that there is no chiyuv, because it is not a good thing to teach one’s daughters Torah. R’Eliezer says nothing about women learning Torah on their own and he doesn’t say there is an issur.
This is even clearer if you look at the Rambam I cited above an the Rambam on this issue (echoed by the Shulchan Aruch):
??? ????? ???? ?? ?? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????, ???? ??? ??????, . . . ???”? ??? ?? ??? ??? ????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ????, ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ?? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ????
??? ????? ????, ???? ????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ???? ?????
(Rambam Hilchos Talmud Torah 1:13)
The Chachamim said that a man should not teach his daughter Torah but if a women that learns on her own initiative, she earns reward. The reason R’Eliezer said was not because
“the closeness a woman attains through learning will not be accomplished by learning Gemara” but because of a chashash that the knowledge will be misused or misunderstood.
Furthermore, there are Talmidei Chachamim today that think that the modern educated woman should learn Gemara. That because there was no issur only a recommendation of Chazal, that recommendation was for that time and place and not for the present time and place (see the Chofetz Chaim’s Likutei Halachos on the Gemara in Sotah).
For those claiming that women are incapable of understanding Gemara:
???? ????? ??? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ????? ????, ???”? ?????? ?? ???????, ??? ??????? ???? ?? ??? ????, ???? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ???”? ?????? ????? ??? ??? ????? ??? ????? ???, ????? ????? ??? ??? ????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?? ???.
(Rambam Yesodei HaTorah 4:13)
The primacy of Gemara is specifically because it can be understood by everyone (obviously each at their own level).
If one reads the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch carefully, you will see that the statement that one should not teach his daughters Torah was made based on a majority of women. It is clear that for a minority of women learning Gemara would be a wonderful thing.
The recommendation of the Gemara not to teach one’s daughter Gemara was based on the majority of women at that time.
If a girl and certainly a woman wants to learn, wants to know, wants to grow, then absolutely she should learn. And because it is almost impossible to learn Gemara properly without a rebbi, people should teach her.
BYM, I am certain that there are Orthodox programs (unfortunately none within the Yeshivish world) for adult women who want to learn. For many it takes a long time to appreciate Gemara and even longer to really enjoy it, but it is worth it in the long run. I wish you hatzlacha in this endeavor.
I absolutely understand why a woman would want to learn Gemara. The same reason I want to learn Gemara. Gemara is the main source of Torah Sh’Bal Peh and you can’t fully understand or appreciate Torah without the Torah Sh’Bal Peh. There is very little, if anything, in Yiddishkeit that you can fully understand without learning Gemara. Anyone who truly wants to understand Hashem’s will, will want to learn Gemara.
And it’s Geshmak.
Sam2,
I hear, but that would be because of a din “makom mechusa” and would theoretically depend on the norms of the society.
I am coming from the language in the Gemara (Kesubos 72) when discussing the din d’oraisa for a woman to cover her head, only refers to heads and makes no mention of hair. Furthermore the drasha from the posuk by Sotah also refers to a woman’s head not her hair. The implication, it seems to me, is that the din is one of a head covering not hair covering and therefore if a woman was bald she would have to cover her head in some fashion.
“If you are bald, I don’t think you are required to wear anything”
I have never examined that question specifically, but my reading of the Gemara in Kesubos would indicated that a bald married woman would have to cover her head.