Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
You were invoking Chochma Uminyan which is a concept relevant for overturning the gezeiros of an earlier Sanhedrin.
Effects in a negative way is the same thing as temporary damage.
Smoking a couple of cigarettes once a year on Purim is not appreciably different getting drunk once a year on Purim.
If smoking is done in a responsible manner there would be no long term damage or danger and it would not be chovel b’atzmo or v’nishmartem.
Health,
The previous topic is long and I do not have the patience to comb through it to find where the S”A says a woman has a chiyuv to get married. It isn’t in the first siman in Even HaEzer (where a man’s chiyuv is brought down).
As far as a I know the Gemara does not define Zakein and Yalda in this context. The pashtus is that a person should marry someone like them so to avoid discord in their home (see Rashi to Yevamos 106b that I cited above).
In first page of the thread you cited above, you were trying to read the Gemara to apply only to someone doing Yibum when they have another wife. The S”A I cited demonstrates that you are wrong. It seems that you are using a different out now to support your position which you arrived at without knowing the Shulchan Aruch. So please look in the mirror before you start lecturing people on m’gale panim baTorah shelo k’halacho.
writersoul,
I am not talking about some fictional scenarios like the one you painted. I am talking about in the real world today. Statistics are a useful way to analyzing evidence, but if they are contrary to widespread well known anecdotal evidence (even if that evidence has never been formally subject to a study) then the statistics should be rejected. My point is that while generally statistical evidence is superior to anecdotal evidence, that is not always the case.
I am not saying NASI is right about the cause of boy/girl discrepancy in our communities but that such a discrepancy exists is undeniable.
TLIK,
Unlike the Sanhedrin, modern Poskim cannot create issur. The concept of chochma uminyan is inapplicable.
There are many things we do to our bodies that causes minor damage from which we recover (or which does not pose any significant long term danger) and there is no suggestion that it is assur. Has anyone ever suggested that there is an issur to pick scabs or to pierce ears?
Alcohol does damage the brain even in smaller amounts (hence slurring of speech, impaired decision making etc.) but the brain recovers after a few hours.
Also don’t confuse dicta and psak.
writersoul,
How do you know the chicken statistic isn’t true? Not because you’ve done a scientific study and produced contrary statistics, but rather because there is overwhelming anecdotal evidence to the contrary.
In the case of the shidduch crisis, there is overwhelming anecdotal evidence that girls have a harder time getting dates than boys. A statistical study would be useful to know exactly what the ratios are and it might help us determine the cause of the discrepancy but we don’t need statistics to know there is a problem.
Health,
This has all probably been discussed before but the S”A does not require a woman to get married. It only requires a man to get married. Second, Even HaEzer 2:9 expressly states that a young man should not marry an old woman and an old man should not marry a young woman. See also Yevamos 106b the mishna and the first Rashi on the page.
“Where in the Torah does it say an excuse not to get married because the guy is 20 -30 years older?”
Where in the Torah does it say that women are required to get married?
It is common sense that a person should marry someone appropriate for them. For many girls a 20 year age gap is almost certainly inappropriate. It is not being “picky” to want to marry someone approximately your age.
In the same families, brothers will have long lists of girls read to them and will be able to go out whenever they feel like it. Girls will have one or two boys on their list and will often have to go months between dates.
“Andectodal evidence” is evidence (it’s right there in the name). It’s normally not as strong as statistical evidence but in the absence of statistics to the contrary, it can be very strong.
Furthermore very strong anectodal evidence will often trump statistical evidence to the contrary. If someone came out with a statistic that 68% of chickens can survive a week without a head, that stastici would rightly be laughed off in the face of the anectdotal evidence that chickens without heads cannot survive more than couple of minutes.
The minhag is that the Kallah is not allowed to see the chosson for 7 days before the Chupah. Arguably seeing him right before the Chupah is still problematic and should not be done. This is a halachic minhag and a shailo should definitely be asked before disregarding it.
In addition, there is a non-halachic reason that pretending to be husband and wife before actually being husband and wife is anti-climactic and a little wierd.
Health,
When I was in Yeshiva, the Rosh Yeshiva tried to stop smoking by fining bochurim caught smoking $500. I don’t know if anyone actually stopped but you definitely couldn’t smell it in the dorms anymore.
(The Rosh Yeshiva left the next zman and the smoking came back in full force.)
Yitay,
Thank you.
zvei dinim,
No one can be 100% sure of anything (I’m 99% sure of that). I am saying that he doesn’t expect to be unable to resist, of course he cannot be absolutely certain.
GAW,
The study cite is discussing temporary reactions (and theorizing that if one smokes often the damage won’t just be temporary). We do many things that temporarily damage our bodies in some fashion but we gain enjoyment or utility from it and we expect to recover. We play sports, lift weights, we pinch ourselves to stay awake, we eat processed and fatty meats, we pick scabs, etc.
Truthsharer,
Smoking one cigarette (or even smoking a couple of times a year), does not do any significant or lasting harm to the body.
PBT,
I have never seen this statement by Rav Asher Weiss but my guess is that he is referring to smoking regularly, not smoking once a year.
zvei dinim,
Reuven decides to smoke one cigarette a year. He does not plan or expect to smoke a second cigarette that year. He is full control of his faculties and not dependent on anyone else’s choices. On what grounds can you say it is assur for him to smoke his cigarette?
This is not a case where he is subject to someone else’s bechira (which he can’t control). He is in full control, and he is not expecting to be unable to resist the temptation (in contrast to someone who knows that under torture he will serve A”Z, chas v’shalom).
rob and Sam2,
On the surface this appears to be a stirah. On the one hand the gemara says that one should praise the kallah (in the presence of the chosson) for her beauty and on the other hand it assurs histaklus.
I think that the answer is fairly poshut.
What the gemara is assuring is gazing at the kallah to give the impression to the chosson that you are attracted to her beauty. This the gemara says is forbidden (presumably because it gets too close to histaklus for hanah). On the other hand, it is muttar to look in a quick fashion at the kallah to be able to praise her beauty in words to the chosson.
Zvei dinim,
Because there is only a sakanah if you do a second act and you have bechirah on the second act. It is the second act that is assur not the first.
That a certain percentage will fail the test doesn’t mean that they don’t have bechirah.
“Since when does hilchos tznius require a woman to cover her face when there are men around? Are Belz chassidim now joining the burka cult?”
Why are you assuming that she was “required” to cover her face? Maybe she wanted to cover her face or her parents asked her to.
Or maybe its like a Shtreimel. A non-halachic custom in the community.
“You can’t throw out the window a bifeirush gemara, the Rambam, poskim, the Maharal, acharonim, the Chofetz Chaim, the Satmar Rov, Rav Elchonon Wasserman, Rav Aharon Kotler, the Brisker Rov, the Chazon Ish, et al.”
You have yet to sight a halachic source, a teshuva or a code, from “Poskim” or Acharonim, that say that the oaths are binding l’halacha. The Rambam in Iggeres Teiman is not saying that the oaths are binding l’halacha. There is no issur in trying to take back E”Y by force. The Rambam is rather saying that attempts to do so by Messianic pretenders are doomed to fail. Rambam is saying it is foolish, not assur. If they succeed on the other hand . . .
In learning Torah Sh’Bal Peh one has to be able to differentiate between aggada and halacha, between drush and pshat, between rhetoric and substance. Each has its place, but if you mistake one for the other you will be in error.
zvei dinim,
First of all your mashal is not accurate (because even the “second candy” here is not akin to cyanide). Second of all, yes that would be muttar; unadvisable but muttar.
I understand that tobacco is a carcinogen and therefore any amount can cause cancer. However if the amount of the carcinogen is very small, the odds of it causing cancer are miniscule. I can’t access the full version of that study so I can’t look at the numbers, but is occasional smoking more dangerous than driving or getting X-rays?
Avi K.,
I am not on HaKatan’s side, please do not lump us together. Thanks.
Popa,
I did consider that. Which is why I only asked for one psak. Technically speaking it was l’maysah because it applies (if at all) during golus. But I could see an argument that the Shulchan Aruch left it out because it wasn’t relevant.
The Rambam leaving it out of Mishneh Torah is the biggest raya. But I might also have expected tshuvos from the Geonim (the last Jewish Revolt in E”Y was in the 7th Century), the Don Joseph Nasi attempt, the period leading up to Shabsai Tzvi, and the short period immediately before the advent of Political/Secular Zionism when Chovevei Tzion was started.
Before I am accused of justifying something that I do, I will clarify that I do not smoke. I agree that smoking a pack a day or more is certainly assur. But when the case against a practice is overstated to the point of being silly, the people who need to hear the message will dismiss it entirely.
“Smoking a single cigarette should also be asur because it can lead to a habit and then an addiction.”
The majority of people who smoke one cigarette do not eventually become addicted to heavy smoking. In the U.S. today most people who smoke, smoke socially or on occasion at rates much lower than a pack a day. People that smoke intermittently also have a much easier time quitting. The facts in that sefer quoted above just aren’t true.
We cannot make up new geizeros in modern times (without a Sanhedrin). A school or even a shul, if it wishes, can make a takana for itself, but that is not binding on Klal Yisrael.
As a practical matter, if we want to protect the lives of our fellow Jews, it would be better to stick to the facts. Say that if someone wants to smoke, they should not do so on a daily basis and when they do smoke, they should smoke only one or two cigarettes.
“As for the false claim of the oaths not being halacha, we covered this already also. The oaths are brought lihalacha by other poskim. (The lack of presence in Shulchan Aruch does not indicate its Halachic status.) The Rambam certainly believed it’s halacha when he wrote about it in Igeres Teiman. The Maharal said not to violate the oaths even if the nations forced Klal Yisrael to do so.”
I am not claiming that nobody thought the oaths had halachic significance. I am claiming that the major sources of psak halacha held that they did not have halachic significance. Lack of presence in the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch and the Rambam’s halchic works, does mean something. It means that in seeking to codify the halacha, these Giants did not think the oaths were significant enough to include even as an inyan, let alone ikkar hadin.
Can you cite to single psak prior to the advent of Zionism as a political movement that brings the oaths as halacha l’maysa?
In the post Zionism era, outside of the Satmar Rav zt”l, how many poskim bring the oaths as halacha l’maysa? Can you provide citations.
HaKatan,
You asked for Gedolim who authored universally accepted seforim who also held that Zionism was not avoda zara. Here are a few (not previously mentioned):
R’Eliezer Waldenburg, the “Tzitz Eliezer.”
R’Reuven Margolies, author of “Margolies HaYam” on Sanhedrin
R’Tzvi Pesach Frank, author of “Har Tzvi”
With regard to the “oaths” the simplest answer is that the oath is battul because the League of Nations/United Nations/British permitted the state. This was the position of the Ohr Sameach.
Another simple answer is that the oaths are part of an Aggadata gemara. They are not brought down in the Rambam, Tur or the Shulchan Aruch. They are therefore not l’halacha.
HaKatan,
You will need to define Zionism. I am talking about Religious Zionism, i.e. those who believe that Jews should strive to gain and maintain sovereignty in Eretz Yisroel as a religious obligation.
On the other end of the spectrum there were Gedolim such as Reb Elchonon, the Brisker Rov and the Satmar Rebbe who held that such a mission was the opposite of what a Jew should do and was in fact and aveirah. (Of course we don’t really know what Reb Elchonon would have held after the state was established).
In the middle were many other Gedolim, who may have opposed the Zionists of their times (who were mostly secular) or who may have felt that even if it is a mitzvah to retake E”Y it could not be done through hischabrus with reshaiim. Others changed their positions before and after the founding of the state.
I have no idea how one could “rank” the Gedolim of the previous generation(s). I do believe however that the names I mentioned were all great, great Talmidei Chachamim or Tzaddikim or both.
HaKatan,
Are you defining anyone who was pro-Zionist (religious) as automatically not a Gadol?
I assume you have heard of Rav Avraham Yitzchak HaKohen Kook and his son Rav Tzvi Yehudah HaKohen. You probably have also heard of Reb Shlomo Yosef Zevin, Rav Yitzchak Herzog, Rav Yissochor Shlomo Teichtal, The Nazir of Yerushalayim, Rav Yitzchak Arieli, and Rav Yosef Dov Soleveitchik. Zichron Tzaddikim L’Vrocho.
The little I know,
I did not do extensive study of the medical research. I browsed through various studies available for free online. I saw no source that even remotely suggested that smoking a single cigarette was dangerous in any meaningful sense (i.e. more dangerous than driving a car). The research I saw showed that the danger dropped dramatically as the smoking decreased. I could not find any study showing harmful effects for those smoking less than one cigarette per day.
What possible issur is there in smoking a single cigarette?
sbeph,
I think the “ow” become “o” in America.
HaKatan,
Don’t use the word “kefirah” so lightly. It is not kefirah to give one mitzva primacy over others.
I don’t think one can make a legitimate case that smoking a cigarette is assur. All the grounds for issur are based on results of heavy smoking over long periods of time.
While there are still plenty of added risks for light smoking or social smoking, it is much more difficult to make the case that they rise to the level of issur. Furthermore, those who are only social smokers have a much easier time quitting, making it even less dangerous long term.
Maybe one could say that “being a smoker” is assur, but you can’t say that smoking a cigarette is assur.
I have a hypothesis to answer the OP.
When Bais Yakov was first started the female teachers were drawn from the Yekke communities in Germany, because they were the only available women learned enough to teach. They taught using their yekkish pronunciation and it got altered slightly over the years to the current pronunciation.
thegra3,
If they know what they are talking about, nothing.
If they do not, then they are betraying the trust of both those who ask them the question and Rabbi Goldberg.
I see.
Zahavasdad,
I don’t see how you can have a “negative birth rate” unless they are practicing infanticide.
My understanding is that Reb Zalman Nechemia does not expect people to use this smicha to actually pasken shailos. It’s for people who are going out in chinuch or kiruv and need the “Rabbi” title.
I think Rabbi Goldberg gives are real oral bechina for someone who genuinely wants to pasken.
I think that situation (a) is okay, (b) is not okay, and with respect to (c)it depends on exactly what those circumstances are and why they apply to you.
Gershon,
No worries. I was using M”D as short for Man D’amar (lit. “the one who says.”).
Derech HaMelech,
What is wrong with bringing your chickens to her and asking her about hilchos Shabbos (or esrog)? If she is well versed in these areas, and knows how to learn, what is wrong with her answering?
I do not have an issue with women being rabbis and I still think that Maharat is “treif.”
The problem with Maharat is this sentence: “Yeshivat Maharat represents a natural evolution towards a pluralistic community, where women and men, from every denomination, can enhance the Jewish world.”
That sentence is problematic on at least 3 levels, maybe more.
Zahavasdad,
Rabbi Yakov Yosef came to New York to be the Chief Rabbi and to guide American Jewry in the late 1880s. His experience was terrible and heart-rendering. It is not surprising that other rabbonim were reluctant to follow.
Gershon,
There is a machlokes in the Gemara whether the Torah was written bit by bit as things happened throughout the years in the desert, or whether it was written in full for the first time the day of Moshe’s death.
According to the opinion that it was bit by bit (“megillah, megillah nisnah”) Moshe wrote down the Torah from Breishis until Matan Torah right then.
Zahavasdad,
One Gadol does not many make. You are correct about the first Lubavitcher Rebbe, but I have never heard any similar position taken by any other Torah Giant of yesteryear.
That being said, there were definitely those who felt that it was better to remain poor in Europe than frei in America.
According to the biography of Reb Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld, the Agudah in E”Y was working very hard to get frum Jews from Europe to move to Eretz Yisroel in the years before WWII. They were severely limited however, because the British recognized the Ben Gurion’s group as the official representatives of the Jews and all visa’s had to go through the Hagana. The Hagana did not want “old fashioned” Jews coming to E”Y so they gave the Agudah very, very few visas per year. Eventually the British themselves severely limited all Jewish immigration to appease the Arabs.
There is a myth out there that Jews could easily just go to E”Y if they had wanted to before the War. It is a gross oversimplification and far from the truth.
I should point out that the Agudah’s motivation was not to save Jews from Hitler. Their motivation was to combat the growing numbers of Chilonim with numbers of their own.
jbaldy22: “shavous and matan torah have nothing to do with each other according to the Rivash”
Benignuman: “I think you are overstating the Rivash. . . .”
jbaldy22: “so shavous doesnt have to coincide with matan torah yet it is about matan torah – would love to hear you explain that one. Obviously there is some sort of connection that it is in the same time frame but according to the rivash it is clear that shavous is a separate inyan from matan torah.”
So they do have something to do with each other and you were overstating the case.
I agree however that the Rivash’s explanation implies that there are aspects of Shavuos other than Matan Torah. All 3 of the regalim have both a historical basis and an agricultural basis. What I think you can derive from the Rivash is that with respect to Shavuos the agricultural basis trumps the historical basis.
The confusion over what is taught in Chareidi Yeshivos is semantic.
Lipman and Lapid are talking about high schools (i.e. 9th grade and up) and EY Mom is talking about elementary (i.e. through 8th grade).
I think in terms of the track record of “the Gedolim” it is important to keep in mind that “the Gedolim” is made up of many individuals who often disagree.
Jbaldy22,
I think you are overstating the Rivash. The Rivash is saying that when we were still m’kadesh the Chodesh with witnesses it was possible that Shavuos would fall on the 5th of Sivan, and Chazal weren’t makpid to make sure Shavuos fell on the same day as Matan Torah.
He explains that now that our calendar is set they always coincide and therefore we can say “zman matan torahseinu.”
This doesn’t mean that they have “nothing do with” each other. It just means that it is more important to be m’kadesh b’r’iyah than to make it work out.
Jbaldy22,
Citation?
Dafyomi,
We heard all 10 from Hashem.
The Rashi, you are getting that from is talking about when the Aseres Hadibros were repeated one by one.