Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
WIY,
In Hebrew each word has a shoresh. The shorashim have a conceptual meaning that morphs into specific meaning depending on the context of the word’s use and prefixes and suffixes. So while “schok” can mean “laughter” it can also mean “play” (As in Shmuel II 2:14).
Maybe I am just out in left field here, but to me a word that can mean play and laughter can mean “fun” as well.
Writersoul,
I believe “kef” comes arabic.
As an aside, the Dead Sea Scrolls are generally very anti the powers that be in control in Yerushalayim. There is one document, however, praising one such ruler named Yochanan HaMelech.
I wonder if this is the same Yochanan Kohan Gadol (grandson of Matisyahu) who at the end of his reign became a Tzaduki.
Midwesterner,
I am going to try to say this in the nicest way possible. You might want to tone the rhetoric when the basis for your comment is your lack of knowledge of something. In the future you might want to right something like: “what makes you say that, weren’t they separated by hundreds of years?”
The answer to that politely worded question is that I hold of Dr. Lawrence Schiffman’s basic theory of the Dead Sea Scrolls (see one of my earlier posts above). If he is correct that the Dead Sea sect were Tzedukim, then my theory stands to reason because they refer to themselves as “B’nei Tzadok” and they modeled their community around how they perceived Kohanim should act, considered their adherents to be symbolically like Kohanim, viewed themselves as making up for the improper practices of the real Kohanim in Yerushalayim, and viewed themselves as keeping alive the “true” traditions.
If this information is new to you, I would recommend reading Dr. Schiffman’s book “Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls.”
Developing multiple words to describe similar things is hardly unique to Hebrew.
How so?
I am going to dispute the statement that there is no word in Loshon Hakodesh for “fun.”
English being a different languages with different origins, is often not going to have words that perfectly translate to and from Hebrew. But words are merely constructs for concepts. The Hebrew word “l’sachek” is used to refer to acting for “play” or “fun.” I think that it is definitely close enough that is incorrect to claim that there is no word for “fun” in Loshon HaKodesh.
Midwesterner,
That doesn’t mean that the followers of Tzadok, the talmid of Antignus, didn’t view themselves as the spiritual successors of Tzadok Hakohen from the Navi.
I think the following should be obvious:
Different kids (and adults) go off the derech for different reasons. Some kids go off the derech because they are too sheltered and feel stifled by frumkeit. Some kids go off the derech because they are allowed too much involvement in the non-Jewish world. There are many, many reasons that children go off the derech and beyond free will there is no one reason that is relevant in every case.
Any uniform policy is going to have negative unintended consequences. School’s are constricted, for the most part, to uniform policies, but parents are not. Therefore, parents can and must alter their policies to fit the personality and circumstances of each individual child.
Popa,
I have wondered if they thought so. Meaning they called themselves b’nei tzadok, partially because they were started by someone named Tzadok, but also because the wanted to tie themselves to the Kohanim B’nei Tzadok who are praised by the Navi as preserving the true tradition.
“I am questioning the specific sanction of expulsion for being at a pizza store Saturday night.”
I agree that expulsion for one instance is extreme. High Schools should be teaching their students these halachos, and punishments should be stiff but not so final, that a boy or girl cannot do teshuva.
rabbiofberlin,
It is Tosafos D”H “B’rum Shalosh Amos” to Pesachim 109b. The teshuva from R’Moshe where he says that the shiurim for etzba and ama regarding mikvaos (where the point of the shiur is to have enough water to cover an actual person) change depending on the size of the people in each generation is Yoreh Deah Ch”2, S”66.
WanderingTeen,
Unfortunately, the mekoros regarding intergender interactions are not taught in high school. This leaves teenagers with the impression that as long as they aren’t doing “anything serious” there is nothing wrong and the rabbis are just being farfrumpt and piling on chumras. This is not chumra, this is ikkar hadin basic halacha (that doesn’t mean it is easy, of course).
Rational,
I am no seeker of chumras and I rarely agree with Health on anything. But in this case he is absolutely right. The mekor is in Sanhedrin 75a.
The gemara reports an incident of a man who became lovesick regarding a certain woman. The doctors said that the man would die if he could not fulfill his love in some manner. The sages were consulted and said that it is better the man die. The doctors suggested only having her stand before him unclothed. The sages said it is better the man die. The doctors suggested having them converse on opposite sides of a fence (i.e. where they could not even see each other) but still the sages maintained it was forbidden.
Reb Moshe (I”M, Even HaEzer Chelek 4:60)understood this gemara to mean that conversation “derech tayva” is forbidden m’d’oraisa. Most poskim hold that it is d’rabbanan as is implied by the Rambam in Issurei Beiah 21:2 and in the Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 21:1.
DY,
I don’t think there is. I think the difference is semantics. The yeshivish way to refer to it is “I don’t understand.” The modern way to refer to it is “I find it troubling.”
One can psychoanalyze why each uses the terms they use and maybe it reflects some underlying world outlook, but in normal parlance it is used the same way.
Popa,
Maybe I am hopelessly naive, or an eternal optimist, but I read a few of his post and they sound like kiruv talk to me. There is a slight difference in tone in that it seems like when he says “many find _______ troubling today” he is trying to imply that he too finds ________ troubling.
But even if this were so, and I finds some aspect of halacha troubling, I don’t see why that makes him and his school apikorsim. Part of yiddishkeit is keeping the mitzvos even when you don’t understand them, being mevatel your daas to that of HKB”H.
Karaim do not put on tefillin. But it seems that Tzedukim did (tefillin were found in Qumran, and I buy Dr. Schiffman’s argument that the Qumran sect was Tzedukim).
That goes to the point that the Tzedukim did not outright reject the concept of a Torah Sh’bal peh the way that the later Karaites did.
Popa,
While I agree with you that tzedukim did hold of some sort of Torah Sh’bal Peh, there is no way that they were not clear separate groups during bayis sheni. Tzedukim were considered apikorsim during Bayis Sheni. I haven’t read the article you are referring to, but it does not fit with numerous gemaras.
At your suggestion I will spend some time reading Rabbi Linzer’s blog (I didn’t know he had one). But for now I will say that although I don’t know Rabbi Linzer personally, every time I have seen him he has been holding a sefer (usually a gemara), and whenever there was a spare moment he was learning. I don’t know what else he may be, but the man is a Masmid.
Rational,
I don’t know how they put on their tefillin, but actual tefillin as black boxes with scrolls in them and straps attached, are nowhere explained in the Torah sh’bksav.
I would like to note that I disagree with Popa’s characterization of YCT.
rabbiofberlin,
You asked “A man’s height-as per mishneh and gemoro- is three amos (see mikveh)which is 18 tefochim so, ‘baal korcho’, up to the shoulders is significantly less? R’Moshe (in chelek 3) tries to answer but I did not fully understand his answer.”
I don’t know what R’Moshe wrote. But Tosafos answers this question. The shiur of 3 amos is without a person’s head. It is still sufficient for a mikva to be 1X3 because water displacement will allow it to cover his head.
The following is from memory, but if needed I can probably find the sources: I believe R’Moshe holds that the shiurim of etzbah, tefach and ama will change based on the physiology of the current generation. In other words “etzba” is the width of the average finger, a tefach is four etzbaos and an Ama is is 6 tefachim. I recall that R’Moshe took a survey and determined that an “etzba” was 3/4 of an inch. Which would make a tefach 3 inches and an Ama 18 inches. This means that 3 amos is 4 and half feet or to the shoulders of the average person on the Lower East Side in the 50s.
I would submit that today, people are larger and the etzba is closer to an 9/10s of an inch. Therefore, modern mechitzos, while still being 18 amos tall, should have to be higher.
For the record I believe Popa is right that the Tzedukim did not reject all of the Oral Torah (in the second grade sense). I don’t have the sources off-hand, but they have machlokisim in the Gemara with Chazal regarding dinim that are only found within the Oral Law, where the Tzedukim are more strict than Chazal were, or they reject only part of the din.
Tzedukim put on teffilin that looked like our teffilin. They were not like the later Karaim who read the Torah literally.
Rashi does say that they rejected Torah Sh’Bal Peh. I would suggest that Rashi was either being lav davka (i.e. the reject part of Torah Sh’Bal Peh) or, more likely, he means that they rejected the Authority of Torah Sh’Bal Peh.
Popa,
Other than the guy that thinks we can undo all minhagim at the snap of a finger (because Chazal were sexist), the other two, while strange and perhaps misguided, are not rejections of the binding nature of halacha at all. Once again I think you are confusing bad reasoning with a rejection of a portion of the halachic process.
What Rabbi Linzer suggested sounds like a kiruv strategy not some sort of rejection of Chazal. Also you are misusing Occam’s Razor.
When people want very much to reach a specific outcome, their reasoning can get blinded and skewed (consider secular legal opinions). But usually they do not realize that their reasoning is skewed, they think they are making an honest effort. Such a person is not outside the pale, he is just fooling himself.
Popa,
In what way are they not using the same process as us? Are you sure you are not confusing bad svaras with bad process?
Veltz,
I think that what schools are worried about is not the kids that will be “hanging out” regardless, but the otherwise innocent kids who might get sucked in when they got to get pizza on a motzei shabbos.
“These apikorsim think that halacha is not incumbent on them, and that they can change for reasons that are not allowed.”
What makes you think that YCT believes that halacha is not incumbent on them?
I don’t know too many YCT aligned people, but the few I have met did not believe that.
rationalfrummie,
I am talking about pleasure derived because the other person is of an opposite gender. And we are talking about real issurim (according to R’Moshe it is d’oraisa, according to most poskim d’rabbanan). We aren’t matir issurim because they cause awkwardness.
And, as WIY said, awkwardness doesn’t last very long (especially if the boy/girl has a good dating coach).
A lot of the argument here is misunderstanding.
According to R’Moshe the purpose of the mechitza is to avoid kalas rosh (mingling, improper conversation, etc.). A balcony obviously avoids the problem because there can be no interactions between the genders.
Kalas rosh (certainly during prayer) is an issur d’oraisa. If the people could be trusted to not engage in kalas rosh, then no mechitza would be necessary. During the second Bais Hamikdosh it was noted that there were incidences of kalas rosh during Yom Tov in the Bais Hamikdosh. They therefore instituted a balcony during those times.
In other words the institution of a mechitza is d’rabbanan but the problem it is meant to prevent is d’oraisa (a fairly common occurrence). If one is confident that there will be no kalas rosh then the only problem davening in a shul without a mechitza is d’rabbanan.
rationalfrummie,
I agree that they can exist, but they aren’t the bulk of what is occurring. What is occurring is flirting(in halachic terms: conversation where pleasure is derived because the other person is of the opposite gender), and that is ossur even if it never leads to anything beyond.
If we want boys and girls to be able to handle shidduchim, college or work, then have them interact at family shabbos meals with polite conversation in front of their parents. But frankly I think those concerns are overblown.
It is interesting that almost no Tannaim or Amoraim are described as having more than one wife.
Torah613,
As Daas Yochid said, the requirement of a mechitza is not because of “looking” it is because of kalos rosh (i.e. improper conversation). An all glass mechitza is sufficient according to R’Moshe (for the din of mechitza). On the other hand the mechitza has to be high enough to prevent easy conversation.
rabbiofberlin,
There are pizza shops in Monsey that don’t have seating Motzei Shabbos (they remove all the chairs), for the reason cited above.
TorahLishmah613,
You are simply incorrect. “Hanging out” with those of the opposite gender is against the Torah. It is assur to flirt or converse to derive pleasure with arayos. I guess is technically possible to “hang out” with the opposite gender without pleasurable conversation or flirting, but that is extremely unlikely to be what is occurring.
NSH,
Probably not. I didn’t think that was bad, I thought it was funny (and fortunately so did my parents).
Jusumphryid,
The stomach piercing problem only came to light in the 90’s. I don’t remember the exact year (93 or 94). It was only after that C”Y milk production started separating out the effected cows.
Sam2,
When I asked him why he doesn’t drink milk he told me what I wrote above. He didn’t mention anything about rov treifos.
I am curious to know how such research would have been done. Why would anyone take the time and money for such research?
Poppa,
Even according to Rav Shachter you can mix milk from two cows together according to R’Yehuda. He only holds there is a problem when statistically speaking it is more likely than not that there is some milk from a treif cow in the mix. I haven’t run the math, but I presume that if 1/10 cows is treif, then if you have a mixture from 10 cows there is a strong rubba d’leisa kamman that this mixture contains treif milk.
It isn’t shver to me that the Gemara would not discuss such a case if it was uncommon in those times to mix the milk of many different cows.
DY,
You wrote: “There is no pssible way for the metzius to change; rov is not a statistic (which is subject to change), it’a a “chok hateva”, as recorded in chaza”l, and can never change.
That is a tremendous, tremendous chiddush. I have never heard of any pshat in rov that it is not a statistic and there are numerous Gemaras that discuss it as if it is a statistic. I assume you are only making this claim for rubba d’leisa kamman and still it seems untenable. For example the gemara says that you can rely on a rov that a given pregnancy will not result in a boy being born because 50% of births are girls and some percentage of pregnancies miscarry. This is a rubba d’leisa kamman that clearly seems to be using statistics.
“It is a very valid reason to be makpid on CY today even if you hold of R’ Moshe’s heter.”
“But that problem is only for non-CY which has stapled stomachs because then we know some are treif and need the ruba d’isah kaman. But for CY, we can just use the ruba d’leisah kaman, no?”
This is why I am makpid on CY today (and for keilim, butter, and powdered milk).
Ubiquitin,
Rav Shachter does not say that the majority of cows are treifos.
While I am sure that at the time I read my report cards, I cannot remember the comments on a single one.
I do remember one rebbi throughout the year confiscated dozens of drawings and doodles from me. The rebbi stapled my drawings to my report card, added a category to the report card for “Art” and gave me an “A+”
Poppa, DY, & Ubiquitin
We need to separate out the stomach piercing issue (which is not a problem for CY because those cows are not used) and Rav Shachter’s problem (which applies to all milk).
With regard to the stomach piercing problem, where records are kept and the company KNOWS which cows are treifos, I don’t see how we could deliberately turn a blind eye. A Rav at that point in the process could not pasken on that cow that it is mutar when he knows that the company has records of it being a treifa.
I personally asked Rav Shachter about his problem. He told me that treifos are a miyut hamatzui in cows (which is why we check the lungs) which is well over 1/60 (he did not say that treifos are a rov). He said in Europe and the early days of America where milk came cow by cow you could say kol d’porush m’ruba porush and drink milk. Nowadays that it is all mixed together and we know a miyut hamatzui of that milk is treif, he doesn’t know how we can drink the milk. Rav Schachter said that he has been searching for years for a satisfactory answer to this problem.
Poppa, your question about R’Meir is a very good one. I will try and investigate to see if there some discussion as to how R’Meir ever drank milk.
R’Yehuda could drink milk as long as it wasn’t mixed together with that of many other cows, because of kol d’porush. Meat isn’t a problem because when the cows are shechted we check the only treifa that is a miyut hamatzui.
DY,
The farms keep records of which cows have had the procedure. Therefore if you don’t hold like Rabbi Belsky, there is no way out.
Your solution might help for Rabbi Shachter’s issue but it won’t help for Rabbi Reisman’s.
Daniela,
You cannot be mevatel issuer l’chatchila.
Ubiq,
The problem with that svara nowadays is that milk is no longer bottled (or cartonned) at the cow. Rather all the milk is gathered together in vats and then cartonned. Therefore if Treifos are known to be greater than 1.66% (the stomach piercing procedure alone effects approx. 14% of milk cows and is recorded cow by cow on farms), their milk will not be battul and and the milk will be treif (m’drabbanan).
The only way to get out of this problem is to hold like Rabbi Belsky that the stomach piercing procedure does not render the cow a treifa altogether.
Ubiquitin,
I believe daniela means relying on only a majority without Shishim. More than 1 in every 60 milk cows is a treifa. Therefore l’chatchila all milk in the USA is arguably treif.
I am also going to say that people should avoid calling their opponents in a debate “brainwashed.” That is a completely pointless statement. Each side can call the other brainwashed until they are blue in the face, it does not advance the debate one iota.
I believe (this is from memory) whether or not swiet is correct (at least l’chumra) is a machlokes R’Moshe and Rav Henkin. Rav Henkin held that there is anan sehadi that there was biah l’shem kiddushin and that was enough for eidim l’kiyum hadavar.
Besalel,
The word “k’eelu” indicates that the Gemara is using Avoda Zara in the non-literal sense.
To make a point similar to the one I made before. Avoda Zara has a halachic meaning. It is also used sometimes rhetorically to say something takes away from Torah and Yiras Shomayim. While it is fine to engage in rhetoric and hyperbole, it is important to know the difference between what is literal and what is not.
I don’t see any serious argument that Zionism in its religious form is Avoda Zara (are Israeli Flags assur b’hana?) in the literal sense. So please, if you are calling it “Avoda Zara,” clarify that you don’t mean that literally.
Veltz,
When a person commits themselves to adhering to the halacha in certain areas and finds that he becomes a better person as to those areas it strengthens his emunah that the Torah system works and by extension is more likely to be divine.
So if a person finds he has anger issues and suppresses his anger in various situations in an attempt to follow the halacha and mussar, and then over the course of time finds that he no longer gets angry altogether, he concludes that he has fixed (to a degree at least) a character trait through Torah.
Talmud,
Your emunah should not be based on miracles. It should be based on intellect and personal experience and growth. That being said they can still strengthen your emunah against those who deny the Divine altogether.
“however, the idea that rich pay less taxes is retarded propaganda, and not remotely true.”
I would say that it is very skillful propaganda.
Zahavasdad,
A friend of mine once said “the greatest of the issurin Iyov suffered was that after all that suffering, some people say he didn’t even exist!”