Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Talmud,
What they attribute to their “savior” we would attribute to G-d. When you read an account of an event you have to separate the facts presented and the interpretation of those facts by the person giving over the account.
Who said miracles can only happen to Jews?
Wolf,
When people use the phrase “Torah MiSinai” or “from Sinai” they don’t mean literally. Rather they mean Torah as given directly from Hashem to Moshe throughout the entire wandering in the desert.
(You might want to read the Tzvi Lampel’s translation of the Rambam’s introduction to Pirush HaMishnayos, and his books the Dynamics of Dispute). But in short the answer is as follows:
When we say that Torah Shel Bal Peh was given from Hashem to Moshe we mean different things depending on the subject. So there are some halachos that are Moshe m’pi HaGevurah as it is understood simply (e.g. the color and shape of teffilin). There are other parts of the Oral Tradition that are received understandings/interpretations as to the meaning of words in the Written Torah (e.g. that “an eye for an eye” refers to a monetary payment). In these areas there can be no dispute in principle (one cannot argue on what Hashem told Moshe) but only a dispute as to what the tradition actually is. Therefore dispute in these areas arises only because somebody forgot or made a mistake in the chain of tradition.
Moshe Rabbeinu was also given a series of methodologies (like keys to a code) that would allow the Chachamim to derive new halachos when faced with new situations. It could also be used to revive forgotten halachos. On these, in each generation a given Sanhedrin could argue and reverse the decisions of a previous Sanhedrin and therefore the Halacha could change. Of course human beings can have machlokes in the applications of these methodologies. While in earlier generations these machlokesim could be resolved by the Sanhedrin, in later generations when there was no regularly sitting Sanhedrin, machlokes could proliferate.
Of course there were also many disputes about whether or not to make gezeiros and takanos, and then later about the extent of those gezeiros, their applicability to new situations, etc.
“But even more important was probably H.L. Mencken’s daily accounts, which put a very negative spin on Bryan. Mencken made it look like Bryan was losing faith by conceding a point about the 24 hour days.”
Exactly, Mencken was a militant atheist and reported the trial with a serious bias. If you read the transcript and know the background of the trial, the impression is completely different. Bryan doesn’t start off holding of literal days and then backs down, he maintained the non-literal position from the beginning. It is worth reading Alan Dershowitz’s take on the trial in his book “America on Trial: Inside the Legal Battles That Transformed Our Nation.”
“It is ironic is that most of the spiritual descendants of Bryan have now allied politically with the spiritual descendants of those same robber barons.”
Agreed. It is very strange the way the laissez-faire party became the party of religion.
“William Jennings Bryan was a fundamentalist Christian who used Christian imagery in his political campaigns on a regular basis. He got a bad rap from his sorry defense of the Young Universe in the Scopes trial”
Bryan didn’t actually defend the “Young Universe” he maintained that beginning of Genesis was not literal 24 hour days. Here is the exchange: (The “Q” is Darrow and the “A” is Bryan).
Q–Would you say that the earth was only 4,000 years old?
A–Oh, no; I think it is much older than that.
Q–How much?
A–I couldn’t say.
Q–Do you say whether the Bible itself says it is older than that?
A–I don’t think it is older or not.
Q–Do you think the earth was made in six days?
A–Not six days of twenty-four hours.
Q–Doesn’t it say so?
A–No, sir….
Frankly, as cross-examinations transcripts go, I think Bryan one the battle.
Unfortunately Inherit the Wind, a novelization of the event, has been taken as fact and given people a false impression.
Sam2,
The establishment of the State is hashgacha klalis not pratis. However I don’t see how the first ikkar invalidates the Satmar shita.
147,
“If defying all the Gedolei haDor isn’t Kefira:- What is Kefira?”
Denying Torah min Hashamayim, the Existence of Hashem, Reward and Punishment, etc.
The word “kefira” has a halachic meaning. What exactly constitutes kefira is a machlokes Rishonim. It is not a word that should be thrown around lightly.
“You must not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.”
That was said in a speech against the gold standard (and in favor of a silver standard).
I lived in an apartment building where there was a designated handicapped spot for one tenant. Many visitors, however, saw the handicapped symbol and parked there without reading the rest of the sign.
You might want to post a large sign saying “RESERVED” in really large letters.
“But I think the rest of her point, which is really her main point, is her point 4. And I think that stands by itself and survives without that.”
I agree that one can agree with point 4 without buying in to everything else she believed, and I think that many of the people who look up to her and Atlas Shrugged choose (rightly) to ignore the bad parts of her philosophy.
If one limits Rand’s philosophy to a philosophy of government rather than one of human behavior or virtue, then I agree that it is not necessarily evil. But her full philosophy is against Torah, is midas s’dom and is evil.
Popa,
There are points made in her book that are valid, and there are aspects of her philosophy that are good. In fact I think people should go through life expecting to be treated as they would in Ayn Rand’s world. The bad part is in the treating others that way. So while it is good not to expect charity and help from others, it is evil to refuse to give charity and help to others. Ayn Rand believes “sheli, sheli, v’shelach, shelach,” and believes it so strongly that to deviate from that norm, even against’s one’s own selfish interest, is criminal.
I am sure that the people of S’dom had a rational basis for treating charity as a crime, just as Rand advocated (yes, it is in the book, maybe it stands out more if you read it rather than listening). The philosophy of Rand (as expressed in Galt’s speech) is contrary to every positive aspect of mitzvos bein adam l’chaveiro.
I think that the phrase “cutting off peyos” is a shorthand or euphemism for forcing the Teimanim to abandon Torah (which, in its most extreme form, included kidnapping babies).
Ayn Rand’s books preached midas s’dom. A self-centered society where charity is a crime, was her ideal. She held about as an anti-Torah philosophy as one could have.
I am saddened that Agudas Yisroel is moving away from the normal policy of quiet askanus.
I don’t think Jews should be protesting in Galus, tying up streets, and posturing for the non-Jewish media; especially, especially, when the protest is against other Jews.
Oy, and during sefira no less. No good can come from this.
A list of excellent female writers is lacking without Beverly Cleary.
RabbiofBerlin,
Shaving/haircuts wasn’t part of the original takanah, it was added after the First Crusade.
The Gemara doesn’t say “Tov” it says “Noach.” It means “it would be easier for man not to have been created,” not “it would be better for man not to have been created.”
It is not even clear that she was killed, she may have just been banished.
“If I had the time, (and I still dream I will some day) I would like to start a school for families that are ultra-frum but do not wish to promote mediocrity in every area other than learning.”
Veltz, let me know when you are ready to get such a school started, I will help out any way I can. BTW I think that such a school was tried in Brooklyn, (I remember ads for it) but it never got off the ground.
Writersoul,
I agree with your statement about the agelessness of books. Many of the books I loved as a kid are still great when I reread them as an adult. I used the age grouping so people who might take my recommendation will have some idea of the age floor for enjoying the books and to assure people of the relative kashrus of the content.
Do yourself a favor and reread Ender’s Game. It is a truly great book.
Veltz was being facetious.
I don’t know the age range of the people whom these recommendations are for, but for the Harry Potter fan crowd, check out the works of Diana Wynne Jones, particularly Archer’s Goon, which is one of the best young adult books ever written.
Probably the best sci-fi/fantasy book for young adults is Ender’s Game by Orson Scott Card.
A lot of this depends on how you define “frumkeit.” While in graduate school and afterward I certainly learned less and was more maikel in some areas out of necessity. On other hand, I grew to appreciate the time I did have to learn much more, and made much more efficient use of my learning time.
R’ Elyashiv held that there was no problem of bittul issur l’chatchila for fish and meat because it is not a matter of issur.
“Rambam didn’t include that as an ikkar of faith. Neither did R’Hasdai Crescas. Nor did R’Yosef Albo. It appears in none of the lists of 613 mitzvot.”
Which is why R’ Elyashiv probably did not actually say that such a person is an apikorus and if he did say it, almost certainly didn’t mean it in the halachic sense of the term.
Not everything said by a Gadol (or Chazal for that matter) is meant literally. Just because Rav Shach wrote a letter against an institution does not mean that Rav Shach held that the institution should be closed or not attended by frum Jews.
Rather it may mean that he saw some problem in the institution or flaw which could lead to a problem and felt that a machaa needed to be made to correct the problem or prevent the danger from occurring.
For example: Rav Shach wrote a letter putting a (then new) Israeli Torah institution in cherem and forbidding parents from sending their children to the institution because the institution had secular studies. The RAM that started the institution visited Rav Shach and asked the Gadol whether he, the RAM, should close the institution. Rav Shach said “chas v’shalom,” the institution is needed for many. Rather Rav Shach did not want that such institutions should become the norm and so Rav Shach came out strongly against it.
Chez11,
Is there some sort of teshuvah to this effect, with sources and argument?
I am extremely skeptical that R’Elyashiv gave any such psak. The age of the universe is not one of the ikkarim in anyone’s listing of ikkarim. At worst it is a mistaken belief of fact. Almost all geirim (and all Jews) will have some mistaken beliefs of facts. This does not make them apikorsim, it just makes them mistaken.
If those who believe that the Universe is billions of years old are correct, are then those who believe that the Universe is less than 6000 years old apikorsim?
Ben Levi,
That post was a copy of an article. The article was clearly written by someone who was not clear on the requirements of Geirus. The psak of R’Elyashiv, at least as quoted in that article, is not a contradiction to Rabbi Druckman and certainly does not mean that R’Elyashiv holds that the Geirim that went through Rabbi Druckman are not Jewish, chas v’shalom.
The article is, frankly, mere hearsay without the response of the accused party, a known Talmid Chacham.
Rabbi Druckman is no “clown rabbi” he is a posek. Once someone is a posek, a talmid chacham sh’higiya l’horaah, he has a right to argue, and he must argue on even those greater than him. Ain l’dayan ella ma sheinav ra’os.
R’Moshe argues on the Vilna Goan, the Noda BeYehuda, even sometimes the Shulchan Aruch or the Rama. See the introduction to the first volume of Igros Moshe.
Ah Talmid,
Obvious when? If it was obvious, at that time, (say if there was a gun to his head), then you would be right. Because there would be an anan sehadi as to his daas. But if you are basing your “patently obvious” on later behavior, then it cannot be mevatel a geirus retroactively because of dvarim sh’blev.
You are also assuming you have an “anan sehadi” but the Talmid Chacham overseeing the process does not. That is why I cited the teshuva from R’Moshe. If the Rav is knowledgeable and frum, we can be machzik that the kabola of mitzvos is valid and the convert is a full fledged Ger!
I would suggest learning the sugyos on giyur including some teshuvos over the centuries and then coming back.
I should point out that Mr. Rand is in favor of cutting ALL foreign aid. That means no aid for the Palestinians, Egyptians, Saudis etc.
As long as you are cutting everyone’s aid, Israel will be just fine.
Health,
Apartheid!!!! Have you been taken in by BDS propaganda? A semi-autonomous region doesn’t equal apartheid.
You really want the UN and the US to impose sanctions on Israel? You want Jews to suffer????
Please tell me that was just a joke in poor taste.
TKNY,
There is a difference between agreeing that you MUST do something and agreeing that you WILL do them. Ol mitzvos means the former, not the latter.
This might be easier to understand in Yeshivish. The Ger is being m’kabel the chiyuv mitzvos, he is not making a shvua that he will do the maaseh mitzvah.
Ah talmid,
You are simply incorrect. You are incorrect on two points:
1) If he knows of a mitzva understands it is binding but knows that his tayva is too great and he cannot keep the mitzvah. His giyur is valid. The kabola would only be invalid if he holds that he doesn’t have to keep a particular mitzva, that it is not binding on him.
2) If he verbally accepts the mitzvos than he is bound by his acceptance and the giyur is valid. He can’t come later claiming that in his mind he didn’t mean it. Dvarim Sh’bilev Eiynam Dvarim.
I would also like to repost from another thread the following quote from R’Moshe. Those that are claiming Rabbi Druckman’s conversions are invalid should read carefully.
?? ?? ?? ??? ????? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ??, ????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ??? ??? ????? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ?????? ???? ??? ???”? ????? ????? ?? ??????, ??? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ?? ?? ??? ?????
??”? ????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ? ???? ???
Ah talmid,
It isn’t double talk, it is the accepted lomdus. The lomdus of what is happening when a person is m’gayer is that he is accepting upon himself the yoke of mitzvos. He is agreeing to be bound by the mitzvos and punished by Hashem for not keeping them. That is what being Jewish means.
While we tell a ger some mitzvos before he is megayer, we don’t tell him about all of the mitzvos. A person can be megayer without knowing any of the mitzvos and the geirus will still be valid as long as he understands that he will be bound even by the mitzvos he doesn’t know about.
The psak of R’Elyashiv, that kabolas “ol mitzvos” is required is not novel, but nor is it in contradiction of R’Druckman’s conversions. “Ol mitzvos” means accepting that the yoke or the burden of mitzvos, meaning accepting that they BINDING. It is not equivalent to being m’kabel to DO all the mitzvos. One can be m’kabel the “ol mitvos” without expecting to keep them or even knowing what they are.
I am sure the author meant well, but he was clearly getting his information from only one side on this issue.
The accepted practice in klal yisroel for centuries has been that if the Bais Din was a proper Bais Din, if the Rav was a proper Orthodox Rav, the kabolas mitzvos is presumed valid and the convert is a full fledged Jew!
TKNY,
You wrote “Yeah, but you have to accept to do them. That does not mean that a Ger who speaks one word of loshon hara is a goy, but s/he does have to be willing to honestly try to keep everything.”
I believe that many hold that the ger must only be mekabel the “ol” of the mitzvos. Meaning he must accept that the mitzvos are binding on himself, even if he knows that it is too hard for him to give up some of his tayvos and that he will be an avaryon.
MDD and rabbiofberlin,
First of all, I don’t think that R’Moshe argues on what I wrote. And MDD is correct that it is possible to have a case where it is absolutely clear (“anan sehadi”) that the kabbolas mitzvos does not have actual intent. However, it is hard to imagine an Orthodox Rabbi performing the conversion in such a case.
So for example, if a man is converting for marriage and he says to his fiancee and the rabbi, “I don’t mind going through the whole ritual and stuff but I am not binding myself to any sort of code of conduct for the future.” That would be pretty clear that later kabbolas mitzvos is not valid (absent a retraction of his earlier statement). Similarly, I could hear an argument that if he crossed his fingers as he dunked in the mikvah, it would not be valid.
The point is that for there to be an anan sehadi, the purported ger must have done some maaseh or made some statement that made it absolutely clear that he did not mean to be mekabal the ol of the mitzvos.
We can safely assume, however, that if talmidei chachamim oversaw the conversion, there was no such anan sehadi and the conversion is completely valid.
Yiddish.
There are discussions about this on other threads, you can seek them out.
Short rebuttal: Assuming that kabbolas mitzvos is needed and is m’akev: If there was a kabbolas mitzvos without an anan sehadi, AT THAT TIME, then EVERYONE agrees that the person is now a full fledged Ger and therefore a full fledged Jew.
You cannot be mevatel Geirus retroactively. If there was a proper Bais Din we assume that there was proper kabbolas mitzvos. Even if the Ger was deliberately fooling the rabbanim it will still be a good Geirus if he verbally was mekabel mitzvos (if they went along with it, then clearly there was no “anan sehadi”), because “d’varim sh’b’lev ainum d’varim.”
Rabbi Chaim Druckman and his Bais Din were undoubtedly a proper bais din of talmidei chachamim. Therefore, all the people they were m’gayer are full fledged Jews. Speaking askance of them will violate numerous lavim in the Torah.
“We need to keep things in balance. We should have a Yissoschor / Zevulin relationship. 50% of Klal Yisroel (and Israelis) should be learning all day and 50% should be working (and supporting the learners.)”
Why did only Yissochar and Zevulun have this relationship? Why not all the shevatim?
Question:
Why is it assumed that an infinite number of monkeys typing on an infinite number of computers would eventually type the complete works of Shakespeare, maybe they would just type an infinite amount of gibberish?
In other words, why is assumed that they are always hitting different letters, maybe they are all just typing kikikikikikikikikikikikikikikkikikikikiki?
I protest the statements calling halacha “bigoted” towards women. The halacha is not bigoted towards women.
Discrimination doesn’t equal bigotry.
“Whatever floats your boat. You said the exact same thing as me but by twisting things around. As long as you got the last word. I’m more interested in the truth than the last word.”
Haha. Projection at its finest.
Health,
The general rule is that where the patient’s wishes are reasonable a DNR is permissible. If the patient is being unreasonable then a DNR is not permissible. The patient’s desire is given great consideration.
But yes, each case is decided individually. The reason you should always ask a Rov that specializes in these issues is because they have the combination of medical and halachic knowledge to decide whether the patient is being reasonable.
Real Talk,
I absolutely understand where you are coming from. And the halacha does not require the resuscitation of a patient that is suffering and does not want to continue to live.
However, all that is only relevant if, in fact the patient was someone who did not want to be resuscitated. If the patient wanted to be resuscitated than it is truly awful for someone to let them die.
Whether or not she should be judged harshly really depends on whether there was a DNR (official or not).
Daas,
Thanks for the explanation, now that I get it, it is funny.
Everyone else,
Squeak is pulling our legs. He is demonstrating the absurdity of classic internet debating technique “you can’t understand or have an opinion because you aren’t as educated as I am.”
Squeak,
I was assuming that you believed that given your tagline. But given that a tagline just appeared randomly under my Username (and appears to have nothing to do with me) the same might have happened to you.
I apologize.
I am certain that you are wrong about the Earth being flat however. I have seen the curvature of the Earth myself.
Squeak,
If they surprise me then it is likely because I have evidence to the contrary.
I would suggest building a giant, planet-sized computer to examine these “truths.”