Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The Little I know:
I know that there a children that have difficulty finding a Yeshiva or Bais Yaacov (to some extent this is simply a function of the opening of new classes not keeping up with population growth) and that there are children that are thrown out of Yeshivos all the time. What I haven’t heard of is a child being thrown out because the parents of other children insisted on it.
I cannot imagine a scenario other than immediate physical danger in which I would call my child’s school with such a demand. And I don’t know anyone else that would do it either. I therefore have a very hard time believing that this is a common thing.
A few people have written that such events, i.e. children being thrown out of school because of complaints of other parents (even on academic matters!?!) are common. I have never heard of a single such case in North America.
RabbiofBerlin,
If you want to understand the opposition at the time, you should go back and read the Jewish Observers from the time. Alternatively, you can track down Rabbi Bleich’s essay on the controversy. This was not “politics,” at least not in the sense that you are thinking of.
I do believe that the opposition was especially vociferous and widespread because of the impression that Goren was specifically appointed Chief Rabbi to be matir these mamzerim (that had already been ruled upon by other batei din). This made it seem like heterim were for sale and that where there was a “rabbinic will there was a rabbinic way.” I believe it was this chillul Hashem that moved the American Rabbonim to voice their opposition.
Joseph,
Saying that the dayanim are posul is different from saying that the geirus would be no good if the convert himself believed. The only theological test for a Ger that we find in Shas is kabolos ol mitzvos. Lo motzinu that there is a requirement to affirm the ikkarim of Yehadus, let alone something like this which is not even an ikar.
Even l’gabey the dayanim, did Rabbi Eisenstein say this to pasul geirus done by those dayanim retroactively or only m’kan u’lhaba?
I am still skeptical of this psak (without an actual teshuvah with sources) but this is significantly more limited.
Joseph,
Are you claiming that Rabbi Eisenstein claimed that Rav Elyashiv said he would invalidate a geirus on those grounds? Or are you extrapolating from the statement that such a belief is apikorsus to the situation of geirus?
I am extremely skeptical that Rav Elyashiv would invalidate a geirus on those grounds. (I am also generally skeptical of things said in Rav Elyashiv’s name that are not in print)
There is a old Jewish Observer from the time of the Goren scandal that had letters and comments from incredible large swathe of the Orthodox Rabbinate condemning what Goren had done. It included letters from Rav Moshe and Rav J.B. Soleveitchik among many, many others. And it is was very rare for them to get involved in Eretz Yisroel halachic controversies. The only major Rabbinic figure at the time (other than Rabbi Goren himself) that refused to condemn Rabbi Goren was Rabbi Tzvi Yehudah Kook. Rav Kook said that he disagreed with Rav Goren but would not condemn him or declare that the Langer kids were mamzerim out of kavod to the Chief Rabbinate.
Mazal Tov! I believe you keep the full seven days of sheva berachos but as Popa said. You should find a Rabbi who knows your family and your situation to guide you through.
Bovine doesn’t only refer to cattle. Buffalo, wild oxen, and other animals are also Bovines.
In my opinion, Mensa is a mishegas wherein people who do well on a type of test get to meet and say we are better than everyone else. It’s primary purpose is the gayva of its members.
I don’t equate high IQ with = very smart, but I don’t think there is ever a downside to being smart. The smarter you are in a given area the better for you in that area. Some people are smart in some areas and not in others. If those people are smart in, for example, math, and not smart in interpersonal relationships, it might give the impression that being too smart is a negative. But in reality it just means that they are not smart enough in areas that matter most.
I am skeptical of IQ tests as representing general intelligence and as to whether general intelligence even exists.
Syag,
Thank you for the compliment and the bracha.
I suspect that the issue here is that some people abuse the concept of halacha for evil purposes. The observers see something that they know is evil but hear the evil-doers or their supporters claiming halacha as a shield for their evil activities. Since the Observers are not learned enough on their own do demonstrate why the halachic claims are incorrect and pernicious, they instead lash out and say: “if that is what halacha says, I don’t care.”
There are two solutions to this problem that I see: 1. Don’t presume that everything said by talmud chochom is halacha. No matter how learned someone is, they can sin, make mistakes, and be corrupted. 2. Learn! Become a talmud chochom in your own right, so that you don’t need to rely on the opinions of others.
Daas,
I have never seen that. Was he referring to a particular vaccine or all vaccines?
I don’t see how anyone can deny that vaccines stopped polio and smallpox.
I don’t think there are any Rabbonim that oppose vaccinations. What I have seen are Rabbonim that hold that you are not required to vaccinate.
My guess is that these are cases where the Rabbi in question is friends with an anti-vaxx doctor who tells him that vaccines aren’t necessary or cause autism or whatnot. The Rabbi then says to himself: if there are some doctors that say it is not medically necessary than I cannot say that it is required and schools should take in unvaccinated children.
Joseph,
I think pshat in zivug sheini in the Gemara in Sotah is not a second marriage but a change in your destiny according to your maasim (i.e. the same as lightbrite’s answer).
I think the core of Lightbrite’s answer is a Gemara.
The Mishna in Nedarim 35b says that Person A that has been forbidden (through a Neder) to provide benefit to Person B, may still teach Tanach to Person B’s sons and daughters. In the Gemara that follows there is a dispute about how people are allowed to take money for teaching Torah at all: Rav says that a person can take pay for watching the children so that they don’t run around and get into trouble outside (see “Rashi” Nedarim 37a); Rav Yochanan says for teaching them the trop (i.e. how to lein which is not Torah d’oraisa).
Later (Nedarim 37b) the Gemara asks why Rav Yochanan doesn’t hold like Rav that the pay is watching the kids. The Gemara answers because the Mishna said that one is allowed to teach Tanach to the daughters of Person B (despite the fact that one normally can be paid) but girls don’t need watching (because they don’t run around outside).
So girls don’t need school on Sundays because they behave without school!
Joseph,
Arms, from the Gemara in Kesubos, are clearly only a Daas Yehudis (i.e. minhag). Legs, on the other hand, are mentioned in the Gemara as erva. The Shulchan Aruch (following the Rambam) understands legs as just an example of something you might have thought was not a makom mechusa, but really is. To me this is a more dochek reading of the Gemara. I explained why at length in a previous thread but I can’t remember what it was called.
Joseph,
Miniskirt is little harder. I think the analysis remains the same according to the Bais Yosef, and so in such a situation the community would have al mi lismichu. However, I personally think that Mishnah Berurah’s read of the Gemarah in Berachos works better, so I couldn’t say that I believe it is halachicaly okay.
Lilmod,
I was referring to Avi K’s citation to Igros Moshe, not GAW’s. With respect to losing one’s kesuba, Rav Moshe says it explicitly even for the d’Oraisa of hair covering. Arms and other body parts that are just minhag is a kol shekein.
Joseph,
Yes.
Avi K,
I didn’t see that in my edition of the Igros Moshe. Can you point me to the line you are referring to. It seems to me that in Even HaEzer 1:114 he says the opposite.
That being said, my point was that they are not disregarding the idea of dressing modestly, they just have a different definition of what is modest. So they cannot be said to have disregarded the requirement.
Joseph,
We have a Gemara/Mishna that says covering arms is Daas Yehudis (i.e. minhag of tznius) and if a woman frequently violates this Daas Yehudis she can lose her Kesuba (according to some because this gives the man a right to be choshesh for znus). Now in our modern day American secular culture people can do what ever they want, but there are still judgments made and manners of clothing that are considered modest or immodest. Just dressing immodestly is not considered to be bad thing unless it is in an inappropriate place like the office or a funeral. Boruch Hashem, the standards of modesty in the Modern Orthodox world are higher than the secular American world.
The key for Daas Yehudis is that the mode of dress cannot be viewed within the community as immodest. When a woman wears clothing that within the community is viewed as immodest she violates Daas Yehudis and her husband has a right to divorce without a kesuba.
So long as there is a difference between modest dress and immodest dress, those who dress modestly will be within the bounds of Halacha (presuming of course not like the Mishna Berurah and those that hold that Daas Yehudis can’t change l’kula from the Gemara). The problem is if a society ever reached a point where there was no difference between modest and immodest. I don’t know what the halacha would be in such a circumstance. Fortunately, that is not the situation in any frum Jewish community.
Assuming this question is referring to books originally written in English (as opposed to say the translation of Derech Hashem), I would say “Reb Yaakov” by Yonosan Rosenbloom.
If it has to be a secular book, then I would say “the Structure of Scientific Revolutions” by Thomas Kuhn or “the Will to Meaning” by Viktor Frankel.
Joseph,
As I think GAW was saying (I haven’t actually read every post), Daas Yehudis means dressing like a modest Jewish woman and not like the prutzim. Now, even today with the lower standards that exist in some communities, and even by the goyim, there is still a concept of dressing modestly. While what is considered modestly is less modest than in our communities, it is still adhering to the idea of Daas Yehudis.
The question is how far you can go theoretically. I don’t know.
Lilmod,
You wrote: “The Shulchan Aruch says no such thing. He writes (75/1): “tefach meguleh b’isha b’makom shedarka l’chsoso, afilu hi ishto, assur l’kros krias shema k’negda”. Which you translated as: If a tefach is showing in a woman of the places that are supposed to be covered, a man is not allowed to say Krias Shema in front of her. But that is not what the words actually mean. “Shedarka l’chsoso” doesn’t mean “supposed to be covered” it means “that is her way to cover it.”
The Bais Yosef, in his sefer Bais Yosef explains his opinion and how he learns the Gemara. The Mishna Berurah’s mehalech in the Gemara does not fit the Bais Yosef. The Mishna Berurah is allowed to argue on the Bais Yosef, but he is certainly arguing.
According to the Bais Yosef the Gemara’s statement of “shok b’isha erva” is an example of something you might have thought was not a makom mechusa, because it was typically uncovered by men, k’mashma lan it is a makom mechusa, because women usually keep it covered. The Bais Yosef is clear that there is no separate, special or new din from shok b’isha erva. And, according to the Bais Yosef’s way of learning the Gemara, shok must mean the lower half of the leg, which men did not always cover.
On the other hand, the Mishna Berurah, l’shitoso, could learn that shok b’isha erva is referring to the top half of the leg, because it is stating a special din by shok that it always has the status of erva.
Gavra,
There is an issue of tiul that is brought down in the Terumas Hadeshen (and the Taz cites it) although it is unclear if the issue there is method of travel (shakey wagon) or the outing. But I would have said that this is an issue of schok that is certainly forbidden.
However, I have just discovered a Sh”v’T Davar Moshe that makes the exact chiluk you made and allows a couple to play ping-pong b’es niddasa.
Daas Yochid,
On the Aruch Hashulchan you cited, he does understand an issur in r’iyah but this is limited to makomos mechusim. So it would still depend on the norms in the time and place. Furthermore, I think that by r’iyah he does not mean incidental (he specifically says that there is makkos only when there is kavanah) but rather where there is intent for r’iyah but not for hanaah. In contrast, histaklus of mokomos megulim is only assur if there is intent lhonos.
Daas Yochid,
The Shulchan Aruch doesn’t mention shok b’isha erva, because, as the Bais Yosef explains (Orech Chaim 75), that is only an example of a makom mechusa that I might have thought was not considered a makom mechusa (the Bais Yosef cites the very Rashba you cited). The way the Bais Yosef read the Gemara in Brochos, there is one klal, makomos that are normally covered are erva when uncovered. But it depends on what is normally covered and that will change based on the tznius standards of the time and place. This all presumes that the issur for krias shema parallels an issur of incidental histaklus (which is against the pashtus of the Gemara and the Shulchan Aruch). As you wrote, intentional histaklus is assur for even parts that are normally uncovered.
On the other hand, the Mishnah Berurah does understand the Gemara in Berachos to be delineating a base line of what must be covered, and that is why shok is singled out (albeit with a more meikel definition of shok). While the Mishnah Berurah’s position has become the presumption in the Yeshiva world, one can’t say that it is wrong to rely on the Shulchan Aruch.
The Gemara in Kesubos is setting forth the minhag of tznius (aka Daas Yehudis) at the time, which included arms. To break Daas Yehudis is certainly assur, but as a minhag its parameters can change over time. Short sleeves were common even in Bais Yaakov’s in the 40s.
My point is not that the MO communities that wear short sleeves and shorts are doing the best thing, but rather that they have solid halachic ground to rely upon.
“If you want me to be more specific: hair that is not covered at all, knees, upper arm above the elbow, mixed swimming, shorts.”
The only one of these that I would say is for sure asur regardless of community, is “hair that is not covered at all.” Knees and above (i.e. shorts) according to the Mishna Berura is universal but the Shulchan Aruch doesn’t hold that way. Upper arm is b’pashtus dependent on the community. And mixed swimming, while an exceedingly bad idea, is not the subject of a particular Rabbinic prohibition as far as a I know.
GAW,
I am not sure how to interpret that Biur HaGRA and the quote from Avos D’Reb Nosson. Chibuk v’Nishuk is an issur d’oraisa (according to the Shulchan Aruch) from the posuk of “lo sikrivu” but dibur, even of kalus rosh and schok, is only assur m’drabbanan. But the Avos D’Reb Nosson cited by the GRA conflates them.
One of my main points in my original post on this subject, and where I thought the most contention would be, was that there is no heter of “l’toeles” for ??????? ????????? ?????. The “l’toeles” heter brought down in the Shulchan Aruch is specifically for histaklus.
Note: You haven’t answered my question about date-night with ishto nidda.
“If it’s against halacha, it doesn’t matter if it’s according to the standards of her community.”
Much of the halachos of tznius are dependent on the standards of the community.
A “non-platonic manner” is when the actions themselves or the context around them indicate that the purpose of this laughing and having fun is not just for the fun itself but to create, strengthen, or maintain a non-platonic relationship.
To answer your question it is not automatically a “non-platonic manner” when dealing with an Ervah. It depends on the context as I described earlier.
Lilmod,
I think the way they tie it in is by saying “just as Chazal tried to fix social problems in the Jewish community so should we try to fix social problems in the Jewish community and the World.”
GAW,
The difference is not intent (subjective) but context (objective). Playing arcades with your sister-in-law on an outing with your wife and children there is not ???????, but playing the same arcades on an outing just the two of you would probably be schok. The difference isn’t the type of Erva but the context. Do you think that it is mutar to have a date-night at an arcade with ishto niddah? If not, how is a dating couple different?
I believe that the “dibbur” in the Ramah and the Shach is going on Kalush Rosh and the point is that flirtatious talk with an Erva is assur even there is no actual intent to be margil. For example, some salesmen will give inappropriate compliments to female customers in an attempt to make a sale. That would still be kalus rosh.
Tikkun olam in the Talmud is a rationale for takanos Chazal. It means to fix a problem in Klal Yisroel or a portion of Klal Yisroel.
GAW,
My understanding is that schok is assur because it is a type of activity that is margilin l’erva. It is a gezeira that applies to people even if they are certain that it won’t be margil them. (?????? ???????? ??????, ??????? ????????? ?????, ???????????? ????????? (Avos 3:13)). If a gezeira only applies to the action when it is undertaken with the intent of being margil l’erva, then just say it is assur to be margil l’erva. Remember chibuk v’nishuk with ishto niddah is assur even without any intent.
The Shach is explaining kalus rosh with words. He is saying that if these are the types of words that are margilin l’erva, it is assur, regardless of any actual intent to be margil. I think you’re better argument is that this type of fun is objectively not schok. But that begs the question of what activities would constitute schok.
With respect to married couples, because they are already married the are not trying to laugh and have fun together to strengthen (or create) their non-platonic relationship, they are just going about their regular day. But to go out on a date-night to an arcade b’es niddasa would be assur.
To be clear “schok” and “kalus rosh” are two different, but related, things.
In my understanding “kalus rosh” means “flirtatious talking or behavior.”
In my understanding “schok” means having fun or laughing together in a non-platonic manner.
While I fear that kalus rosh is problem particularly in the post-engagement stage, my primary concern is with the schok that goes on after the first few dates when the couple start trying to have fun together. It seems to me that “having fun together” on a date is by definition schok because the purpose of the fun is to create and bolster a non-platonic relationship (unlike playing ping-pong with your sister-in-law).
What I understood gavra-at-work to be arguing was that “schok” requires something beyond non-platonic, (i.e. something that would lead to a more immediate danger of issurei kares). I am not sure I buy the chiluk (are there any objective activities that are forbidden according to GAW because of schok? Does it all depend on the intent of the parties?).
It is supposed to be at least 2. But you can light more if you like.
The primary purpose of Shabbos lights is to have light in the home at the Friday Night suedah. Back in the pre-electric light days, the more candles there were the better the light.
DY,
What is another possible definition?
Also, the current scientific knowledge is that lice are hatched from eggs. So even if you have some way of explaining the Gemara so that it isn’t presuming spontaneous generation, you would still need to explain the need for the dochek on ???? ?????.
I also don’t understand the Chazon Ish you are citing (noting that Treifos is not a sugya I have ever learned). The list of Treifos are a halacha l’Moshe m’Sinai, why would it depend on the metziyus at the time of Chazal and not the metziyus at the time of Matan Torah?
I don’t think you can argue that Chazal had a different definition for ??? ???? without running afoul of the next question in the Gemara: ?”? ???? ????? ??? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???”? ??? ????? ????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ?????
Abaya asks that how can the Chachomim say that that lice ???? ??? ???? when there is a posuk that refers to lice eggs? The Gemara answers that according to the Chachomim you have to say that it means a creature called “lice eggs” but not the eggs of lice. If the Gemara had a different definition of ??? ????, it would have answered “lice have eggs but they are still not ??? ???? because ??? ???? means X.”
Hilchos Shabbos is not an area where I have expertise (neither is hilchos Treifos) but I believe it is machlokis acharonim whether killing lice today is mutar.
I don’t know if unprecedented is the right word. But after Carter, a noted non-friend of Israel, the US has vetoed any UNSC resolution that claimed that Israel holding Jerusalem was an illegal “settlement” and had to be given back.
The reason is that not all settlements are created equal and while the US is against settlement activity that would severly limit the contiguity of a potential Palestinian state, Obama has prior to this always aknowledged that Jerusalem and the main settlement blocks would remain in Israel as part of “land swaps.” Meaning that Israel would give the Palestinians other land in exchange for the settlements.
By treating all building/occupation post-1967 equally, this resolution decreases the chances of peace. Israel is never going to give back Yerushaliym and if they will be censured for that anyway, what do they have to benefit from giving back anything. This resolution makes Israel’s last, best offer illegal under International Law. So why would Israel respect or abide by International Law?
With respect to the question of killing lice and treifos, the issue is what the source of the halacha is. If the halacha is pure sevara, then a clarification of the metziyus should change the halacha. If the halacha is kabalah from Har Sinai then a clarification of the metziyus would not change a halacha, we would just need to find a new explanation for the halacha.
For example, if the reason we pasken it is mutar to kill lice on Shabbos is purely a sevara because of the presumed metziyus of ???? ??? ????, then now that we know the metziyus is incorrect, the halacha should switch and follow R’ Eliezer. If, however, the Chachomim were matir killing lice on Shabbos because they had a kabala m’Sinai that it was mutar and ???? ??? ???? was just their sevara to explain the halacha, then even now that we know that they are ??? ???? the halacha would remain the same.
Although in the case of lice it is unclear, if I remember correctly, there is a list of treifos that are a halacha l’Moshe m’Sinai and therefore certainly apply regardless of the metziyus. In addition, there is a halacha that if an animal is hurt in a way that it will not live for 12 months, then it is a treifah even if the injury is not on the list we received from Sinai. For this latter din, the current metziyus is what would be relevant.
Who was the Chazon Ish’s rebbi?
How is everyone defining Chareidi anyway?
Does it mean not going to the army? Well that how does it apply to Jews outside of Israel, not to mention the minority of Chareidim that do serve in the Army.
Does it mean not working outside of klei kodesh? There are hundreds of thousands of Chareidim that work outside of klei kodesh.
Does it mean not getting a secular education? I and many of my comrades from “Chareidi” yeshivos have high-school and post-high school degrees.
Does it mean being meticulous in mitzvah observance? There are many non-Chareidim, from YU to Mizrachi, who are meticulous in mitzvah observance.
I don’t think Chareidism is a movement. You can’t have a movement without organization and leadership that understand it as such. Agudah was a movement. There are and were shuls and organizations that were officially affiliated with an Organization called Agudas Yisroel.
Chareidi is just a descriptive term (whose application is not entirely clear) that applies to some members of the Agudas Yisroel movement, some members of the Yeshivah movement, and some members of the Chasidic movement.
Lilmod,
From what I have seen, early dating is as you describe. But as the couple become more relaxed with each other, and/or as the individuals have dated more people, things change. Yes, the less yeshivish you get the worse the problem becomes, but even with BMG boys schok (as I defined it earlier) is the norm not the exception for later dates.
I don’t think these Yeshiva boys and Bais Yakov girls think they are doing anything wrong. They are simply not informed.
In terms of shaving there is difference between the peyos on the side of the head and the beard. We treat the former as asur even with k’ein tar. The latter is mutar with k’ein tar. See Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 181:3 & 10.
This is why all Orthodox Jewish men will have sideburns (peyos of the head) but not all will have beards.
Geordie613 and Lilmod,
I think I have the answer. Rashi on that posuk and the Gemara in Shabbos 145b limit the application of the posuk to Yehudah. ??? ????? ???? ?”? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ????? (?????? ?, ?) ?? ????? ??? ??? ???? ???’ ???? ????? ??? ???? ???? ????
Yehudah refers to the portion of E”Y that was held by the Malchus Bais David after the split. So it may very well be that no person walked in Yehudah for 52 years, but other parts of E”Y were still populated and still had Jews.
There were definitely some people in E”Y (the Cuthim/Samaritans) during golus bavel. They are discussed in Ezra and Nechemia. I don’t know how that squares with the posuk Geordie613 is referring to.