☕ DaasYochid ☕

I gather you have conceeded that the Beis Yosef, Rama and Shach do not rule that way, and it is not the accepted Halacha.

Yes, it does seem that he conceded this point.

it is clearly not the Rambam’s intent.

Although, to be fair, R’ Moshe seems to lean towards understanding the Ramba”m that way, although he emphatically states that the halacha is not that way.

Therev is only one reference in the shach to “melamdim and lomdim” 9see R’moshe’s teshuva that daas yochid quoted).

One is enough for me. R’ Moshe is quite clear that he is very much referring to kollel stipends.

it is the misuse of these deferments that rankles people.

The Chazon Ish was said to be very disturbed by exemptions being given to bochurim who weren’t really learning.

But, the decision of who should receive exemptions and who should not, is not something that we can allow to be made by the Israeli government. They are certainly not trustworthy to leave alone those who are serious learners. And, as I quoted R’ Moshe, we could use many talmidei chachomim learning, not just a select few as you state.

Its kind of hard to follow this thread but did someone say tashlumin is the same thing as nidava?

No. In a case where it’s uncertain if tashlumin is required, one should daven twice, the second with a t’nai: if tashlumin is required, the SHM”E is required for tashlumin, it should be tashlumin. If not required, it should be for a nedava.

The reason popa’s case is so fascinating is that there are a number of complications:

1) He didn’t omit the entire SHM”E, just Yaaleh V’yavo. Since the tashlumin would also be without Y”V, there is a machlokes whether or not it applies. Normally, the M”B would recommend the nedava b’tnai approach previously described.

2) This, however, is not a normal situation, since he accepted Shabbos by davening Maariv, and we don’t say tefilas nedava on Shabbos (a full-fledged, unconditional tashlumin, however, could be said).

3) Nor, taynas popa, is this an ordinary case of not saying nedava on Shabbos, since it’s only Shabbos via his acceptance, since it’s not yet shkiya. (I do not feel this is a valid chiluk.)

You should rather Daven two Maarivs.

In this case, you can’t (according to one shittah which we are choshesh for), because there is nothing being added, since the reason you need to daven again is for missing Yaaleh V’yavo, but you can’t say it now anyway since it is no longer Rosh Chodesh. Nor can you make it a tefillas nedavah b’tnai, because we don’t say tefillas nedavah on Shabbos.

ZD,

Complete conjecture, for no benefit.

If the Viznitzer Rav had a problem with Rabbi Lau, he should have made them months ago. You dont make demands 2 weeks before an event.

He is not the one who invited him. I do not know when the invitation was offered, accepted, and announced, but I didn’t know about it until a couple of days ago. You’re right, though, that there was lack of aforethought in inviting someone controversial.

If people would be as strong about keeping the Torah as they are about being anti Tzioni

Are you c”v accusing the Vishnitzer Rebbe of not being as strong about other parts of the Torah as he is about being anti-tzioni?

Popa,

Maariv is by definition a night tefillah, so relying on the tzad that it’s still day (and mutar to say nedava) is tartei d’sarei (which may be what Sam meant).

What is a person with one toilet that is severely oversytuffed early on Shabbos to do?

I assume it would be muttar to ask a non-Jew.

Jewish unity,

The point ‘far east’ is trying to make

I don’t know what (s)he meant, I only know what (s)he said.

I also don’t think that it’s okay to publicly shame someone; I was only demonstrating the absurdity of far east’s argument.

Nobody is trying to shame R’ Lau, but because the siyum is b’rabbim, great care must be taken to keep hashkafos pure, and, apparently, in the Vishnitzer Rebbe’s view, attending the siyum would compromise this.

Popa,

Because who says you can’t daven a nedava on Friday afternoon after you were mekabel shabbos?

I don’t understand your question. Which of the following two statements are you questioning?

1) We don’t say nedava on Shabbos.

2) One must keep all of the halachos of Shabbos after accepting it (any time after plag).

An argument I could hear is that we only don’t allow Mincha after being m’kabel Shabbos is because you can anyhow daven two Maarivs; since doesn’t apply here, one can daven Mincha. I don’t find this mistaver, though.

when I answer the phone, to “hey do you guys have……..” I usually hang up on them. In todays day & age when Chutzpa rules, it seems OK to do that.

Even in today’s day and age, it’s rude to hang up on somebody,

and if I were your boss, I’d probably fire you for it.

Bustercrown,

If you get to that point, you can contact Guardyoureyes (I think they may even list some on their website, otherwise you can email them), but the first step would be for him to recognize that he has a problem.

does anyone actually hold that Zionism-probable depending on how you define it-is necessarily K’fira

I don’t have a source, and I’m really not fluent in the Zionist-anti Zionist debate, but I believe that there are those who consider it kefirah.

Many Poskim say to avoid T’fillos Nedava altogether nowadays because we can’t always have Kavana properly

For the sake of nedava, you’re right. When it’s to avoid a shailah (such as our case), I’ve seen that we do.

R’ Chaim Kanievsky in Shoneh Halachos does not bring the opinion not to repeat.

????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??? ?? ????? ????? ??? ???? ???? ????? ??? ????? ????

http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=49174&st=&pgnum=411&hilite=

42,

Machlokes haposkim, if it’s not badly stuffed. A severely stuffed toilet is assur even according to the meikilim.

Sam2,

Just like I would say it’s Sinas Chinam to refuse to recognize a valid Halachic opinion.

So if you refused to recognize the opinion which considers Zionism to be k’firah as valid, would you be guilty of sinas chinom?

I’ve heard some decent S’varos Le’esor

What have you heard?

What about the fact that it’s assur to wash the floor on Shabbos, and the toilet, being m’chubar l’karka (attached to the ground) is considered part of the floor?

ROB,

You write, “that to learn in a kollel and to rely upon the Tsibbur- is a unique situation (my sons never took money from the tsibbur)and should be reserved to a few”, and, “selected individuals”. That is an improvement over what you wrote earlier, “let NOT ONE AVREICH take a penny from the medinah and they will be free from serving”.

Hopefully, you’ll soon come around to what R’ Moshe writes, “??? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ??????? ????? ???? ?”?”.

You wrote, “see what the Rambam writes about people using Torah to earn a livin-“

To which choppy responded, “The Ramah and Shach in Hilchos Talmud Torah says that nowadays you’re allowed to live off tzedakah to learn Torah.”

Part of your response was, “if yo ulearn the Remlo properly and the shach,yo uwill see that they totally support my ivew on this”.

Do you see how R’ Moshe didn’t learn it like you?

anybody else ever sample chicken feet?

Yep.

ROB,

It would be more acceptable than the situation is now.

since obviously an Eved would not have been wearing the Levush Yehudi of a Fedora and Sportscoat

I’ve seen many Canaanim dressed that way.

Sam2,

One could make the argument that all of history has been a wake up call for us, and now, as always, we must react to the frightening world events and do teshuva.

But so far, I think you’re the only one in this discussion to make that argument (albeit indirectly).

Avi,

You’d have to find something more current than that.

I’m not sure why the Biur Halacha needed to quote the Derech Hachaim; in the PM”G it seems clear that he assers after R”C.

I found, though, in R’ Simcha Bunim Cohen’s sefer, that the Maharam Shick understood that the PM”G was mattir even after R”C.

http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1495&st=&pgnum=251 (third paragraph down)

R’ Cohen brings other mareh m’komos to be meikil as well.

So, although we may wish to be machmir, it’s not something for which we can consider him an avaryan.