GAON

Here are the words of the above Yerushalmi in Kedushin, stating there is no divorce “shtar” by a Ben Noach…

“ למדנו גוים אין להן קידושין מהו שיהא להם גירושין ר’ יודה בן פזי ור’ חנין בשם ר’ חונה רובה דציפורין או שאין להן גירושין או ששניהן מגרשין זה את זה ר’ יוחנן דצפרין ר’ אחא ר’ חיננא בשם ר’ שמואל בר נחמן (מלאכי ב) כי שנא שלח וגו’ עד את ה’ אלהי ישראל בישראל נתתי גירושין לא נתתי גירושין באומות העולם ר’ חנניה בשם ר’ פינחס כל הפרשה כתיב יי צבאות וכאן כתיב אלהי ישראל ללמדך שלא ייחד הקב”ה שמו בגירושין אלא בישראל בלבד מילתיה דר’ חייה רבה אמרה גוים אין להן גיורשין דתני ר’ חייה בן גוי שגירש את אשתו והלכה ונישאת לאחר וגירשה ואחר כך נתגיירו שניהן אין אני קורא עליה לא יוכל בעלה הראשון אשר שלחה לשוב לקחתה

See the perushim on the below link:
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14142&st=&pgnum=382

“At first, he DID urge conversion when he saw the anti-Semitic Zeitgeist and was hurt by it. ”

Zion – shouldn’t that be more than enough to just declare him as an enemy to everything we stand for?! How many of our ancestors went through fire, death and all tortures in order not to convert, and here is someone a Jew *urging* conversion…

“No idea who’s those ppl are, but let’s put it this way the major gedolim””

KJ,
You have no idea who Rav Tzvi Hirsh Kalisher is? With all due respect, how can someone comment anything on this topic of Zionism, if you have no clue about it’s very basic foundations?

Joseph –
“Once you start counting newly discovered Psaks, give it now time and you might discover even more psakim that change the majority back the other way. As stated, we don’t change what it considered the majority based on newly discovered psakim. ”

As I have stated to you more than once, it would help if you learn the basics before you comment. That means simply opening a Shulchan Aruch and learning mechaber, Tur, Magen Abraham and T”Z. See that they clearly say, that the accepted psak is that the MAJORITY of the poskim uphold that אין לנו רשות הרבים בזה”ז”

That was until the Mishkenos Yaakov compiled a list of other “new” rishonim that say differently. So your above statement indeed holds true regarding the above psak.

As you can see the Bais Efrayim response was that a) the minhag is based on the חכמי צרפת ואשכנז b) that in reality there is indeed a majority as the M”A and T”Z.
The same applies to the MB, that the minhag is supported my the majority, and not the other way around.

Meaning, we are to go by what the M”A, T”Z and Mahrit tzahlon have ruled as the majority.

All he is basically doing is proving them correct.

Joseph,

Why would you need to know? Did you study his sefer?

All I can say regarding his Gaonnas, I doubt anyone in the past 50 years comes close to his knowledge and gaaones…(with the exception of Rav Moshe)

Nev,
“Clearly nobody in the real world holds that holding by Rabbeinu Tam’s tzeis or 16 amos reshus harabim is gaavah”

As a BTW, i don’t think the two issues you mentioned are comparable, as R”T is really the shitah of the Shu”A, Magen Avrohom and many others, it is rather the other way around that many had the “minhag” not like R”T, whereas, regarding 16 Amos, all Ashkenozim relied on Rashi and is the Halacha of the Shu”A, Rema, MA, T”Z, Pri Megadim etc.

“However, the MY ultimately is not clear regarding the criterion of mefulash umechavanim.”

I think the reason is that he only mentioned the above topic as kind of “BTW” ‘agav’. He didn’t really conclude or elaborate anything on that topic.

“The Bais Av is incomparable regarding the inyan of eruvin (in fact all of his teshuvos are phenomenal).”

Agreed. However, as I see you are familiar with his works, you know why he is not so known?

“you continue on in that same seif katan (10) you would see that Rav Aharon disagrees with the MB,”

That’s is exactly my point, that at the end of the day, Rav Ahron is NOT in accordance with the MB, (Despite the MB being machmir). And his understanding of the Rambam is certainly not like the Shu”A and the Magid Mishnah.

It is also worthy to note, that Mishkenos Yaakov himself acknowledges that his shitah is not the Minhag, even in Karlin (town where he was Rav) they did not abide to his shitahs (I recall a responsum in Zkan Aharon of Karlin permitting delosos like the Rambam in Shu”a, actually I think its components were based on relying on the most lenient shitos…)

” that just an example ”

I agree there is a diff with R”T but the concept in essence is still the same – that if you are NOT a true Ba’al Nefesh you should not pick and choose chumras – it should be across the board.

Tefillin Lechurah pertains to even if you are a Machmir on all. That is the diff.

BTW – I remembered there is a sefer of the Raavad on Hilchos Nidah named “בעלי הנפש”. He writes in his Hakdamah regarding a Baal Nefesh, as the following:

וחברתי מהם ספר וקראתי את שמו ספר בעלי הנפש, על שם כי הוא חוק ומשפט למושלים על נפשם ואין נפשם מושלת עליהם. רוצה אני לומר, הנפש המתאוה היא הנפש הבהמית המושלת על הכסילים והמושכת אותם לתאות העולם והנאותיו, עד אשר ישכחו נפלאות הבורא וגודל מעשיו ויאמרו מי רואינו ומי יודעינו כענין שנאמר (תהלים י, ג) כי הלל רשע על תאות נפשו. אך הצדיק המושל ביראת אלהים, רוח ה’ נוססה בו, ויאחז צדיק דרכו ויקח בידו נפש השכל להלחם עם הבהמית כגבור הנלחם בכלי מלחמתו, ובעת עלותה ישפילנה, ובעת התגברה יחלישנה, עד אשר ישב בטח ושלוה וימצא שלום לנפשו. כענין שנאמר (משלי יג, יט) תאוה נהיה תערב לנפש ותועבת כסילים סור מרע. נהיה, משרש נהייתי ונחליתי, והוא על משקל נפש נענה תשביע (ישעיה נח, י). ר”ל תאוה הנשברת אחריתה תערב לנפשו והוא נפש השכל. ותועבת כסילים סור מרע, כי הכסילים התעיבו את הטוב ובחרו את הרע, ולא יוכלו לסור מאחרי תאותם ומשרירות לבם הרע. ועל זה הדרך נקראו הצדיקים בעלי הנפש כי המה בעלים לנפשם והם אדונים לתאותם. ועל כן קראתי שם הספר הזה ספר בעלי הנפש.

Do you really think every “machmir in Eruvin” fits that description?

” Rav Aharon argues the heter is mefulash umechavanim (but then he came up with a chiddush in how we apply this criterion)”

Speaking about the Mishkenos Yaakov, I recall his understating on Mefulash (as per Rashi, he quotes a Yerushalmi i think that argues) is not like RM nor R”A .

You,

“Rav Aharon states (MRA, 6:10) that that the MB maintains that the majority of Rishonim do not accept shishim ribo, and therefore, Rav Aharon argues the heter is mefulash umechavanim ”

However, he does agree that according to the MB’s understanding of the Rambam (as per Magid Mishnah etc) we would at least be “m’tzarif” the shitas ‘Rabanon’ of ‘Lo Asi Rabim um’Vatlin Mechtzos” to the shitos of Shishim Ribo.
The only issue he has is with the GR”A, and on the same note, the Demasek Eliezer on the Biur haGr”a (364) is definitely NOT like R”A on the issue of mefulash.

“Besides with nowadays sheitels Im not too sure that they are better than walking around with uncovered hair.”

Sorry, this is total Am Ha’aratzos. Yes, it is an issue but by far the same. Uncovered is a D’Oraisa and this is just a breach in Tzenius or at most a Daas Yehudis.
Emotions are not always in sync with Halacha.

Nev,
“You’re implying that we should just follow the letter of a law, and if somebody wants to take on one chumrah as a nice thing, they have to take on every chumrah that exists? That’s absurd.”

Yes – Read my above comment on how and when you can pick a certain Halacha as a “Ba’al Nefesh” , otherwise, why is R”T teffilin the only point where you say so – why wouldn’t you apply any other Chumra to ” Mechza “k’Yehora” ?

FYI – “Ba’al Nefesh” is a certain level you have achieved as a Yirai Shomayim – it is across the entire spectrum of Halacha. You don’t exactly pick and chose, unless perhaps you have a specific reason to, as above.

Rashi in Pesachim 40a says:
“בעל נפש – “חסיד:
הכי קאמר אפילו חיט – ….. בעל נפש לא ילתות אבל” דלאו בעל נפש “דלא מחמיר על נפשיה כולי האי”: דשרירן.:
This is across all halachos – not one or two.

Maskil,
“It’s interesting how many people commented how “they don’t know why Rt 9 would be different than any other road wider than 16 Amos”, and then proceeded to disparage the idea. It would be far more intelligent to actually find out the answer….”
“To understand Rav Ahron’s shita, please see his teshuva in Shu”t Mishnas Rav Ahron. Good place to start.”

Well, I am past that stage (as mentioned in my previous comment) – can you please enlighten us?

“(Perishah, O.C. 395:1).”

You,

Go explain that to Joseph in here, he doesn’t think taking a “stroll” is permissive for women on Shabbos…

Welcome to the world that the Prisha/SM”A is not frum enough for him…

You,
“Rav Ahron followed the Mishkinos Yaakov who does not accept shishim ribo as a criterion of a reshus harabbim at all.”

I am aware that Rav Ahron accepted the Mishkenos Yaakov regarding Mechitzos in opposing the Bais Efraiyim (as per his responsum in Mishnas R”A) , but where does he pasken like the Mishkenos Yaakov regarding Shishim Ribo?
That is going against all previous poskim, like Magen Avrohom, T”Z, and even the MB leHalacha.

Especially if there is a Tzuras Hapesach involved, many poskim uphold that its in any case (even with 600K) not a Reshus haRabim M’Doraisa and is only D’Rabonon that a Tzuras Hapesach won’t suffice…(see Shulchan Aruch Harav 364, Avnei Nezer CM 107)

“but they always boast how they were always at least traditional and kept to marrying only Yidden. ”

That is true, you will rarely find a Atheist Sephardi. I assume, Ashknazim started going down the hill with the Haskalah, which originated along the secular non-jew as well, and advanced as the goyish society become more open and advanced as well. There is a reason why it succeeded in Germany.
Whereas, in Sephardi regions, the non-jew was much more reilgious as well.
You should read the Meshech Chachma in Parshas Bechukosei how he explains the issue of anti-Semitism.

Litvish,

“We basically invented sheitels as well which even back in Europe many gedoilim we’re opposed to. Sephardim always wore a head covering and mostly till this day unless they copy ashkenaz traditions.”

This not the case, as Peah Nuchris has been worn in thetimes of the early Achronim – in the times of the Shiltie Giborim who was a Sephardi . See more on the below posts:

Natural-Hair Sheitels Are Assur

Nev,

“Gaon: There’s a shittah that the 600K only applies to cities and intra-city roads require fewer than 600K.”

I am aware of that shitah – it is the shitas haRamban in Eruvin 59 (i think that’s the daf). that a “sratya” does not require 600k, he says that “bederch efsher” to answer shitas Rashi. However the Shu”a and the TUR seem like they don’t go with that shitah. (I recall the Avnei Nezer ruling that most Rishonim clearly say not like the above Ramban)

Joseph,

So according to your logic – Yerushulayim, Bnei Brak, Bet Shemesh, Monsey, anywhere else – All should demolish there Eruvin, due to the above Shu”A women issue?!

Hmm it sure indicates your sense of logic…

“The Shulchan Aruch and Rambam pasken l’halacha that women shouldn’t be out of the home much”

Without going into facts – Is this Halacha ONLY pertaining to Shabbos?

Gadol,
“The “Route 9 shita” is well known”
Excuse my ignorance, but what exactly is the “shitah” – does it have Shishim Ribo or not? If not, then each and every road (wider than 16 Amos), even your quiet upstate road has a status of Reshus haRabim.

Random,

“So what are the facts, does it halachakly have shishim ribo bChol Yom passing or not?

That’s a question of metzius, not halacha.”

Of course the “metzius” is the issue . However, I purposely used the word “halachakly ” as the very ‘metzius’ is not something you just take a census etc. It should be defined by an Halachik perspective. There are many approaches and shitos how exactly we define ‘shishim ribo’ and B’chol Yom.

For starters, read carefully the אשל אברהם סי’ שמ”ה of the Da’as Kedoshi, which you can find in the back of most Shulchan Aruch’s.
Also, the Mishkenos Yaakov in his famous responsum on reshus harabim bzh”z how he explains the Shu”A and Tur shita of b’chol Yom…

“If RT 9 is a mavoi mefulash so are all streets. The issue is shishim ribo.”

So what are the facts, does it halachakly have shishim ribo bChol Yom passing or not?