GAON

I agree with Kitov. I have done it myself numerous times (a habit I picked up from Israel). It is sure more cost-effective unless you just use a small amount.

All you need is a 1/2 pkg of Garbanzo/Chickpea beans (or a can or two – is much easier), Techina paste, fresh squeezed lemon juice, fresh crushed garlic, olive oil, water and salt.
Store bought have all that preservatives plus etc.

RY, you can use a hand blender as well. And you are Yotza your deed of ‘Lekavod Shabbos’ preparation.

Las,
The above I mentioned I think is לקוטי יהודה in the name of the אמת אמרי.

“the house belonged to the monarch”

That is another answer and some question that too, as Mored be’Malchus assets belonging to the king may only pertains to Malchei Yisrael and not to Non-Jewish kings. See below link Rashba that says its not so simple (4th line)
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1376&st=&pgnum=398&hilite=

I think in sefer Hamitzvos RS”G of Rav Perlo has a lengthy discussion on that matter of the house…

: מכילתא סוף פ’ בשלח
“רבי אליעזר אומר נשבע המקום בכסא הכבוד שלו, שאם יבא אחד מכל האומות (להתגייר-הגר”א) שיקבלוהו, ולעמלק ולביתו לא יקבלוהו, שנאמר ‘ויאמר דוד אל הנער המגיד לו אי מזה אתה ויאמר בן איש גר עמלקי אנכי’ (שמואל ב א יג) .נזכר לדוד באותה שעה מה שנאמר למשה רבינו אם יבא מכל האומות שבעולם להתגייר שיקבלוהו ומביתו (של עמלק-הגר”א) שלא יקבלוהו. מיד ‘ויאמר אליו דוד דמך על ראשך כי פיך ענה בך’. לכך נאמר-מדור דור

Now according to the above, are you permitted to own a slave a Ameleki ?And if you do, is there any Gerus involved. I would say he has no Gerus status at all.

Some say that all the assets of Haman really did belong to Mordechai..

Well, ask the Chabadnik’s how it works – you just go over to the shelve and pick the first one/closest that comes to your hand. I picked the right-handed side which is Chelek 1.

So either you not doing it correct or you are a lefty.

NOTE – The other time I ended up with the “Yad Moshe (Maftechos)”….
(Hmm does that count? – Perhaps we need to ask that too? )

Rebyid,
You mean to ask what’s your opinion on having an opinion on Rav Miller’s ZTL opinions… 🙂

T2,
“פטור אבל אסור”
True, but we are not talking about monetary… just in terms of the concept of “to put his shiurim online, he refused, because he was against the internet.”
And in this case it was already on the web…

DaM.

“He clearly stated that when someone offered to put his shiurim online, he refused, because he was against the internet.”

Based on that it is certainly no problem, ever heard of the Halacha הגונב מן הגנב פטור …..

ZD,
Wow, you are correct it looks like the exact same wording!

While I am still not sure about the “copyrights”, as there is no monetary claims involved, nor does the site note anything about it being “copyright” (?) , but Joseph should have given credit where it is due.
He definitely should have mentioned the site. It is no doubt the ‘appropriate’ thing to do.

Well, one thing is certain, 99% of Joseph’s posts are indeed (a) Daas ‘Yochid’

“so why did you bother bringing the article???”

The article indicates that it is a devotion of self-sacrifice which is not the case of Korbanos. And that was exactly what Rav Belsky was writing to Rav Elyashiv in regards to Rav Dunners account.

“there is no kuntz to give links to teshuvos that say one way when i can give links to teshuvos that answer those teshuvos.’

I just linked what the heter is based upon. All the ones that I linked are tremendous Gaonim and Poskim. You are more than welcome to link others.

Las,

Here is a write up on the topic:

FORBIDDEN SHEITELS 2.0: All Natural-Hair Wigs Banned Again!

Nםאק – Based on the commentators there, I still believe there are people with an agenda. ודוק היטב

“in all your arichus i didnt see any answer l’inyan.”

Answered what?

The only question you asked was:
“And why is it relevant that there is an old avoda zara that they once gave hair too?”

I see I have to spell it out clear. Lets go back:

You stated – “it is still tikrovos avoda zara, since korbonas are exactly the same, as it says countless times in tanach, וירמיה (ז, כב) אמר “כי לא דברתי את אבותיכם ולא ציוויתים ביום הוציאי אותם מארץ מצרים על דברי עולה וזבח].”

I answered –

“NOTE: The concept of Hair offering is not new. See below link by haGoani Rav Y Soloveitchik:)
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=13614&st=&pgnum=77

Even according to Rav Dunner if the above is the case it is fine, and I do recall that Rav Elyashiv and Rav SZ had originally mattir it (as recorded in his Teshuvos) based on the above facts”

If you would bother clicking on the link, you will see It is clear from the above Rishonim quoted by Rav Yitzchok Soloveitchik Shlita that it is NOT like ‘Shviras Makol’ etc and is thus not Takrvos A”Z, so whatever you are comparing it to Karbanos is totally off from all aspects.

Vayin Kan Mekomo leHarich…

C,
I will just comment on a few points for now.

“to accuse Rav K ”

Who wrote or mentioned names? Can you please keep names out of it.

Yes – there could be Negios to be Machmir – and Negios is NOT lying, it is an approach on how to tackle the problem.

“the opinion that a mitpachat is better is the opinion of many many rabbanim”

That is not the point. I hope you understand the diff – To go ahead and write an official letter is a diff level. You want to be machmir – Kol haKovod, but you don’t go ahead and write Letters for the public to be ‘machmir’, when the minhag has already been established by all Gadolim of the previous generation, including the Chazon Ish. Briskert Rav and Rav Moshe etc. If one asks you and you know the situation – kol hakavod.
Rav Elyashiv never wrote anything – all they have is conflicting reports, nor has Rav SZ written anything, and rightfully so.

Here is how Daas Torah works:

I will re-post what הגאון רבי יצחק ירוחם בורודיאנסקי שליט”א, משגיח בישיבת קול תורה, ראש כולל “ישיבת הר”ן” בירושלים וחתן הגרש”ז אויערבאך זצ”ל said:

“למי שיש כבר דעה מוקדמת שאסור – קשה מאד לדבר עמו.

למעשה, אספר לכם סיפור שפעם אשתי שתהיה בריאה, עם הרבנית לאה ע”ה אויערבך שהיא בת של הרב אלישיב, עמדו ודברו ביניהן ואמרו – ‘מה עושים מאתנו – מורדות בהורים שלנו’? הדבר הכי גדול זה שרואים על הבנות של הרבנים איך הן מתנהגות, רק שלפעמים בנות הולכות בכיוון הלא נכון – אז אנו יודעים, אבל אצל שני הגדולים האלו – הכיבוד אב היה חזק מאד, אז בעצם המעשים יותר גדולים מדיבורים.
…….

נחזור לעניננו מה שנוגע למעשה – הפאות היו אצלו לכתחילה, אין בזה שום בעיה, ולבנות הטובות שלו הוא נתן פאות ולא הסתייג מזה, בתנאי כפול שיהיה צנוע… הרבנית של ר’ שמואל עליה השלום – היא מהבית הלכה עם מטפחת…

ומה שנוגע לרב אלישיב, אני בעצמי שמעתי בהקלטה מה שהרב אלישיב דיבר בשיעור, ושם פשוט הציבור לא תפסו את הענין – הוא דיבר נגד פאות פרוצות, וכשאמר ‘לא כמו הפאות שנוהגות היום’ – התכוין שפאה זה מותר… אבל ב’הפאות של היום’ – הוא התכוון לפאות פרוצות, אבל על הפאות הצנועות הוא לא דיבר שם. והם לקחו את הדברים וטשטשו אותם!

אני בעצמי שמעתי את ההקלטה כמה פעמים בצורה מדוייקת, ושם הוא דיבר נגד פאות פרוצות, והוא קרא לזה ‘הפאות של היום’ ולא התכון כמו הפאות הצנועות של היום, אלא “איך שברחוב הולכים היום”, אבל הפאות הצנועות – הוא לא היה נגד, כמו שסיפרתי שהבת שלו הצדקת הרבנית לאה ע”ה הלכה עם פאה.

היה מקובל אצלנו, אני לא יכול להגיד שממש זה גם על דעתו אבל כך היה מקובל בבית, שיש עדיפות ללכת עם פאה. כי הפרקטיקה מראה שנשים שהולכות עם מטפחת – יש להן בעיה נפשית עם זה, וזה מתפרץ אצלהן בדברים אחרים – והדברים האחרים הם לא צנועים כל כך. אם הולכים עם פאה – אז רגועים ואין בעיה, לכן אצלנו מקובל שיש עדיפות אפילו ללכת עם פאה.

הרב אלישיב אמר למישהו כשהיה ספק על הפאות מהודו, ובבני ברק מספק הורידו את הפאות, אז כשפנו לרב אלישיב שזה ספק דאורייתא לאסור, הוא אמר ‘אתה יודע מה זה להוריד לאשה את הפאה – זה להוריד לה את הראש – איך אתה יכול מספק לעשות את זה…’ תמיד צריך את המשקל הנכון. הגדולים זה לא רק ההלכה – אלא שיקול הדעת הנכון, להעמיד כל דבר במקום ובמשקל הנכון. זה גדולי ישראל”.

There is nothing wrong with trying to be matir it – any A”H can be a Machmir. There is a reason why all Gadolim were NOT machmir on PN, including the Brisker Rav and all his children. Vayin Kan Mekomo
(I probably posted some in one of the earlier comments… )

Again, this an approach of a true Gaon and Gadol:

הרב אלישיב אמר למישהו כשהיה ספק על הפאות מהודו, ובבני ברק מספק הורידו את הפאות, אז כשפנו לרב אלישיב שזה ספק דאורייתא לאסור, הוא אמר ‘אתה יודע מה זה להוריד לאשה את הפאה – זה להוריד לה את הראש – איך אתה יכול מספק לעשות את זה…’ תמיד צריך את המשקל הנכון. הגדולים זה לא רק ההלכה – אלא שיקול הדעת הנכון, להעמיד כל דבר במקום ובמשקל הנכון. זה גדולי ישראל”.

I am not saying there is NO makom leHachmir, but to go out and fully campaign as all that are not Machmir are Oiver on whatever is a total diff story.

Yes and I still hold by my opinion – Extremism is taking over, and that is from BOTH ends.

Another link of Rav Dunners accounts vs the facts, written by Rav Menashe Klein:

http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=13615&st=&pgnum=33

“And then tell me it is a total coincidence that both, rav dunner, and rav karelitz’s shliach came to the same conclusion .”

As I said, NO ONE denies that there are some who think so, and no one is disputing that Rav Dunner heard such talk. The question is if that is the overall official belief or some myth etc, which will make that “sacrifice” as Ayn Avoduso B’kach and thus invalid as Takruvot AZ.

“Vadai the pashtus is like what i wrote that the getchka wants hair, and the burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise”

Wiki is again NO Vadai, Rav Belsky and many others did thorough research at the time and found the facts NOT like Rav Dunner.

At the most we can assume its a Safek and thus apply it to all that are Safek Sheitlach.

Here is another quote from a professional Indian :

““Caitanya Charan[official], Spiritual mentor, author of 1600 articles on Gita & 16 books on Vedic philosophy

Originally Answered: Why do people give their hair when they go to Tirupati Balaji?

We offer our hair to Balaji to express our love for him.

Love is expressed in two ways: by what we give to our beloved and by what we give up for the sake of our beloved. For example, children can show their love for their parents by studying well and giving them a glowing report card. And they can also show their love by giving up playing before exams so as to focus on studies. Similarly, we can express our devotion for God by giving him precious things like jewels and also by giving up for his sake those things that distract us from him.

One prominent distraction is hair. Though we may say that hair is dirty, we consider it dirty only after it is cut off from the head. As long as it is on the head, we consider it a sign of beauty – a part of our hairstyle. We often obsess over it, arranging it, combing it and peeking frequently into a mirror to see if it needs to be re-arranged. Our obsession with hair makes us more infatuated with our body and thereby distracts us from deeper spiritual contemplation.

That’s why the Vedic-wisdom tradition urges us to curb this distraction. In keeping with this guideline, monks shave their heads permanently. The rest of us are recommended to at least shave our head when we go on a pilgrimage. By this, we express our devotion to God by giving up for his sake that which is so dear to us: our beloved hair. For women especially, this is no small sacrifice.

When we shave our head thus at Tirupati, what does Balaji see when the door to his house open? He is not baal-graahi; he is bhaava-graahi (He is eager not for hair, but for devotion). He doesn’t see kale baal, saphed baal, dandruff waale baal (He doesn’t see black hair, white hair, dandruff-infested hair). He sees the sacrifice, the devotion, the faith that is expressed through that hair.

Even a swan can separate milk from water and accept just the milk. God is the supreme hamsa, the paramahamsa. Why can he not separate the devotion from the hair and accept the devotion? If we think he can’t, then that’s probably because we can’t see beyond the dandruffs to the devotion.

Does this ritual make a business out of our faith? Not at all.

Anyone with even introductory knowledge of Indian traditions knows that the tradition of offering hair at a pilgrimage long predates the modern business of mass-producing wigs. Due to the popularity of wigs in today’s world, discarded human hair is in great demand. If the hair that for centuries was just being brushed away as waste can be easily recycled to gain money for opening schools,hospitals and orphanages, then what’s wrong with that? As it is, many modern people are going to spend money on wigs. Why not let that money come to God and through him go to the needy? It is not that the ritual of shaving the hair was createdto make money by selling hair. Such a notion arises from one’s ignorance of history. So the practice of cutting hair is primarily meant to give us an opportunity for expressing our devotion to God by sacrificing something dear for his sake. The money that is made out of the hair is just an incidental byproduct.

ye shraddha ka dhanda nahi hai, ye waste ka dhanda hai. akalmandi ki baat hai. (This does not make a business out of our faith. It makes a business out of waste matter. It is an intelligent thing.)” ”

“If Rashi ate fish in Worms”

The only problem – how do we really know Rash ate fish?

“How does one implement this halacha nowadays? Since you cited this source, ”

Why is this question posed to Joseph, it is a good question that rather does need an explanation. I am not saying it needs to be literally followed nowadays, but you still need to apply it somehow.

And many uphold an acquisition of a car will significantly decrease ones appearance on the very street, and thus contribute to the above.

Joseph – unlike here in the US, winter is not cold and women do not need a car to increase their outdoor expenditures, especially with the excellent and affordable Aged bus service all over the country.

Chacom,

No way can you rely on Wiki anything religious as a representative ! especially if you have no clue of any inside info. Perhaps there are many other sects and this represents only a fraction, or it is only some Myth. Even Rav Belsky agreed there were “some” who ‘offered’ their hair, no one denied it, the issue in concern was IF “Avodoso BeKach” or is it the individuals own interpretation …

Here are quotes from other sites on why they preform the above:

“I do not know the mythological significance & I too gave my hair To The Lord. But I have my own interpretation to this tradition. You would agree if I say hair are the most loved parts of our body & it applies more to women.
When you sacrifice your most dearly thing it shows that you you love God above all the worldly things. Thus it confirms your devotion to the Lord as well as increases your will power.”

“Similarly, tonsuring the head and offering hair at Tirupati Balaji’s temple is done with a special purpose. While offering hair, a devotee casts off all the vices, vanities and sins from his whole being. By doing so, he/she wants to become a complete devout. This is laso done so that, Shri Balaji, who is all benevolent, showers all his love, benevolence, affection and piety over the devotee by fulfilling all his/her desires.”

“Nothing. It is just their belief or opinion of elders or a custom adopted. It is symbolic.
The real mundan is removing false thoughts from the mind. False thoughts or thoughts of the lust, anger, greed, etc, have to be shaved off.”

“nymous
Answered Nov 13, 2014
I had once asked a priest in Tirupati Temple regarding this and he said that hair is a symbolism of power and pride. In olden days, kings used to grow long hair it seems. So when a devotee gets his head shaved for the sake of god, he is renouncing his pride and power.”

“In older days, people followed the tradition of offering hairs in their own houses but now-a-days people visit a place close to Shri Balaji’s temple, known as Kalyan Katta, for a ceremony to donate hair. After the ceremony, devotees take a plunge in the holy river of Pushkarini and visit the temple to offer prayers and to receive Shri Balaji’s blessings. ”

NOTE : the above is an important factor, as it indicates that the originality of the ceremony was not even performed within their houses of worships. Which is a significant factor to determine the above question if is Takrovat AZ or not, as written in all responses at the time..

Just search “Why is it believed to do Mundan (donating Hair) to Lord Tirupati Balaji? What is the story/significance behind it?”

To Be Cont.

I assume he surely knew about its existence. There were many Baalei Tosfos that lived in England. e.g. רבינו יעקב מאורליינש, משה בן רבינו יום טוב מלונדריש רבינו, there is a chibur named תוספות חכמי אנגליה.

According to some, the אבן עזרא is buried in England or at least visited England at some point. If the Ibn Ezra who came from Spain was able to travel to England, I’m sure Rashi who lived in France had at least knowledge…

“And this Psak from the Mechaber plays a direct part for the shittas that rule that women aren’t permitted to drive.”

As per Rav B Zilber, it is the other way around. The above is only another reason for them to indeed drive. As they will not have to walk on the streets and travel by bus or by a male Taxi driver.

The fact of reality is women are on the streets of BB, Jerusalem etc.

Regarding the heter of turning on lights/candles mentioned by the Rema , almost all Achronim prohibit it, but still mentioned that this is what the overall custom was to rely on the עיטור See Noda BeYehuda ch 32 regarding candles on Yom Kippur at נעילה י also see ישועות יעקב סי ש”ז, תשובות כתב סופר 116 .

“recall, he states that the reason to permit them for lights is that since it was customary to ask a non Jew to put on a light for Seudah Shlishis, it is not zilzul Shabbos. ”

Daas,
Correct. The yesod of Rav Moshe is that it has the same status as אמירה לעכו’ם and מעיקר דדינא even candles for Seudah Shlshis should have been asur, but for whatever reason the minhag was to rely on the shitas העיטור regarding candles, see Rema 376:2, therefore regarding lights the minhag is still relevant when using a clock. But anything else we have the issue of Amirah..

“You jump to conclusions. This sefer quotes verbatim what the gedolim have said about wigs.”

Sorry that it has upset you, its not you, its this and many others that have been circulating the same misinformed “verbatim” quotes..

Most of those psakim are either irrelevant today, misrepresented or taken out of context.

As there is – a) no “Maris Ayin” once most Charedim don Pe’ah Nuchris, (see Magen Geborim and MB – quoted earlier) nor is it an issue of ‘Das Yehudis’ (which was an issue at the times these most Teshvos prohibiting were written – almost all charedi women covered their hair) as it is now the custom of almost all.

I will quote once again:

ז”ל בא”ד: וגם גוף הדבר לחוש בפיאה נכרית משום מראית העין לפע”ד – ברבים שנהגו כן – לא שייך מראית עין דלא חשידי וכו’ וכש”כ בזה שכל הנשים נהגו כן האיך אפשר דכלהו יעברו על דת משה ויהודית … וע”כ ישפטו הכל שהוא פאה נכרית.

– מגן גבורים

So to go and quote many Achronim who prohibited it in times where and when it was considered a breach in Tzenius is sort of “מגלה פנים בתורה שלא כהלכה.

Again I have no issue with you or DM and others as you are just merely reading a sefer or book, it is these agenda picking and choosing quotes that these mechabrim decide to quote.

You know what the Rambam writes in the Igros Teman about simple “quoting” ?

Las,

“Natura hair wigs are worse if they look like uncovered hair which can bring to hirhur”

Sources please, as far as we are aware “hirhur” only pertains to what Chazal assered. Chazal prohibited only ones OWN hair as per REMA, M”A, Pri Mgadim, MB and many others.

You can not invent any new gezeros, and if so why are girls uncovered hair permitted?

“Gadol,
If a frum woman from KJ or NS (where driving by women is generally discouraged)”

What do you mean by “discouraged”? Are they against being an official owner/steady driver of a vehicle as a “kevius” and have no issue with non- Kevius (the logic can be, as I think Rav Wosner writes, that the issue is the circumstances that driving can bring to…which is not the case when driving only when really necessary).

In any case, theoretically speaking, it will depend what the Minhag was in the first place. If it is a Tznius issue then I don’t see the diff of being OOT has to with it.