Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I get a Halacha by email each day, and last Friday the a
Halacha was that water fountains are ok on shabbos. I always thought they were assur, and this thread confused me more. I asked them for sources, here they are:
Following is the resources about the halacha of water fountain which we based the halacha, Horav Yisroel Belsky Shlita, see Be’er Moshe 6:58, Rivevos Ephraim 3:248:page 145, 5:534:1, Nishmas Shabbos Electric page 85. (73) Those who permit the opening of a refrigerator even if the motor is off are the Minchas Shlomo 1:10, Shulchan Shlomo 1:277:1, Tzitz Eliezer 8:12, 12:92, Yalkut Yosef Shabbos 5:pages 201-202, Nishmas Shabbos Electric 36 in depth. Rivevos Ephraim 3:590:24, this is the opinion of Horav Moshe Feinstein zt”l quoted in The Shabbos Home 2:page 482 (although in the teshuva he says the opposite). The following poskim maintain opening a refrigerator is not allowed if the motor is off, Edos L’Yisroel pages 122, 151-153, Igros Moshe O.C. 2:68, Mishnas Rav Aron 4, Har Tzvi 1:151, Chelkes Yaakov 1:54, 2:47, 3:179, Shemiras Shabbos K’hilchoso 10:12, Minchas Yitzchok 2:16, 4:64:2, Bris Olom page 78, Oz Nedberu 1:59, 2:36:3, Be’er Moshe kuntres electric 6:4-6, Yaskil Avdi O.C. 5:36, Yabea Omer O.C. 1:21, Shalmei Yehuda page 55:footnote 66 quoting the opinion of Horav Elyashiv Shlita, Kovetz Bais Aron V’Yisroel 87:pages 102-107, see Rivevos Ephraim 3:248 in depth. The Chazzon Ish holds a refrigerator may not be opened on Shabbos if it runs on a thermostat (Chut Shuni Shabbos 1:pages 199-201). Some say one should open a refrigerator with a shinu (Teshuvos V’hanhugos 1:222, see Teshuvos Horav Shteiff 66:page 66). Horav Yisroel Belsky Shlita, see Nishmas Shabbos Electric pages 85-87.
And this was the original email:
Using a Water Cooler/Water Fountain on Shabbos
One may use a water cooler or water fountain (even when it is plugged in) on Shabbos if he is lenient in regard to opening a refrigerator on Shabbos (even if the motor is off). The same would apply to changing the water bottle on top of a water cooler on Shabbos
Oomis: Beautiful!
I can’t that no one mentioned Sam2. Sam2 has an astounding abundance of halachic knowledge, as well as being extremely nice and respectful of other’s opinions. I can only hope to someday live up to that.
Sam2:
So it’s asur to do yoga? When I say yoga I just mean the exercise part without any philosophy.
Sam2:
Unlike a cross, hello kitty is not associated with any religion or cult. Even if that’s what is based on, nobody knows it.
This is how it come out based on my reading of the Wikipedia article:
1) The “Maneki-neko” is a sort of good-luck omen, but is not worshipped itself. At most, it is treated as if it can tell the future and I’m pretty sure that nowadays, the vast minority of people who have it displayed do it just for show (and don’t believe it has any “powers”)
2) There is NO evidence that Hello Kitty is based on this Maneki-neko. The first picture looks somewhat similar to it; that’s because it’s a cat, and Hello Kitty is also a cat.
I’ve actually seen the waving cat thing several times in the windows of (non kosher) Chinese restaurants, and always have seen it golden. That really looks nothing like Hello Kitty.
3) Even if I agree that Maneki-neko is an Avodah Zara and that Hello Kitty is based on it (which I’m not prepared to do), Hello Kitty would only be based on it, not being another version of Maneki-neko.
4) Finally, let’s say Hello Kitty was designed to be an Avodah Zara.
Now, there are a lot of crazy people out there, but I have never heard of anyone ever worshipping Hello Kitty. Does it have the halachic status of Avodah Zara if it was never worshipped as such?
Have a good Shabbos.
From the pop cult magazine website:
Does it relate to any other Japanese cultural icons?
So far as we know, she was invented pure and simple. Her original designer, however, took inspiration from the cats in Through the Looking Glass. Some say she also looks disturbingly like Miffy, a two-dimensional long-earned rabbit that lives on tissue packets and lunch boxes. More broadly, she was designed during an era when animals were all the rage with kids: Snoopy, Mickey, Lassie, unicorns, and giraffes, whatever.
How was it created?
I don’t know where you read that it’s azodah zara, but it certainly doesn’t seem to be
Hello Kitty.
I suppose this is a trick question, because almost anything can be an A.Z. if someone worships it, but inherently, Hello Kitty is not an A.Z.
Mod 42: Do I smell a pun?
Copied from the “scary for kids” website:
According to the legend, Hello Kitty was created back in the 1970s by a Chinese woman. Apparently, her 14-year old daughter was disagnosed with cancer of the mouth. The doctors told the mother that her child was terminally ill and there was nothing they could do for her.
When her daughter recovered from her cancer, the mother kept her promise to the devil. She created Hello Kitty.
The designers created Hello Kitty without a mouth because they wanted make her emotions ambiguous. The blank expression means that you can project your own emotions onto the cartoon. If you are sad, then Hello Kitty looks sad. If you are happy, then Hello Kitty looks happy. Hello Kitty will seem to feel whatever emotion you are feeling.
So, the truth is that Hello Kitty is not associated with satanic rituals or devil worship at all.
I am lost. Would someone care to explain how this works?
I don’t know which concert you are referring to, but I agree that concerts now, even a Capella, are not appropriate.
There is the letter of the law, and there is the spirit of the law.
Mods, don’t you think it’s time to choose this thread? I’d have thought three pages was enough for a simple arithmetic problem. There is nothing to add, and people who still don’t understand should keep looking at the explanatory posts already there.
This is an embarrassment. The answer is 14. Period.
151 IvduEsHashemBsimcha
n.l.n.s.h. :
You are right that anything times zero equals zero.
However,
Since the rule of Pemdas says that you multiply/divide before you add/subtract, the first step is to multiply the last 1 times 0. That equals zero. However, you still have a bunch of other 1s, which you add/subtract.
THE ANSWER WILL NOT BE 0 BECAUSE ONLY ONE 1 IS x0!!!
Copy and paste it into Google. The answer is 14.
Summary of things which people don’t understand about this question:
1) Pemdas applies WHETHER IT’S WRITTEN OR NOT!
2) In Pemdas, add/subtract is one group and multiply/divide is one group. Within a group, you do whatever one comes first, left to right.
3) There are no parentheses in this problem. Therefore, the 0 only works on one of the 1s (and the answer is not 0).
4) There is a “-1” hidden in there, which many mistook for a “+1”, leading to the false answer of 16.
5) If you plug it in number-by-number on a calculator (ex: 1+1=? +1=? +1=? , etc.), of course you won’t get 14, because the calculator can’t retroactively multiply the 0 and 1 before everything else. If, however, you put the whole problem into a graphing calculator, or even Google it, you will get 14.
All of these things have been mentioned before on this thread. There is NO correct answer other than 14.
PBA:
In that case, wouldn’t you only make one Bracha after?
Signed.