KovodHabriyos

The Chazon Ish married his wife knowing she couldn’t have children.

I don’t want to take chances against R’ Moshe and R’ Elyashiv Zt’l.

Even if we are to assume that is a faithful understanding of their position, one isn’t “taking chances” if they are following another shitta. Much as you aren’t taking a chance of chillul Shabbos when you set your air conditioner to go on during Shabbos, not in accordance with Rav Moshe’s psak but following others.

How might a 2014 model make it easier to get from Point A to Point B than a 2013 model?

When a certain percent of the non-religious Israelis are forced to learn Torah full-time in Yeshiva in order to protect Klal Yisroel, we will entertain the notion of forcing that same percentage of those in Yeshiva to become full-time soldiers in the Army.

Yes, the kovod yidden give to our rabbonim knows no limits.

Besides, I never saw you post complaints about all the CEO’s flying — actually owning — private jets. Why is your quarrel only against rabbonim?

You’re not being asked to donate. If they decide to do this (which I highly doubt — that was an unsourced sensationalist article that likely has little bearing to the truth) it will be paid for gvirim who volunteer to cover the cost specifically for this purpose. Don’t you defend rich folks rights to purchase mansions and Lexuses? So why are you so against a rich guy buying this for his Rov?

An hour of Torah study, for sure.

Not even a difficult question.

A very small percentage of Israelis between the ages of 18 and 24 are in Yeshiva. The small percentage of Israelis of such age in Yeshiva are already doing more than their fair share. We need to INCREASE the number of Jews in Yeshiva. We ought to draft, say, 20% of 18 – 24 year old chilonim into Yeshivas. Currently only Frum Jews are doing their national duty to protect our people by learning Torah. It is high time that the chilonim start to do their fair share. It is time at least a small percentage of chilonim, say 20%, are drafted into Limid Torah to protect Klal Yisroel.

DY: Why would they not be Jewish? Or why should they be any different than the Jewish status of Reform Jews (who do not descend from reform converts.)

Genuflection (or genuflexion), bending at least one knee to the ground, a gesture of deep respect for a superior. Lay people or clergy of lesser rank genuflect to a prelate and kiss his episcopal ring, as a sign of acceptance of the bishop’s apostolic authority as representing Christ in the local church.

Genuflecting before the bishop of the diocese to which one belongs was treated as obligatory in editions of the Caeremoniale Episcoporum earlier than that of 1985.

In the same period, the clergy genuflected when passing before the bishop of the diocese when he presides at a liturgical ceremony. But the officiating priest, as also all prelates, canons, etc., were dispensed, and substituted a bow of the head and shoulders for the genuflection.

Genuflection to the Blessed Sacrament, especially when arriving or leaving its presence, is a practice in the Anglican Communion, the Latin Rite Catholic Church, and the Lutheran Church.

(Wikipedia)

The reason telling a person directly may be muttar is because it is l’toeles. Posting it on the Internet, on the other hand, and it certainly will be seen by people who it isn’t toeles to let know. Thus the issur of L”H remains.

Similar, in a way, by shidduchim where you are allowed to tell someone information l’toeles ONLY if you know he will not spread the information. Otherwise you cannot tell him, even if it is legitimately l’toeles for him, if he will then tell others who it isn’t relevant to.

Since when do therapists get invited to or come to family simchas? (Assuming the relationship is only as a therapist.) Unless you mean she was invited to do an evaluation on your son at the wedding. In which case why on earth would you think you need to invite the therapists spouse?

I hereby retract my first comments above supporting CIO. I was mistaking the situation of a toddler crying his way into his parents bedroom, rather than the actual situation of the OP with an infant. With an infant CIO is not a correct approach. But a toddler trying to cry his way into his parents (ie locked) bedroom or bed should be let to cry it out until he understands he cannot go into his parents bedroom or bed.

But you have to be consistent about letting him CIO. If you sometimes give in to him, you are teaching him crying works. If you consistently let him cio, he”ll eventually understand and realize crying doesnt work.

Why don’t YOU buy some smoke detectors for the dorm. They’re pretty darn cheap.

Person #3 is an idiot. (And Person #2 is good.)

What if the ponim chodesh is Rav Chaim Kanievsky shlit”a, who the choson and kallah never met before. Is that me’akev?

What if the ponim chodesh is a family friend of the Kallah, but the Chosson never met him before?

Does the ponim chodesh have to be male?

Why should a Disney parade with Kol Isha NOT be assur. Of course it would be assur.

The Gedolim in the days of the Shulchan Aruch and shortly thereafter have agreed to accept the psakim of the mechaber and the Rema as authoritative. The Shach writes that one cannot even claim “kim li” against a psak of the Shulchan Aruch. This is akin to accepting someone as your “Rebbi”, where you follow his psakim. This is the same thing that happened when, let’s say, Klal Yisroel decided that the period of Chazal has ended after the 7th generraiton of Amorayim (Mar Zutra, Mar bar Rav Ashi, etc), and nobody from here on in can add to the Gemora. There was no “halachah lmoshe misinai” that told us that the Gemora was sealed; it was the accepted reality told to us by our Gedolim. The same thing applies to accepting the Shulchan Aruch and Rema.

The Gemara will often attempt to disprove the statement of an Amora from a Mishnah, Beraisa, or Tosefta. If no other Tana is known to share the opinion of the Amora, the Gemara will either explain the statement of either the Tana or Amora in such a way that they are not contradictory, or it will conclude that the opinion of the Amora has been disproved.

One of the rules upon which Talmudic discussion is based is that the words of the amora’im must always be in agreement with the teachings of the tanna’im. Thus, one of the most common questions found in the Gemara is “meisivei” – which brings a tanna’itic source like a Mishnah, baraisa or tosefta that seems to contradict the words of the amora. In his defense, the amora will have to explain how the statement of the tanna can be understood as being in agreement with his own, or else show that there is another tanna with whom the amora agrees. If the amora cannot reconcile his statement with the teaching of the tanna’im, the Gemara will conclude “teyuvta” – the statement is disproved.

The Mechaber in Kesef Mishna, Hilchos Mamrim 2:1 writes: Amorim can’t dispute Tannaim, and later generations can’t dispute Amorim because the Amorim accepted the authority of the Tannaim, and the later generations accepted the authority of the Tannaim. The Chazon Ish says that such acceptance is an acknowledgement that the earlier generations are more correct since they are wiser and closer to Sinai. (Chazon Ish, Letters 2:24) And the Maharal (Beer Hagolah 6) says that the Amoraim recognized their inferior state in relationship to the Tannaim and therefore didn’t argue with them.

In Choshen Mishpat, siman 25, there is a lengthy discussion concerning to’eh bid’var mishna. While the general thrust of the halacha concerns dayanim and situations where their piskey din can be overturned, it does shed light on our issue as well, since the assumption about a d’var mishna is that it is something than we (at whatever generation the reader find himself) may not argue against.

Mishna and gemara are accepted by all to be d’var mishna – meaning explicit piskey din in these texts ( dinim hamefurashim ). The Mechaber adds divrey haposkim. The Nos’ey Keylim have differing views as to what constitutes “haposkim”. The Mechaber, for obvious reasons, did not include himself; however, later authorities do include him. For B’ney Ashkenaz, the Rama is included. Later authorities add the Shach and S’ma.

What we see from all of this, and the nos’ey keylim as well, is that there are many areas where we do not accept disagreement, and if someone does disagree, that position is rejected.

However, we also see, that in areas where there is no clear consensus, one has latitude to disagree.

One last point: There is a discussion in the Rama about an unresolved machlokes and how to decide. Rama says that one may not choose to follow the “katan” against the “gadol”, rather follow the one who is “gadol b’chochma u-b’minyan”, with minyan defined as the one who has the most followers ( see S’ma 18 ).

And of course do not forget what Rav Zera says in the name of Rava bar Zimona in Shabbos 112b.

There is nothing rediculous about the degree of specificity. The Gemorah in Sanhedrin says that if Jews wear a specific color shoelace (!!) we should not deviate from it.

Now that is specificity.