Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I am no halachik decisor, and my opinion is just that. There is an old halachik issue about if (old-style) conservative gerus works. Rav Moshe Feinstein considered the conversion valid, others disagreed.
So we are down to a halachik question that is still open, to the best of my knowledge. Why run with one side of the issue when a simple five minute gerus will put an end to all speculation??
Perhaps assur and muttar depend on the perception that people have; something known to be dangerous is forbidden and something considered harmless is permitted. So if marijuana becomes acceptable it becomes muttar. No different than eating shmaltzy food or living in NYC, which may be subjectively dangerous yet not forbiden.
I think I have just the girl for you! (If you are female; the boy).
Honestly however, this question can be solved with a quick call to a matchmaker. They will give you the odds in fifty seconds.
Nate, your thinking about Moshe
It would be a pure pain in the neck to have charedi women MPs: Women charedim have pretty similar goals to men ones. So there isn’t any specific representation needed here. However it would be truly awkward honoring them at events, for them to be in private political meetings with jewish leaders, for them to speak at rallies and so on. So its not useful and only complicates matters.
So why have them – to make a point??
Non Israelis talking here, friends. Those were not chilonim (with the exception of Mr Lapid). They would be mortified to hear themselves described as chilonim. Many daaven three times a day (some with a minyan!) and strictly keep shabbos. They have a learning seder too.
They just don’t wear a kippah. We call them Mesorati’im
???? ????? ????? ???? ??”?
“??? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ??”?, ????, ???? ??? ??? ???? ????? ?? ????, ?? ????? ????? ??????? ?????
???????? ?? ??? ????? ??????? ??????, ?? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ?????, ?????? ????? ??? ?? ??? ???? [???? ????? ??? ????? ??? ?? ??? ?????, ??? ????? ??????? ???? ??”? ????? ???? ??? ???, ?????? ????? ??”?, ?????? ??”?, ????”? ???? ??”?, ??? ????? ?? ??? ??? ????? ??? ?????. ??? ????? ??? ???? ??
???? ??? ??? ??? ???????? ???, ?????, ??????, ???”? ??? ?? ??? ???. ???, ?????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????? ???, ??? ?????? ?????, ????, ????? ??????? ????”? ????? ??? ?????, ??? ????? ??? ??? ?? ??? ????????, ?? ?? ?????].
?????? ????? ???? ?????? ??????, ??? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ????”? ???? ??”? ??”? ???”? ???”? ???”? ??? ??? ?? ?? ????, ?????? ????? ?????? ???”? ???”? ????? ?”? ????? ?”? ?”?, ???’, ?? ????? ??”?, ?????? ????”? ?”? ????? ?????? ???? ?????, ???? ???? ???? ???? ????, ????? ???? ???? ???? ??????, ?”? ??? ???? ???? ?????, ??????? ?????? ????, ????? ?? ?? ?????, ?”? ?????? ????? ?”? ?????, ??? ??? ??? ???? ??????? ??????? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ?????, ???????? ??????? ??? ??? ????? ??????, ?????”? ?”? ??? ?? ?????? ????? ?”?, ??”?, ????? ????? ????????? ??????? ????? ?? ???????, ?????? ???? ???’, ??? ?? ?????? ???, ??”? ??? ???, ??????? ??? ??? ????, ??? ?????? ?????? ???? ????, ???? ???? ?? ???? ????? ????? ?? ??? ?”?, ????? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? ????? ?? ????, ??? ??? ???? ???? ????? ???????, ????? ????? ???? ????, ?????? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ??? ????”.
??????? ???? ??”?: ???? ???? ?????? ??? – ???? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ?? ????? ?? [???? ????? ?????? ?”? ?”? ???? ??? ????”? ??? ???? ???? ?”? ???? ????] ????”? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ????? ?? ??? ????”? ??”? ?????? ?????? ??????? ??? ??? ??? ???? ???’ ??”? ????? ?? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ????? ????? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ?????? ?????.
I happened to see the original in the Tanchuma today – the idea is totally different: sukkos is the finish to Yom Kippur, for on Yom Kippur Hashem forgives us but we are not yet friends. That happens on Sukkos.
Then forgiveness is complete. Hashem says ‘Ok, its a new account from now on’
So its not discussing the sins of the interim, rather that Sukkos marks the end of the atonement cycle.
What of the interim sins? Could be that they count towards the new account. Its not the subject at all.
I understand that the Midrash Rabbah has it a bit differently, that we are too busy to sin. In that case the other ideas expressed here hold.
Or, to couch your question in other terms, is it like you have a p’tur that you choose not to use, (say its not suitable for a person of your stature to return such an object, yet you do so anyhow) where it seems likely there is a mitzvah, or is it that less than a pruta is worthless junk, and there would be no mitzvah.
Perhaps the sugya that suggests that a aveda that was a pruta at finding – even if it subsequently became worth less – is still required to be returned, would be a starting point.
As Halevi said so well, although no one is denied opportunity for sin should they so desire, the days between yom Kippur and Sukkos are often on a spiritual high, devoted to mitzvos. One starts to sin – serious sin (not lashon harah) – on Sukkos.
I stand with coffeeaddict: find someone who has navigated the flames and ask them how they did so. That seems the smartest thing to do.
Rabbenu Bachya in Kad Hakemach (‘Simcha’) argues that it is usually good to not be b’simcha. In fact, simcha is only mentioned in the Torah in connection to serving Hashem.
Having said that, perhaps the saying can be understood in that sense: as depression leads to sin, it is righteous to always be in a positive frame of mind, so that one will be safe. I would need to see the source to determine if Rabbi Nachman meant more than that, namely that one should be dancing in the streets at all times.
The source is Rashi Shabbos 81b
The Ramchal writes in Mesilas Yesharim that when a person sins he drags down the spiritual level of the entire world. (perek 1)
I bring seforim along. Last year I read Rav Saadya Geon’s Emunos Vdeos on Tshuvah – it sounds like it would be heavy reading but No, it was fascinating. Its not much – he is very sparing of words, but thats the beauty – you read a thought, then turn it over in your mind as the Chazzan sings and everyone is happy.
Some other candidates are the Rambam on Tshuva, the Beis Hashem of the Mabit on tshuva and so on.
I saw a video today and Rav Elyashiv does cross his fingers (the famous video about the shaitels) and I heard from a talmid of Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurbach that he was accustomed to do so too. Is seems they felt the issue was only during tfilla.
This will make me unpopular for sure, but it seems to me that if the woman is unjustified in asking for a Get, then she is the aggressor and the husband is under no obligation whatsoever to grant her one.
The fact that she is completely determined and committed to ruin the marriage is worthless. She is inflicting harm and that can obligate no one.
If the kids get ruined thereby, it is she who has ruined them. Not him.
(I do fully understand that the husbands best interest is not to have his kids ruined, so he would grant the Get instead. I discuss only who is at fault.)
Again, marriage is no prison. If she cannot hack it, she is entitled to leave. But only if she must. If she wants a divorce because she thinks she can do better or for variety’s sake, she is doing wrong.
She is entitled to petch, lots of them.
Sam2: I suggest that marriage is not a prison. It needs compatibility. Sometimes people make a mistake and marry the wrong person. They are justified in asking for a get, although it is likely they will be at a legal disadvantage, much as someone breaking a business partnership with an ogre may be justified morally but at a legal disadvantage.
However often one side just wants out. I sat in at a meeting with a psychologist where a marriage was under discussion and the therapist thought they needed to work things out. The wife said ‘No’ – she just wanted out. Is that justified??
After the two sides invested time, money and heart into getting married, I think there needs to be justification to break someone else’s (i.e. your spouse’s) marriage.
You write: “Forcing someone to remain in a marriage they don’t want to be in is straight-up evil, no matter what your reason.” Why would that be????
I appreciate the sentiments offered here. I agree that once secular divorce has been granted, it is pointless to withhold a get and it is the high-road to give one.
However it really is similar to the partner analogy: one partner is a bum and refuses to honor his commitment. The other partner perhaps realizes that it is what it is and will agree to take the high-road and agree to dissolve the partnership. But he is hardly OBLIGATED!
So too here. A man or woman wishes to dissolve their partnership, causing harm to the other. The fact that they are resolute in doing the wrong thing and asking for an unjustified divorce does not entitle them in any way. On the contrary, it makes them more wrong.
What ought one to do? Sometimes it may be proper to hold the woman to her obligation and demand that she continue the marriage. One case that might be is when she will cause harm to their children as well. At other times the mentchliche thing would be to concede the battle, even if she is in the wrong.
All this applies to the man too, by the way.
My experience is limited. However a woman wishing to dissolve a marriage – which presumably her husband invested time, money and heart in – needs to justify herself. On what grounds does she want out?
If she cannot justify divorcing, then he has every right to deny a get. She is trying to do an injustice, to harm another. No one has an innate right to a get.
However, he needs to be realistic. If its not gonna be, its not gonna be. Just or unjust, if she tunes out, there will be no marriage. Its over. So I think it would be right that he humor her and divorce her, because he anyhow has no hope for a marriage here.
(Perhaps I’m wrong but marriage seems analogous to partnering in a business. Would one partner tolerate the other to just walk out and destroy the business in the process???)
I have read that the Yekkishe tradition is to give two names, one Hebrew and the other secular. Sometimes they had two people to name after, and they would name after one the Hebrew name and the other the secular one. Otherwise they would try and get secular approximation of the Hebrew name. When the name was ‘Shlomo’, they would call the son Solomon, Salman or Zalman. So the name was written as Shlomo-Zalman, which was really Shlomo/Zalman – either-or. One Hebrew and one secular.
I seem to recall that the Chazon Ish was based on the shach that we eat only sheep goats and cows (- not the Rama). Of course, a Zebu might be a cow. A buffalo is a bit harder to consider a cow, probably. Its physical appearance is very different.
I don’t understand Rabbi Brody’s words exactly as you do. I think he is saying that positive energy and tfillah plus emunah can work things you cannot imagine. You would never believe how effective they are. To emphasize his point he said that people taking medication could do without it. OK.
But he is not saying that there aren’t people who need medicine. He is talking in general, heroic terms.
the medrash and other places in chazal indicate that it means a place literally
I know someone good in Israel (kiryat sefer) that both digitizes it and works on the sound quality. Mods – how do we give specifics?
I assume you tried calling their phone number?
If its an android then use applock – its free and you choose which apps to block (browser, email etc.)
No such gemarah. Its only bes din that has a din of kofin oso ad sheomer rotzeh ani.
WolfishMusings I think your corrections are unwarranted. Someone who views Hashem as an infinite Wisdom indeed would capitalize His Name, but someone who presumes to ‘judge’ him (sort of like a cockaroach trying to figure out what that big human is doing on a computer) would not capitalize His Name.
Sad…
Lakewood001 There is a world of difference between figuring out cause and effect on our own and applying the Torah’s warning to a given situation. Rabbi Miller was doing the latter: the tochacha talks about what will happen when we sin, and he was saying that this is what happened. Talk about children suffering is irrelevant, because the tochacha says that exactly that will happen. You can complain about the pasuk, but there is not much to say.
There is a product out there called ‘bite it’ you might want to try
I think its bunk. Ask a talmid chacham
maybe because its not prayer – just a legal ceremony. Just as there is no mechitza at a levaya
That types probably retaliates and backstabs too. You really have my sympathies!
1. How will this play out: where are the thousands to demonstrate against the “rampant abuse”? Who will they demonstrate against?
2. I live among the charedi world and have heard loads of underworld stories. Abuse is very rare, thankfully. (Here it comes, sigh..)
3. Is abuse a political challenge, as a supreme court ruling is?
4. Is abuse an undefended crime, as is disgracing the Kosel? I would think that abused people have recourse to the courts, who would prosecute with glee…
call them directly. There shouldn’t be a problem, but they will know. Or call NBN
I know many who divorced, I’m not sure it will be a compliment to them, so I will not give a detailed list, but there are a crowd. And some of the biggest too.
I don’t see any great difference between someone once married and someone who was never married. Point is that they are not married now.
I one heard from an Adon Gadol that the Zohar states that not every single person was born with a zivug. I went back and asked him for the exact source and he told me that he does not remember the place. At any rate, I have heard such a zohar.
Think of the bachelors we had in klal yisroel: Rabbi Yaakov Weinberg, the Sridei Esh, the alter mirrers, and most gedolim were either divorced or widowed for a significant part of their life and so on.
BTW, he is not alone. He daavens in a shul with a hundred other guys and is good friends with them. The shul has a gabbai and could be even a rav, but the rav does not lead the community and one is part of the community without ascribing to the rav. Actually its the norm, unfortunately.
I’d like to join too
Hakatan: the gemara he quoted was that one needs not thank the Romans who built things for their own sake. That has little to do with someone who is protecting you, but its his mandate or job. Agree?
1. I would ask the letter writer if he locks his doors at night. I would ask him if he feels fear walking alone in East Jerusalem. If he can say he doesn’t, good for him. For you and I, though, we take precaution for our safety. (Our behavior proves that we do not consider our learning sufficient to protect us)
And when someone does the job for us, we are most grateful.
2. I think that someone whose job is to help you is considered helping you although he is doing his job. I suppose he finds it meaningful as well, not doing it by rote, just because he as to.
3. And if the Medina is a positive or negative development is a question for history. Today klal Yisroel is there and need protecting.
Rabbi Of Berlin: May I wish you a wonderful Shabbos? I guess we will agree to disagree. I think we laid out our arguments, no need to rehash them.
The Taz is at Yore Deah 251:6
Enjoy!
RabbiOfBerlin:
1. I guess we agree the sugya in Sotah says that one should not stop a mitzvah for the sake of war. You propose that is only preventive war, if I understand you correctly. So the Sugya there is either irrelevant to our case (you consider Israel to be under actual atack. I guess we disagree about that. I think that today, 7-18-2013, we are not under actual attack.) or says that it is not considered a mitzvah.
2. The discussion is if one is already fighting: is that osek bmitzvah. On the other hand, if one is not fighting yet, but is involved in other mitzvos, osek bmitzvah would free them (in the case of Talmud Torah – only if it can be done through others)
I made this point before but I am repeating it because I sense it was not understood, certainly not addressed.
3. The Taz (if I recall correctly) writes that someone who stops learning because of a bona fide pikuach nefesh that was not efshar laasos al ydei acherim is doing what the halacha requires, yet is getting the raw deal: it would have been far better for him to have continued learning.
trofin: The Torah is mum on the subject (with the exception of Canaan) and it might depend on the ability of the slave and the disposition of the owner. IDK.
My point was that the Torah is discussing ownership legalities, not making recommendations.
Rabbi Of Berlin: may I suggest a careful reading of that sugya? 1. We rule AGAINST Rabbi Yehuda: a war to protect Jews is NOT a mitzvah (with regard to osek bmitzvah) and 2. Rashi and the Rambam (perush hamishna) indicate that the only function that it being a mitzvah would have is that if one already was waging war, he would be free from OTHER mitzvos. NOT that one should stop what mitvah he is doing and wage war. On the contrary, osek bmitzvah would free him from waging war.
(see Tos. Yomtov ibid.)
Rabbi Of Berlin: I just looked it up: Osek bmitzvah does apply to milchemes mitzvah too. The Mishna discusses a machlokes if a war of defense constitutes a mitzvah or not with regard to the war being considered a mitzvah that would patur other mitzvos (Rambam) and in any case the Halacha clearly is against Rabbi Yehuda, i.e. a war of defense is not considered a mitzvah with regard to this.
So the original statement is true: Osek b’mitzvah patur min hamitzvah.
Rabbi OF Berlin: Chapter and verse please. As far as I know this is no different than any other mitzvah. (I know of a gemarah that talks about if the ptur of a new chassan or vinyard planter or house builder applies; indeed that one does not. But that has no bearing on osek b’mitzvah.) Do you refer to Sotah 42?
Rational Frummie: I think it is absolutely true that someone in the army is fulfilling pikuach nefesh. At the same time if one can learn and leave pikuah nefesh to others, that is what shulchan aruch requires. And the army has enough soldiers.
This is not the point of what is going on in Israel, as I’m sure you are well aware.
So did I RebDoniel, but you came out and said it. Thanks for inspiring us and providing a positive example!