Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Thanks WIY! Good ideas, I’ll definitely mention them at our next board meeting.
Not a great diyuk, but Rashi (9:33) says ??? ???? ???? ????? ?? ????? ????. He could have said ???? ??? ?????.
Facebook probably has more members.
They say that Rashi’s daughters wore tefillin. You think he gave them Rabbeinu Tam tefillin? “Here, put these on.”
Sam2 – That’s what I’d always thought, but I Googled around and I saw conflicting reports. Some say ten, some say eleven. I think one was in Italy in the 1500’s, and one was in England (?) in the 1700’s.
I heard about that minhag too, but it doesn’t explain everyone else.
oomis – I’m sensing sarcasm? Or do you actually not know what Wikipedia is?
If the Christian beliefs do indeed bring about a p’gam, as it were, into our Torah, why does it go by the solar calendar? I don’t know if anything besides for V’sain Tal Umatar goes by the solar calendar.
Even if it goes by the solar calendar because the people who initiated it used that calendar, what about the ten days which the Gregorian calendar skipped in 1582? Shouldn’t Nittel Nacht be before January 4th then?
oomis – Look at Language Deprivation Experiments on Wikipedia.
oomis – Very well said. The same could be said about not eating gebrochts.
I don’t see how a Chassidish custom can circumvent the obligation everyone has to learn Torah every day and night (as the Rambam says in Talmud Torah 1:8). Even on Tisha Bav we are required to learn Churban-related material.
oomis – I agree with you. Can we also stop having “lists” of boys/girls? People are not inventory items.
twisted and oomis – Rashi to Bereishis 2:23 says (on Adam calling his wife “Isha”) ???? ???? ??? ?? ???? ???’: ???? ???? ?? ????, ???? ????? ????? ????? ????
This was Adam speaking, as it was again in 3:20, when he names her Chava. Rashi says there ???: ???? ?? ???? ???, ????? ?? ???????, which would also seemingly only work in Lashon Hakodesh. Maybe Adam spoke Lashon Hakodesh? Definitely seems like that.
Does anyone have the lyrics to the old Lubavitcher niggun, Oy oy oy?
The Gemara in Megilla says Mordechai is hinted to in the Targum by the ketores to mor d’ror, which is mari dachya.
Ha! Yes. And a former working boy myself.
Working boys don’t deserve to get married.
So you’d rather have a shadchan give you false hopes of a prospect than to wait to call you until they have something?
gavra_at_work – I know, I know the Rambam. He just doesn’t ASK the question there, as he does in Teshuvah.
This is a pointless thread, because when you know the answers you aren’t supposed to post them, and when you don’t know the answers you have nothing useful to say.
I don’t think the Motty/Mordechai issue is relevant. Motty is not a Yiddish name; no one ever named their kid Motty at his bris, and Motty doesn’t mean anything in Yiddish. The word Mordechai, when pronounced with a heavy Yiddish accent, became Mudche, which evolved into Mottel and (the more American) Motty.
Yiddish names do have halachic ramifications, as many others have mentioned. The Kitzur wrote ???? ?? on the topic of names in Gittin, and he discusses Yiddish names in there too, IIRC. Many other Acharonim include Yiddish names in their Gittin analyses as well.
golfer – Regarding the Kaminetsky girl with the name Ettil, why don’t you ask them? I honestly don’t know enough (any) Kaminetsky girls, but maybe it’s a boys-only policy?
Sam2 – I know someone named Yedidyah and he’s not embarrassed of his name at all! His English name is Justin: We used to joke, “Yedidyah homework Justin time!”
Also, there aren’t that many “embarrassing” names in Lashon Hakodesh. I would say that most of the names with stigmas are Yiddish.
gavra_at_work – IIRC he doesn’t specifically address this question there. I also found it harder to understand. Either way, the Rambam in Teshuvah mentions that one.
It won’t get worse for you. You’ll just have more friends/babies.
On second thought..
I will say with a clear conscience that if I had the choice between naming my child after an ancestor with an embarrassing name or angering my wife’s family (my family wouldn’t get angry), I still wouldn’t name my child after the ancestor. Giving a child an embarrassing name can literally kill the child’s self-esteem for the rest of their life.
Even burying “silly” names behind a cavalcade of “normal” names is hurtful. There are many occasions where a child (or adult) will have to state their complete name, and will have to hurriedly mumble that last embarrassing bit.
The Kaminetsky family, by the way, uses one name per child, and always Biblical.
DaasShnayim: I understood the Rambam the sameway you did. He begins by saying that the answer is longer than measurable land and vaster than the sea, so he obviously never intended for the reader to think that he was attempting to answer the question fully. Additionally, he says that the answer hinges on understanding how the Ribono Shel Olam’s daas works, which he then says is incomprehensible to us humans. So he clearly was simply writing enough on the subject to give the reader an idea of what the general concept of the answer is.
The Raavad was arguing with the Rambam’s approach, as he believed that one should not bring up a question unless a complete answer is given (Hence ??? ??? ???????).
I don’t think it’s fair to say that it’s “yaduah” that the Raavad misunderstood the Rambam. As a Rishon who wrote a pirush on the Rambam, he probably understood it better than anyone else of his generation, kal vachomer anyone of our generation.
The fact that the Rambam explained it more in Moreh Nevuchim does not negate the Raavad’s problem with the Rambam: namely, that he felt the Rambam’s explanation did not sufficiently answer the question, and therefore the Rambam should not have brought it up at all.
The Raavad says “v’chol zeh einenu shoveh li” about his own pshat too; so his problem is not with the Rambam’s terutz per se, rather that since this question is so hard to answer (and admittedly they do have different approaches), the Rambam should not have brought it up, and the Raavad only wrote his own approach because the Rambam brought up the subject.
DaasYochid and Sam2, I said to look at the Rambam AND the Raavad, precisely because I knew the Rambam alone would be hard to understand.
Personally the Raavad does make some sense to me; he separates the Ribono Shel Olam’s da’as from his control. In other words (I think): It’s not that since God knows what will happen THEREFORE it happens, rather it will happen because we decide to make it happen, and God knows what that is. A little better.
Sam2 – If you think that the Raavad misunderstood the Rambam, chas veshalom, why would you suggest asking someone to explain it? Surely no one in this generation is on the level of the Raavad.
I’ve heard both versions. The one I posted is the way it was written by him in Some Remarks on Humor, in the introduction.
The original quote, from E. B. White: “Humor can be dissected, as a frog can, but the thing dies in the process and the innards are discouraging to any but the pure scientific mind.”
Look at the Rambam at the end of the 5th perek of Hilchos Teshuvah, and the Raavad there.
jbaldy22 – True, the music must be specifically for a”z. The Sha’arei Teshuvah (?) points that out too.
The Mishneh Berurah’s conditions for kol isha are exactly as I recorded them, if I’m not mistaken. Go take a look in 75:17.
jbaldy22 – You’re 100% right! I must have assumed that that was the reason when I originally learned it, and in my head I remembered the MB saying it. Interestingly, I just looked at it again; the Rema uses the word “miranen”, which seems like it’s only a problem if he sings; merely listening to them is not a problem.
I believe I did make note of the fact that this was referring only to religious songs, as you said.
WIY – I never meant to use this as a mekor to listen to non-Jewish music; I was merely noting that the MB does not add on (as he often does in similar situations) that either way it is assur.
For a discussion on kol isha, see the Mishneh Berurah (75:17) where he initially states that kol isha of a p’nuyah (single girl) is muttar. He then modifies that to exclude Jewish girls (because of chezkas niddah) and non-Jewish girls (because of ervah). So only a Jewish single girl who is tahor would be permissible, and even then only without any thoughts of arayos. Basically, kol isha is assur.
Personally, I do believe the theory that music goes into your soul (maybe a devarim shebileiv-esque theory), and some of the best musicians were some of the most messed-up. (Think Freddie Mercury, Michael Jackson)
Someone who listens to non-Jewish music is not allowed to be a (permanent) Shliach Tzibur. The Mishneh Berurah comments that this is referring to religious songs from churches and other religions, and the problem is that he may mix them in to his nusach.
It’s interesting that the MB does not say that anyway one should not listen to non-Jewish music; he implies that this is the only concern.
Maybe Sean Penn could play Ostreicher in the movie.
streekgeek, great story. I guess someone has to say it: You really synced your iPod.
HaLeiVi and popa_bar_abba –
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/three-made-up-words#post-489470
No, I am a big proponent of the death penalty, as is the Torah.
Feelings aside, you’re still halachicaly incorrect. I’m not trying to be politically correct; I’m trying to be halachically correct.
As I stated before, having killed in the past (whether serially or not) does NOT give someone the status of a rodef. You must be sure that he is in the act of killing/preparing to kill someone before he is considered a rodef.
Also, you’re saying that any time a serial killer walks towards someone, they plan on killing them. That is preposterous.
As a side note, Jeffrey Dahmer, perhaps the most infamous serial killer in the past 100 years had large gaps in his killings. He attempted a murder when he was about 16, in 1976. His first murder was in 1978, and then he didn’t kill again until 1987.
streekgeek – No, I was pointing out that women’s decision-making abilities are more inspired by chachmah and binah than da’as. And da’as is what the Torah shapes. Therefore, it is understandable that a woman would make decisions based more on intuition and less on the Torah.
You’re backtracking a bit, but not enough. You originally said, “Of COURSE he is a rodeif. He already killed several people.“
This is simply not true. Having committed murder in the past does not give one the status of a rodef, and no one is allowed to kill a murderer.
The reason a baby may be considered a rodef is because it is currently, definitely endangering the mother’s life. Assuming that someone wants to kill you just because they’ve killed in the past is also incorrect.
mobico – So why do you find differences in davening, where there are no Ta’amim?
oomis – I believe you got it backwards. Think “Vayoled ben”.
streekgeek The fact is my conscience is in no way shaped by Torah and Halacha.
I really don’t want to dig up this old thread, but
miritchka – Yes, when it’s spelled ???. Without the ?, it means “son of”.
Authoritative.
Click my name and look at the URL.
Also, every poritz and galach is really a Jew who the Czar drafted into the army when they were a little boy.
I’ve never seen any of the phenomena you describe as being from Chutz La’aretz. I’ve always seen the kohanim taking their shoes off in the BM, and I’ve always seen them putting them right back on.
As far as plastic bags, the Mishneh Berurah does say that socks need not be taken off, so that might also apply to plastic bags. On the other hand, things that attract the eye’s attention to the feet or hands may not be worn (because they cause hesech hada’as on the part of the kehilla), so plastic bags might fall under that category.