Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Avram,
1.”Questioning the intelligence or honesty of the audience, however, is counterproductive.”
Chas v’shalom, I have the highest respect for DY’s intelligence and honesty. That was my point. I really do think that if he reads my posts carefully, he will see that I did not write the things he is accusing me of writing.
2. “If someone who I believe is highly intelligent misunderstands something I wrote and also states that he read it carefully..”
He hadn’t said that at the point that the comment being referred to had been made (about “overstepping boundaries”). He also didn’t say that later on, as you would see if you read his posts carefully. He said that he had read them, not that he had read them carefully. But at the point in question, he hadn’t even said that he had read them. (post 1389862, which is the post that I was defending).
3. It is not an accusation of dishonesty to say that someone did not read what I wrote carefully as seen by their response. It happens very frequently (especially in the CR) that someone posts something that shows that they haven’t read all the posts in the thread carefully. I’m sure that I have done it myself, and I’m sure that you have as well.
4. You seem to be missing the context of the statements that you are attacking. DY had said this: ” I think you are overstepping your boundaries by giving halachic advice where you think you are able to assess a poster’s emotional state. And yes, it’s halachic advice, because the cholov stam issue is not nearly as simple as you make it out to be.”
In that statement, he falsely accused me of saying something that I hadn’t said, and in so doing “overstepping my boundaries.” I thought that his falsely accusing me in this way was “overstepping his boundaries”. I was very offended by that comment, and I do not see anything wrong with telling someone who offends you by falsely accusing you of “overstepping your boundaries” that he is “overstepping his boundaries” by doing so. In fact, I think that was a very polite way to respond to a very offensive comment.
The posts you are attacking were my defending my right to do so, after I was attacked for doing so.
5. “Questioning the intelligence or honesty of the audience, however, is counterproductive.”
Which is precisely what DY is doing to me when he keeps accusing me of saying something that I didn’t, and that I keep saying that I didn’t.
I agree with you 100% that it is important to make sure that what I wrote is phrased clearly. And I am more than happy to hear if someone thinks that it wasn’t and explains how it should be phrased. If DY thinks that I didn’t express myself clearly and wants to politely explain to me how I should rephrase things or how the words I am using can lead to a misunderstanding, I would really be more than happy to hear. But that is not what he has been doing.
If he or you would like to do so now, I really would be more than happy to hear. But I would appreciate it if you could take the time to first read EVERY post of mine and his VERY carefully.
And since I took the time to respond to DY’s posts and show him how I did not say the things that he accused me of saying, I think that it is only right that he read my responses carefully and respond to them before making any more comments. I very clearly showed him, in several instances, that I did not write the things he accused me of writing. I don’t think it’s appropriate to make accusations against someone, and then not to respond to their responses, and instead to keep accusing them.
“Why did you assume that the first rav wasn’t sensitive to emotional realities, unless you didn’t like his answer?”
Where did I write that the first Rav wasn’t sensitive to emotional realities?
Yes!
“It took four until I got a heter.
The first three didn’t actually say it was assur, they just didn’t think it was a good idea, so I took it as license to keep asking.”That’s because you don’t know how to ask sheilahs. It only took me one. After he said “no”, I explained the emotional issues involves, and he changed his answer.
Some of the proofs that you didn’t read what I wrote carefully:
You wrote:
“You seem to assume that anyone going through a tough time needs to be meikil. That may very well be true in some cases, but may very well be damaging in others. Perhaps long term, some individuals may be better off holding fast to their standards, rather than slacking off and feeling as if they was too weak and caved in.’’
‘’ You are assuming that had the first rav understood his emotional state, he would find room to be meikil on cholov stam.’’I had written:
“Don’t look for a lenient Rav – look for a Rav who is both grounded in halacha and sensitive to emotional realities. Look for a Rav who won’t just tell you what to do, but how to do it. If he doesn’t think you should stop c”y, he will give you an alternative (as DY suggested).”
‘’To be fair, she’s unhappy that I said she’s overstepping her bounds.
I did say that I didn’t have time to respond point by point, which she perhaps took to mean that I didn’t have time to read her posts.
I did in fact read them, though. They just haven’t swayed me.’’1. In two of the threads I was referring to, you specifically told me that you hadn’t read the posts (that the discussion was about).
2. As far as this thread is concerned, you did not read my posts carefully. When someone writes that you didn’t read their posts carefully, that means that from your posts, it is clear that you misunderstood their posts, and that you wrote that they wrote things that they didn’t write.
Since I have a high opinion of your intelligence, I assumed that you hadn’t read my posts carefully, and that if you had done so, you would not have misunderstood. Perhaps I am over-rating your intelligence, but I really think that if you would go back and reread my posts carefully, you would realize that you misunderstood what I wrote and made very inaccurate and unfair assumptions.
And even if I’m wrong (which I really don’t think so) and you really aren’t capable of understanding what I wrote, the fact still remains that you misunderstood me and you think that I said something I didn’t, so you should please stop criticizing me!!!
And I did not express any opinion on chalav stam.
You wrote:
According to the way the OP described his Rav’s response, this does not seem to be a halachic question per se’. It is muttar to drink/eat chalav stam and the Rav whom he asked did not say that it’s assur for him to do so. As far as I can tell, the issue is not “Is he allowed to eat chalav stam?” but “Should he do so?”I mean that I hadn’t expressed my own opinion on chalav stam. In the post you quote, I was saying that according to the Rav whom he asked, it’s muttar to eat chalav stam (and therefore it is muttar for him to eat it if he trusts this Rav).
‘’You seem to assume that anyone going through a tough time needs to be meikil.’’
I never said anything of the sort. I never even said that he should be meikel or go to a Rav who will tell him to be meikel. If you think that I did, you did not read what I wrote carefully.
‘’That may very well be true in some cases, but may very well be damaging in others. Perhaps long term, some individuals may be better off holding fast to their standards, rather than slacking off and feeling as if they was too weak and caved in.’’
Which is what I said. And that shows that you didn’t read what I wrote (or not carefully enough) before commenting.
‘’It’s not something you and I should be opining, or opining that he should be second guessing the rav to whom he first asked the shailah.’’
I didn’t second guess the Rav; he did. I told him the qualifications that I thought a Rav should have in order to be able to answer the question, and that he should make sure to ask a Rav who has those qualifications.
What I was hoping is that he would find a Rav who would respond in the same vein as SYAG – someone who wouldn’t just offer a halachic psak but would give him the chizuk he needs along with it.
Shkoyach SYAG!
” I think you are overstepping your boundaries by giving halachic advice where you think you are able to assess a poster’s emotional state. And yes, it’s halachic advice, because the cholov stam issue is not nearly as simple as you make it out to be.”
I didn’t give any halachic advice .And I did not express any opinion on chalav stam. And if you think I did, you need to go back and reread what I wrote carefully.
All I said is that he should speak to a Rav who will be able to give him the chizuk he needs, and not just say yes or no. It is quite clear from his posts (and from the very fact that he felt a need to post about it) that he is going through a hard time and needs chizuk.
YOU are the one who is giving him halachic advice by telling him that he is not allowed to speak to another Rav. As far as I know there is no halacha that he is not allowed to speak to another Rav, so I don’t think you have a right to tell him such a thing. YOU are poskening that it is assur for him to do something with no sources to back you up.
“He didn’t quote the rav, and to me, “wasn’t very positive about it” is a euphemism for “told me not to”.”
He wrote: ” he didnt give me a psak either way”
DY, you have a tendency to comment on (and criticize) posts that you haven’t read (or haven’t read all the relevant posts or read them thoroughly). You have done this to me several times, and I find it very upsetting.
If you read what I wrote carefully, you will see that your points have no place here and have nothing to do with anything I wrote. And you are overstepping your bounds when you criticize my posts without having read them carefully (and in some cases, haven’t read them at all).
“You’re not allowed to eat without saying a brachah. If you don’t know the correct brachah, find out, otherwise eat something else or don’t eat.”
Who/what was this in response to?
“However, she should have called a rav, or at least some type of Bais Horaah (or perhaps look it up on a reliable website). I don’t know if any if those options were available to her, though.”
I was assuming that those options weren’t available or she would have done so. (or at the very least – they were available, but for some reason, she didn’t think of it or was uncomfortable).
In any case, for whatever reason, she apparently felt like like her only options were either: a) not making a bracha, or b) making a guess as to which bracha to say.Since, (for whatever reason) she felt as though those were her only 2 options, she did the correct thing by choosing a) even though it would have been very tempting to choose b), and some might have done so, so I felt it deserved commendation.
I wasn’t getting into what she should do in the future, since I thought it was important to first praise her for acting correctly in this case, based on her current knowledge.
And btw, I would be a bit hesitant about the website idea. And hasn’t that already been discussed?
6. “Your advice to him very much comes across as if you feel (based on situations you’ve been through, which in reality might have little to do with what he’s going through) that the first rav was wrong. I know you didn’t actually say that, but it comes across that way.”
No, not at all, if you read what I wrote carefully. It would be impossible for me to think the Rav was wrong about c”y for two reasons: a) he didn’t give an answer, and b) I am not qualified to have an opinion on c”y.
I think the issue is that you are looking are at the situation too narrowly. You are looking at it as though it is a technical halachic issue which requires a technical halachic response. The issue here is not so much about the halachos of chalav yisrael and hataras nedarim as it is about the fact that someone is going through a difficult time and trying to find a way to deal with it without feeling like he is compromising his Ruchnius, and he needs someone who can guide him accordingly. From what he wrote, he does not seem to have received an answer from his Rav that addressed these issues.
I don’t care if he receives a psak to be machmir or meikel on c”y. My sole concern here is that he should speak to someone who will address the real issues here (the emotional and hashkafic concerns) in a way that will leave him feeling better about the situation whether he is “meikel” or “machmir”.
3.“You neglected to mention that he should tell the second rav what transpired with the first.”
In my original post, I hadn’t mentioned this because I didn’t think it was necessary. I added it in the second post only because you seemed to think there was a problem with reasking the sheilah. I don’t think it’s a problem to do so, but if someone (either the OP or anyone else reading this who is in a similar situation) is concerned about that, if they do it this way, then there can’t be a problem.4.You are making an assumption that the first rav didn’t relate to his emotional state. Meiheicha teisi?
I didn’t say that. I said that he needs to ask the sheilah to a Rav who understands his emotional needs as well as having a good understanding of the halachic issues involved, and if he felt that the first Rav did not fulfill those qualifications and a second one would, then he should reask the question. I did not know if that was the case, but based on the post he wrote in response, apparently, he does think it’s the case.1. DY, I want to preface my responses to your points with the following important point which I think is crucial to an understanding of the whole discussion:
According to the way the OP described his Rav’s response, this does not seem to be a halachic question per se’. It is muttar to drink/eat chalav stam and the Rav whom he asked did not say that it’s assur for him to do so. As far as I can tell, the issue is not “Is he allowed to eat chalav stam?” but “Should he do so?” On the one hand, there’s a hashkafic problem of lessening ones’ standards, and on the other hand, there are his emotional needs. Those are the issues here. This is not a halachic question per se’, but rather a hashkafic issue (as I see it).
2. “You are assuming that his emotional state allows him to be meikil on something he was mekabel on himself. Meiheicha teisi?”
I am not aware of any halacha that says that it’s assur to be meikel on something that you had previously taken on (as long as you do hataras nedarim, if necessary). And the Rav whom he asked did not say that it was assur.ZD – if you were passive, what is the sheilah? Is it that she asked you first, so you could have said “yes” or “no”? Or she didn’t ask you, but you could have spoken up before she did it?
I’m not a Poseik and I don’t know what the correct thing to do would have been, but under the circumstances, having to make an immediate decision, and not having anyone to ask, it sounds like you acted admirably under the circumstances. I would be curious to know what a reliable halachic authority would say about it.
Regarding my previous question though, could you have bent down or sat down?
btw, GH, I’ve been wanting to ask you for a while: Why is your name, “Gadolhadorah”? Shouldn’t it be “Gedolahhador?” Which one is the female – you or the generation?
“I will be a more clear
I regret saying those words now that I saw your message”Modesty, I’m very impressed! 🙂
DY -First of all, there is a common misconception that you are not allowed to reask a sheilah. That’s not true. (Don’t worry; I ‘ve asked a sheilah about this). If you are asking if a chicken is kosher, it may be different, because once a Rav poskens that it’s treif, I think it becomes treif even if the Rav made a mistake.
But most sheilahs don’t work that way, and if you have a reason to believe the Rav made a mistake, you should ask again.
The question is why you’re reasking the sheilah. If you are reasking because you think that the first Rav made a mistake, then you are allowed to (and maybe should) ask again. There can be many reasons why the Rav may be mistaken.
I had a situation once in which I realized that the Rav was wrong, not because he was lacking technical halachic knowledge, but because it was the type of halachic question that involves an understanding of the person, and he couldn’t relate to me or my situation.
I found out/realized afterwards that while this particular Rav is a tremendous Talmid Chacham and well-respected Poseik, he is not the best Poseik for me to ask halachic questions that necessitate an understanding of people’s emotions. On the other hand, he is a great person to ask sheilahs to when it’s a sheilah in which being less “emotional” is a maaleh.I had another experience in which I called a halachic hotline, and it was clear that the Rav ( I don’t even know who it was, because they always have different people answering) did not understand the situation. When I tried to reexplain it, he cut me off. In that case, I also realized that I needed to speak to a Rav who I know I could explain the situation to, so I called a Rav who knows me and who was able to understand the situation.
On the other hand, if someone is reasking just because they don’t “like” the answer as opposed to feeling like the Rav didn’t understand their situation, and they make a habit of always looking for the Rav who will give the most meikel answer for each question, that is called “heter shopping”.
As I said, it can be a “thin line” and you have to know yourself and know why you are reasking the sheilah. If you know that you don’t always look for the “most meikel” answer, then there is a good chance that you are not “heter shopping.”
In this case, the reason why it seemed to me that it makes sense to ask another Rav is because it sounds like he is going through a difficult time and he needs to ask the sheilah to a Rav who will understand that and answer him accordingly. If he asks the “right Rav”, even if he does tell him to be machmir, it seems to me that ideally he should answer him in such a way that he will come away feeling happy that he asked and feeling better about the situation, which does not seem to have happened here. He also said that the first Rav didn’t even give him a psak, so there really shouldn’t be an issue here with reasking.
However, if he or anyone else is concerned that they should not be asking again, they can always play it safe by telling the second Rav that they already asked and tell him what the answer was.
LF – when I saw that you commented on this thread, I was wondering if that was what you wrote.
LF – lol. Maybe one day if I’m bored enough, I’ll try to figure out what that says.
Mashiach would be here. (well, at least if you mean that literally and are including all of Torah, including not speaking loshon hora and not having sinas chinam, etc.)
Great idea! 🙂
I really do find it a big challenge, personally.
Sorry, I thought it was semantics. I thought that you meant that it’s called not-kosher, not treif.
I’m still not sure what you are saying. I used the word “treif” to mean “non-kosher”. It is not technically correct to use the word ”treif” in place of non-kosher. That ‘s what I thought you meant. That would be semantics.
It sounds like you are saying something else. Are you saying that it wouldn’t even be correct to refer to milk after meat as “unkosher”? I’m not sure why that should be.
Why are you allowed to feed the kid milk after meat? Is that because it’s only a gezeira and not the real issur of basar b’chalav or for another reason?
I can relate to you, because I was in a somewhat similar situation (although there is a definite difference). In my case, I grew up with Chalav stam and never considered taking on chalav yisrael. However, for my entire adult life, I happened to end up living in places where chalav yisrael was the most (or only) available milk, so I ended up only using chalav yisrael when it came to milk, but not when it came to chocolate.
At a certain point, when I was living in Lakewood, I thought that I should take on chalav yisrael because it seemed inappropriate to eat chalav stam in a community in which being makpid on chalav yisrael is so widespread.
But for several reasons, I decided that this was not something that I should be taking on myself. My reasons were probably similar to yours in the sense that I realized that this was something that I need right now and that it wasn’t good for my emotional health and therefore for my Avodas Hashem, to take this on myself right now. And if I want to work on something, there are more important things for me to work on.
However, there is an essential difference between my case and yours, which is the fact that you were already makpid on chalav yisrael. I think that becoming more meikel is very different from not going more machmir, and personally, I think that one should be very wary of becoming more meikel on something.
On the other hand, it sounds like you are going through a very hard time, and it is possible that this is something that you really need (and you also didn’t grow up with it – so it’s not like you are giving up something that you always did).
I once heard a Rav speak about the possuk: והסר שטן מלפנינו ומאחרינו – one has to be careful of the Satan both behind us and if front of us – sometimes the Satan tries to stop us from going too far, and other times he pushes us too far.I have no idea (and no way of knowing) which one this case falls under. Only someone who both knows you well (or whom you can speak to) and who really understands the halachos can know which one this case falls under.
It does sound like it might be kidai for you to speak to another Rav. There is a big difference between ”heter shopping” and looking for the right Rav to answer a particular question (although it can be a thin line). Don’t look for a lenient Rav – look for a Rav who is both grounded in halacha and sensitive to emotional realities. Look for a Rav who won’t just tell you what to do, but how to do it.
If he doesn’t think you should stop c”y, he will give you an alternative (as DY suggested). And the alternative doesn’t have to be food necessarily. If he does think you should stop, maybe he will have an aitza as to how to do it in a way that is less of a problem.
Hatzlacha and Refuah Shelaima!
“Milchig ice cream is not “treif”, even for someone who just ate meat. There is an issur to eat it, but it’s not “treif”.”
Whatever….
I mean you’re right, but whatever.
“More fundamentally, we are responsible for what seems to be the result of our actions, even if in a higher reality we didn’t really cause it (perhaps LU said this).”
Yeah, I think so. I just use a lot more words than you do – probably as a result of my “9 kavim”
tiawd: “Of course, not every guy with smicha possesses that level of wisdom.”
That is a very important point. The word Rav is very widely-used nowadays and can refer to a very wide range of individuals. So what questions or type of questions a Rav is qualified to answer may depend on the Rav in question.
Some of the posters were making the claim that a Rav is not the best person to ask certain types of questions to. While that may be true, the extent to which it is true would depend on who your Rav is and therefore how much “Daas Torah” he possesses.
Your local Orthodox Rabbi is probably not the Gadol Hador, so there probably are questions that he wouldn’t be qualified to answer, but a Gadol Hador would be.
Yekke – good points in response to Avi’s claim that there is no punishment for a D’Rabbanan done b’shogeig.
I am not familiar with any of the sources on the topic, but my reasoning would be that there would be no reason for anyone to learn the halachos d’Rabbanan.
Unless, you want to distinguish between someone who never learned the halacha (and could have done so) and a case in which he did know the halacha but erred.
But I find it hard to believe that someone wouldn’t be punished for negligence in a case like the one I brought where she should have looked more carefully at the container. (I’m not saying that I couldn’t have done the same, but it does show a certain lack of carefulness with halacha).
Yekke – there is a reason that everyone tries to be “meyasheiv” the Ohr HaChaim. If you see a source that seems to contradict basic principles of the Torah, that generally means that it doesn’t mean what you think it means. Most things can’t be understood “b’pashtus” and certainly not an Ohr HaChaim, and certainly not an Ohr HaChaim that seems to contradict basic Torah concepts.
Avi K – I definitely did not misunderstand the Rav. I questioned him at length about it after the shiur.
I am not sure if you understood what I wrote. The sources that you brought do not contradict it (at least the way you phrased them). You wrote:
“Hashem “allows” peopole to sin in the sense that He gave us free choice. However, how we use this is totally up to us (see Berachot 33b and Rambam Hilchot Teshuva 5:1)”I did not write that we don’t have free choice (c”v). I wrote that the result of our aveiros is from Hashem. That is not the same thing.
As for the quote from the gemara about weather conditions, if I’m not mistaken, that is brought as the exception to the rule that: הכל בידי שמים.
It’s possible that you did understand what I wrote, and you just didn’t phrase your arguments well. If so, I know that it’s a difficult concept to understand and to accept. That is precisely why I discussed it with the Rav at length afterwards. After thinking about it for a while, I did understand the point at least to some extent.
In any case, that exact example is not so relevant to the topic at hand. I was just using it as an extreme example to show how הכל בידי שמים
“Humorous story” (not sure if it’s appropriate to use that adjective in this context) that I was reminded of by my above statement: “I don’t remember if he was referring to a case of “shogeig” or “meizid” , but I’m pretty sure it was both.”
I just remembered why the idea of eating treif beshogeig came up. I think the Rav had actually given a different example, but I was reminded of an incident that had happened earlier that day and asked him about it.
I had been eating the Shabbos Seudah at a friend’s house, and she accidentally served her husband milchiks ice cream at the end of a fleishiks meal, mistakenly thinking that it was pareve. He was clearly really upset although he was trying hard to control himself. In order to lighten the mood for the sake of Shalom Bayis, I commented, “How appropriate that this davka happened on Shabbos Parshas B’reishis!”
I don’t know if it sounds funny in print after the fact, and maybe it’s inappropriate to refer to an incident involving eating treif (by accident) as funny, but the way I said it, it was very funny at the time, and it did the trick because it did get him to laugh.
By the way, there is a really nice Sifsei Chaim where he writes that this idea that Hashem is always recreating the world gives much more meaning to all of our Mitzvos because it means that any Mitzvah that I do could never have been done before and can never be done again since the world right now (at the moment I am doing the Mitzva) never existed before and will never exist again. For that matter, I never existed before and will never exist again.
Yekke: “The answer to my question is, I think, that however literally you take this concept of continual creation, it is my koach shooting the arrow. It isn’t a different arrow, it is not a different victim, and it is my momentum propelling the arrow forth. If that isn’t paradoxical, however, i don’t know what is!”
Which I think is the same thing that I said when I wrote:
“But actually, I don’t understand your question altogether. Even without my answer, and even if you want to say that you are being punished for the effect of your actions and not the bechira involved, what difference would it make if it’s the same arrow or not? Either way, it was your original action that led to its being there, so who cares if it’s the same arrow?”
I don’t see why it’s a paradox, though. I think it goes back to the same idea that when we do anything, we are not really the ones who are causing the result – it is always Hashem who determines what will happen. Even if we didn’t know about the concept that Hashem is continually recreating the world, we would still say that it is not my “koach” in shooting the arrow, but Hashem who did it. Granted, the Beis Din shel Matteh would not be able to say that, but that is not what I am referring to.
However, knowing this concept (that Hashem is continually recreating the world) helps us to see this concept more clearly.
Yekke – Regarding the sources you brought about the punishment being for the result and not the bechira, are you referring to Beis Din Shel Maaleh or Beis Din Shel Mateh? I was referring to Beis Din shel Maaleh, and I think you were referring to Beis Din to Mateh. Is that the case?
Regarding Beis Din Shel Mateh (if that is what you meant), I don’t think the original question is relevant. The idea that Hashem is continually recreating the world is an esoteric (I hope I’m using the word correctly) concept that has no place in Beis Din shel Mateh. That is also why Beis Din shel Mateh can only punish you for the result of the action and not the bechira.
I also wonder if that may be one of the problems with your questions in the first place (although I’m not 100% sure). The idea that Hashem is continually recreating the world is a kabbalistic concept, and it seems to me that you may be taking it too literally (but again, I may be wrong about that).
Yekke: ” See Ohr HaChayim in Parshas Vayeishev who differentiates between a בעל בחירה and an animal. ”
The Sifsei Chaim discusses this and explains it in a way that doesn’t contradict what I wrote. I think it’s in a volume called “Emunah U’bechira Cheilik Beis” or something like that. I don’t see why you think this is different than the hishtadlus/parnassah discussion. The point is that Hashem is always the One who determines the results of our actions.
I even heard a certain Rav give the example that someone can’t eat treif unless Hashem wants them to. I’m assuming that the only reason Hashem would want them to is as a punishment for the fact that they used their bechira to decide to eat treif. I don’t remember if he was referring to a case of “shogeig” or “meizid” , but I’m pretty sure it was both.
Gadol Hadorah – He didn’t say that all or even most or even many goyim are lazy. He was talking about a specific hypothetical person in a hypothetical example whom you described as doing something that could be considered lazy.
Yekke -thanks for your long response. I will try to respond when I have time, bli neder.
Joseph – he doesn’t need a Plan B – he will make a great Rebbe, IYH! (although I’d recommend giving up the internet at some point well before that).
Wow ZD – that’s an awkward situation to be in! I have been in somewhat similar situations a few times. You are right – there is no way to ask a sheilah and you have no choice but to “posken” for yourself. In some cases, I “poskened” one way and in others the other way, depending on the specifics of the situation.
In at least one case, I found out afterwards that I did the right thing. In others, I still don’t know.
One case that still bothers me was similar to yours. I was making a shiva call to a not-Frum family, and the father of the nifter wanted to shake hands with me. I politely said that I don’t shake hands with men. This usually goes over well, especially with Israelis. However, the problem was that the immediate relative whom I had come with had just shaken hands with him. So he looked insulted when I said that.
As soon as I left, I asked the relative why she did that. She responded that she wasn’t thinking, and she felt bad because he was a holocaust survivor and he had just lost his son.
The difference between my situation and yours is that I would have been an active participant and you would have been passive, so I would think that yours would be less problematic. On the other hand, in your case, could you have politely requested that she put her hands above your head (as opposed to on your head)?
LB – I am very impressed! Since you weren’t sure which bracha to make, you did the correct thing and didn’t make a bracha at all, rather than run the risk of a bracha l’vatala.
As you correctly pointed out in another thread, when you are not sure if you should be making a bracha or not (and have no way to find out), it is better to not make a bracha than to run the risk of making a bracha l’vatala.
I happen to think that this is an extremely difficult (although very important) halacha to keep. The natural instinct is to make a bracha even when there is a doubt rather than not say a bracha at all. Not saying a bracha feels very uncomfortable.
Personally, I find that not saying a bracha when there is doubt is a very big nisayon, so I am impressed. Shkoyach!
Regarding your first question, I remember learning a Beis HaLevi that may have dealt with that topic. It was at least 15 years ago, so I can’t remember if it answered your question or not, but I’m pretty sure that it dealt with the topic.
Regarding your third question (the one in parenthesis), I think the answer is connected to the discussion on the Chilul Hashem thread and the source you brought there from the Mesilas Yesharim (thank you).
If you shoot an arrow at someone in order to kill him, and in fact, he does die, he only died because Hashem wanted him to die. Essentially, Hashem killed him, and not you. You are being punished for the fact that you used your bechira to choose to shoot an arrow that you knew could end up killing someone.
But actually, I don’t understand your question altogether. Even without my answer, and even if you want to say that you are being punished for the effect of your actions and not the bechira involved, what difference would it make if it’s the same arrow or not? Either way, it was your original action that led to its being there, so who cares if it’s the same arrow?
Isn’t it usually the kids? I would think that it would make the most sense for either the women or the kids to do it in order to give them an opportunity to participate in the Mitzvos of Sukkos in a way that is matim for them (since it can be seen as both a feminine activity and as a child’s activity).
But really, it should go by whoever wants to do it and is able to find the time for it.
“That’s true. As you know, Rav Moshe, who’se motter CS says a Baal Nefesh should be machmir. So such a Baal Nefesh could give CS to a non-Baal Nefesh.”
So I guess my good friend Lightbrite the baalas Nefesh could give me some peanut butter cups even though I’m a non-baalas nefesh. Just please leave out the Skittles or whatever they are called. I don’t know what they are, but it sounds like dog food to me.
RebYidd: “Where does the existent wardrobe come from? And where is the friend or relative supposed to get the jewelry?”
+1! Exactly what I was going to say. Not everyone has an existent wardrobe. And some people have really unmanageable hair. And there are some girls who are not into gashmius and never learned how to do their own hair or cut their nails.
Also, I wasn’t talking about a different outfit for each first date. I was talking about a different outfit for the second and third dates with the same guy. Also, you need an outfit for that first date too, and as RavYidd pointed out, some people don’t have existent wardrobles.
In case you think I’m not serious about any of this, there were long tekufos in my life where I did not date because I didn’t have the money to buy basic makeup and clothes or I didn’t have money for the bus to get to the date. I actually once had to ask the guy for a shekel because I didn’t have enough money for the bus home. That was really embarrassing, but he just thought that I left my money at home – he didn’t realize that I didn’t have any!
To get back on track, yes it is evil (now that you’ve explained your intent)