Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Zahavasdad, sorry to tell you, but you are simply wrong. Read some Jewish history books or books written by mesiras nefesh Yidden who were there. It was simply a total shmad assault over a long period of time. Even those who themselves withstood it were not not able to keep their children frum in the very great majority of cases. Lost faith after the war? No. A very great majority were frei already by the beginning of the war. Those who were still frum were hard core tzaddikim who did not lose faith.
Lesschumras, the Tsars never directly tried to wipe out all Yiddishkeit there. The Communists went ahead with a full shmad program. Yidden were killed or locked up in harsh labor camps or were under threat of these things happening to them.
Comlink-X, in addition to the stated above, some of them may not be so religious and strictly follow what it says there.
Health, they forgot to ask you for permission. Some people should stop pretending that the state of Israel does not exist.
Joseph, that heter is a be’dieved one. See Tosfos, Kiddushin 41A. It is clear that Chazal le’katchila did not want that.
Mw13, someone who violates Halochah out of temptation is a rashah. The Gemorah which says that it is a mitsva to hate reshoim talks about a man who did the aveirah of arayos (out of temptation).
Joseph, the Gemorah also says that a father is not allowed to marry off his daughter “until she grows up and says:”I want Ploni (for a husband)”. So, it is a stirah regarding women. One of the ways to answer it is that if she agrees to a kiddushin “sight unseen”, she does not care, but there are other women who do care.
MDG, are you serious?!? What does that one case prove? Outrageous!
DY, I wonder if the people involved thought that. Some abuse victims are also content to stay where they are.
Joseph, at least in some places, at least in some time period there was only one beshow, and it was on the night before the chasunah! Not much veto power there. It just shows that not everything they did in Europe was right and should be emulated.
That Gemorah is also just plain common sense.
Joseph, who about the fact that Gemorah in Kiddushin 41A says you should not have prearranged marriages where the boy and the girl do not have a say. And we pasken le’Halochah like that!! And if in Europe they did differently, they were wrong!
Avi K, very nice! The thing is though that there is a difference between mitsva to hate a rashah and a heter to speak loshon horah about him. Also, I agree with Health,for sure, when it comes to English translations — they try to water down and soften what Chafets Chaim actually wrote.
Avi K, the comprasion to the Jewish immigration is outrageous as far the nature and magnitude of threat go!
Avi K, it is all over seifer “Chofetz Chaim”.
Avi K:
1. I am not going to argue with you about metziyus.
3. Because a get is much more chomur. If it is posul, there is going to be a woman who is still married possibly getting married to a strange man (with all that it implies).
Avi K, btw, that’s why Rabbonim tell witnesses by a get(divorce) to do teshuvah right there — so that they should not be considered reshoim who are posul le’eidus.
Avi K, I meant Rabbis other than Israeli Mizrachi Rabbis.
Anyone who does an aveirah knowingly is a rasha.
Avi K, the Chazon Ish’s leniency is disputed by most Poskim, past and present.
You need witnesses only if a fellow is presumed to be an erliche Yid. your other reference (the Rambam) aplly to tinok she’nishbah. I am talking about those who are not.
Avi K, you are wrong. It is a befeirushe Gemorah in Pesochim 113 that it is a mitsva to hate reshoim (btw, not all Zionists are reshoim). The Gemorah in Brochos talks about davening for reshoim to die. It is already a different shailah. The reshoim from Brochos 10A were of the type that you are not supposed to daven for them to die.
PBA, Ubuquitin made an excelent point. DO you have anything of substance to say?
Ubiquitin, if you think that Syrian refugees should be admitted to Israel, I believe, and many here would agree, there is nothing to talk about anymore. The case has been proven.
Look in “Chofetz Chaim” at the beginning.
Definitely. But there are Torah guidelines for that.
QuestionEorYou, it is true that you may not speak loshon ho’ra, but not judging anyone is a Christian, not a Jewish approach.
I think bombing them (especially with US special bunker busters) would be enough. Whatever retaliaton they are able to respond with is nothing in comparison to them having an A-bomb.
And I say that war should be an option. I thought “all the options were on the table”? Just bomb them.
Sam2, what are you talking about? It is a regular shittah like his other shittos. It is just there was a ta’anah on it for the reasons explained by Rashi. That’s it.
When Rishonim or Achronim answer a stirah between two sugyos, they make an educated conjecture trying to restore the real halochah. The point is that some conjectures should not be made because they are not nice. What is so difficult to accept?!?
Sam2, be’kitzur stop beiig difficult.
It is no stirah to the shittah of the Geonim!!! A Chohom may try to restore the real halochah, but he may go down the wrong path! Part of the right way to restore is to take into account what I am saying.
THERE IS NO INDICATION whatsoever that R’Tarfon’s limud was wrong! It’s regular shita of a Tanna — just we pasken like R’Akiva and not like him. The only ta’anah was that he should have found a way to be more meikal.
Sam2, when the limud is wrong, there is nothing to talk about. The whole concept applies when there is a number of ways to go.
Sam2, let me elaborate. Let’s say there is a stirah between two sugyos. Ba’alei ha’Tosfos come and offer, say, 4 svoros-terutzim to reconcile the sugyos. The ta’anah on those Tanoim was that they should not have offered those terutzim that they had offered — for hashkofic reasons. It is abundantly clear if onr is willing to see.
Sam2, stop it already. If something is open and mefurash — yes. That’s why i wrote that you are partially right, Sometimes, however, it is a new sugya and a big Talmid Chohom can go in a number of ways. Learnt Tosfos ever?
Sam2, the point is that when a Talmid Chohom approaches a shailah he can say a svorah this way or another way. What he should bear in mind when choosing a direction is what is the right direction to try to go in hashkofically: is this right or wrong, nice or not nice.
You are ignoring what the Gemoros are saying. And I am trying to teach you a general Torah principle and i am not talking about the R’Shlomo Zalman’s case. And I believe i have written enough. I rest my case.
Sam2, what you are saying is outrageous. ROVA SAID THAT! GET IT? You are contradiicting 2 Gemoros,
Sam2, stop repeating your views, JUST LEARN THOSE GEMOROS WITH AN OPEN MIND.
It is openly stated that R’Tarfon needed forgivness for holding like he held and it was not because of negligence in remembering or deducing the right Halochah. I understand it goes against your basic assumptions, but just admit those were wrong.
Sam2, just read it straight. THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH THEIR LAMDUS. The Gemorah does not have any direct kashios. Just admit that you were wrong.
Sam2, you got it so wrong in both cases! The was nothing wrong with R’Tarfon’s lamdus. His hashkofah was incorrect. He should have had a different hashkofah and tried to arrive to a different psak. It is all mefurash in Rashi! Drop your preconcieved notions and just read what Rashi wrote. Same goes for the second case.
Sam2. WHY were they wrong?
Sam2, in the Gemorah in Sukka R’Tarfon held a very machmiring shita about chadassim. Rova said about it:”May his Master forgive him…”. Rashi explains there that he is too machmir and burdens the Yidden. In the Rabbi Akiva Gemorah one of the Tannoim says:”Let us come and scream at Akiva ben Yosef for he is marbe mamzeirm be’Yisroel <with his machmiring shita>”. According to you, what in the world is going on — they learnt the sugya and this is what they held?
Sam2 and Da’as Yochid, both of you are partially right, but, Sam2, you have not answered my question about R’Tarfon and R’Akiva.
Feivel, the question then becomes (may we ask numbly) if those things are not even expected from a regular Yid why is the exorting style?
DY, I was not arguing with you — only with a certain point Feivel made.
Feivel, “Mesilas Yeshorim” openly states that madregos of prishus and chassidus are not obligations for and not expected from a stam Yid in Klal Yirsoel even though, you are right, he is talking many times in an exorting style. That does not change the bottom line that he himself mentions.
feivel, and Sam2 is not being crooked. You want to argue with his him, fine, but he is not launching crooked attacks.
Feivel, I don’t know that the Ba’alei Mussar did that. If you find a proof that some of them did, still who says it is right?
Sam2, there is a Gemorah where Rova said about R’Tarfon:”May his Master forgive him” for holding a certain way. There is a similar Gemorah about R’Akiva. According to you what’s the pshat? They had their Halochik opinions and there is no room for ta’anos! The answer is that they were Hashkofically wrong and they should not have held like they did.It is mefurash in Rashi about R’Tarfon and obvious from the Gemorah itself about R’Akiva.