Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
From Politico:
Trump is often criticized for statements that have little to no basis in fact. For example, no video has been found showing “thousands” of Muslim-Americans celebrating the 9/11 attacks, as the Republican presidential candidate has claimed repeatedly.
“should really have a subtitle by now”
Lol 🙂
Some of what I wrote the last time this topic came up (http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/get-rid-of-smart-phone):
I think that there are several different issues here.
The first one is having unfiltered internet, with full access to all the shmutz in the world. This is simply and unequivocally assur. The Gedolim and venerated Poskim of our generation (R’ Shteinman, R’ Vozner, R’ Chaim, R’ Nissin Karelitz, R’ Moshe Shternbuch, to name a few) have said so time and time again, and I have yet to hear a single dissenting opinion. (see: http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/headlines-breaking-stories/285798/maran-harav-shteinman-iphone-users-are-pasul-leidus.html, http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/headlines-breaking-stories/207517/r-kanievsky-on-accepting-eidus-from-an-iphone-user.html )
Secondly, when it comes to something that is assur, saying “I need it for my business” simply will not change anything. Business is not an excuse for any issurim; be they chillul shabbos, dishonesty, or unfiltered internet. Assur is assur. Period.
Then there is a separate issue: Having a smartphone, with properly filtered internet, for business needs. While this may not be ideal, it is indeed often necessary in today’s world. And when it comes to ideals, not issurim, there is much more room to accommodate practical necessities.
(http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/get-rid-of-smart-phone/page/3#post-565151)
Several weeks ago, I was at a chasunah where the mesader kiddushin, a rosh yeshiva from Teaneck, asked the eidim if they have unfiltered internet on their phones, in their homes, or by their offices. One of them admitted that he did, and the Rosh Yeshiva did not allow him to be an eid – they had to get somebody else.
(http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/get-rid-of-smart-phone/page/3#post-565293)
Another note on the severity on the issue at hand: In his book “Teach Them Diligently”, R’ Berel Wein quotes R’ Yaakov Kamenetsky as telling him “Only for pornography and theft are you allowed to expel a student” (page 126).
(http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/get-rid-of-smart-phone/page/3#post-565667)
Barry:
“I’m curious if those opposing smartphones understand that it is nothing more than a computer?”
And do those opposing rifles understand that it is essentially the same as a BB gun? Or do they correctly realize that small technical differences can drastically change the inherent danger of an item?
While a smartphone has most of the same issues as a computer (viewing inappropriate content, wasting time, etc) the fact that it is always with its owner, and that it is far easier to use without anybody seeing what one is up to, make those issues far more potent.
(http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/get-rid-of-smart-phone#post-564438)
charliehall:
“If you can’t be trusted to avoid the porn and gambling sites, by all means donate your smartphone to a shelter for victims of abuse and stay off the internet.”
Tell me, do you think the issur of yichud is only for those who “can’t be trusted” to control themselves? Or do we see that Chazal realized (quite accurately, if I may say so) that this is an issue that everybody struggles with, and gedarim must be set in place for everyone? We cannot bury our heads in the sand – this s a very real issue that many, many frum people struggle with.
(http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/get-rid-of-smart-phone/page/2#post-564768)
This article appears in the New York Jewish Week.
I would suggest looking into http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/yeshivas-ohr-reuven.
From Arutz Sheva:
European Rabbis declare Open Orthodoxy ‘outside the fold’
Conference of European Rabbis issues strong statement against liberal Orthodox group, says its rabbis ‘will not be recognized’ in Europe.
The Conference of European Rabbis (CER) issued an unusually harsh statement this week condemning the United States-based liberal Open Orthodoxy movement, and warning that Orthodox communities in Europe would not employ rabbis ordained by the group until it returned to normative Orthodox practices.
In the declaration, the CER – which represents some 700 European Orthodox rabbis – emphasized that it embraces only those rabbis who “were ordained in accordance with halakhah (Jewish law – ed.), and who lead their communities according to the generational traditions as handed over at Mount Sinai, and passed on by the poskei hador (major halakhic authorities – ed.),” and who hold fast to fundamental, traditional Jewish values.
CER would not accept “any initiative that is not in the spirit of the halakhah” or ancient Jewish tradition, it added – referring to the Open Orthodoxy movement.
“The Conference views with great pain the deviations from religious foundations emanating from the movement called ‘Open Orthodoxy’, and warns that those who act in this spirit, alumni of the aforementioned movement… will not be recognized by us as rabbis, with all that entails.”
Rabbi Jonathan Guttentag of Manchester, UK, explained that by systematically testing the boundaries of normative Jewish practice, Open Orthodoxy “has pushed the envelope that bit far, and… led to positions which take its proponents outside the Orthodox umbrella.”
While acknowledging that the group did tend to keep just within the confines of Jewish law, he and other rabbis emphasized that for Orthodox Jews the “spirit of the law” was almost as important.
“At the end of the day, Orthodox life… is dependent on certain parameters, and crossing over the line of those parameters puts its adherents and proponents outside the frame of Orthodoxy.
Ukrainian Rabbi Refael Kruskal said the strong message was intended not to alienate Open Orthodoxy, but rather to encourage its leaders “back into the fold,” while protecting the traditions of religious Jews in Europe.
“The CER realizes that there are people in Europe from these organizations (who) are applying for rabbinical positions… and they’re worried about the consequences,” he said.
“We hope that Open Orthodoxy will… come back within the fold, that they’ll understand that they’ve gone too far, they’ve crossed the lines. and if they don’t then the drastic steps we spoke about will be taken.”
Sam2, what about the Rambam?
but does anyone think there’s anything inherently wrong with having a female Rav? If so, what?
The Shulchan Oruch, in Choshen Mishpat 7,4, succinctly states:
??? ????? ????
In the Bais Yosef he brings as his source three different Gemorahs that all say some variation of:
??? ???? ????? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ????? ????? ????? ?????
Also see the Rambam, (brought down li’halacha by the Aruch HaShulchan CM 7, 4 and the Igros Moshe YD Chelek 2 Siman 45) who writes in Hilchos Melachim 1,5:
??? ??????? ??? ?????? ????? (??? ????) ???? ??? ??? ????. ??? ?? ?????? ??????? ??? ????? ??? ??? ???
As has been pointed out numerous times, appointing female clergy is far from the only issue with so-called Open Orthodoxy. But I do think it is telling that their most visible departure from tradition is so obviously against Halacha.
RoC:
Also, i noticed that by chillul shabbos demonstrations or letters such as the one in ashdod, only the chareidi rabbanim and people get involved, no trace of dati leumi. Perhaps they want to stay on good terms with hilonim and believe that chillul shabbos in e’y cannot be resolved
While it is indeed rare for DL Rabbonim to join such efforts, it does happen:
Jerusalem Chief Rabbi Aryeh Stern Shlita on erev Shabbos parshas Vayeira visited Machane Yehuda to remind store owners to close on time to avoid chilul Shabbos since Shabbos begins earlier during the months of standard time. The rabbi joined the Eida Chareidis activists who visit the shuk weekly and encourage stores to close in time for Shabbos.
Rabbi Stern was asked by dozens of shuk merchants for a bracha and he happily accommodated their requests. The rav also gave his bracha to the Eida Chareidis activists who are out in the shuk every erev Shabbos.
Jerusalem Chief Rabbis Rabbi Aryeh Stern Shlita and Rabbo Shlomo Moshe Amar Shlita have come out calling on Jerusalemites to increase shmiras shabbos. The rabbonim released a letter to the general public calling for shmiras shabbos in shopping centers and entertainment centers.
Rabbi Amar explains the bracha that one receives by keeping Shabbos and during these days of teshuva and rachamim, keeping Shabbos is especially relevant.
The letter comes at a time chareidi parties in the Jerusalem Council are expressing growing concern over growing chilul Shabbos in the city. Just last week the new Yes Planet entertainment center opened its doors on Shabbos, joining the growing number of entertainment establishments operating on the holy day.
Perhaps this can serve as a reminder of what we can accomplish if we work together on issues that we do agree about.
charliehall:
“Can everyone now say outloud that OO founder and leader Avi Weiss is not frum?”
To say that would be motzi shem ra. Even his most bitter opponents had to admit that he is a kosher eid.
Excerpts from an article by R’ Mordechai Willig titled Trampled Laws (http://www.torahweb.org/torah/2015/parsha/rwil_ekev.html):
“Rav Moshe continued to say that no battle, even one supported by the entire world, can succeed in changing the Torah, and women who fight to change the Torah’s eternal and immutable laws are heretics. If a woman wears talis or tefillin as a complaint against Hashem and His Torah it is prohibited as heresy since she thinks that it is possible to change Torah law… The movement to which Rav Moshe refers, now known as feminism or egalitarianism, continues to infiltrate Orthodox Judaism. The recent ordination of women is but one example. Unfortunately this practice is viewed by at least one of its proponents as part of an attempt to change Torah laws and ideas (see Crosscurrents July 29, 2015), precisely the heresy that Rav Moshe warned against.”
For a more in-depth look at apikorsos in Open-Orthodox theology, I suggest reading an excellent article titled “Open Orthodoxy: Outright Heresy and the Orthodox Rebirth of the Conservative Movement” by Rabbi Avrohom Gordimer.
BTW, did anybody actually answer the question in the OP? What is the position of the YU/MO Rabbonim on OO?
Interesting article from Bloomberg on the statements of the Agudah and the RCA, and their respective purposes:
The RCA knows that some moderate or liberal Orthodox institutions have been hiring women to give sermons, provide rabbinic legal advice and teach students. The goal of its resolution is to try to reverse or hold back this process of gradual normalization.
The sociological consequences of this move matter. The goal of open Orthodoxy is precisely to find space in the limited pluralism of Orthodox belief and practice — to achieve a state of play where Orthodox Jews could self-define as ultra-Orthodox, modern Orthodox or open Orthodox. Open Orthodoxy self-consciously wants to avoid becoming a separate movement, the better to achieve incremental change toward equality for women.
The efforts at line-drawing show that the other branches of Orthodoxy are worried. The modern Orthodox, in particular, find themselves caught between the egalitarianism and feminism that are distinctly modern, and the unapologetic position of ultra-Orthodoxy, with its clearly separate spheres for men and women.
Joseph:
The prohibition that melacha is forbidden after shkiya is undisputed. The machlokes is over when shkiya is. Rabbeinu Tam has a shitta that is held by large portions of Klal Yisroel. The reason “it is a possible prohibition punishable by stoning” (di’ho safek issur skilah) is due to the uncertainty whether Shabbos starts at shkiya or at tzeis. (And since it is uncertain, everyone agrees we must start Shabbos at shkiya, but not all poskim agree when shkiya is.)
You have clearly never read the Buir Halacha you are attempting to interpret. The Biur Halacha goes through the sugya, starting with the stira in the Gemora, then Rabbeinu Tam’s answer, then the answer of R’ Shiraya Goan, R’ Hai Gaon, Rashi, the Rif, and the Rambam. According to R”T, shkiya starts 4 mil (72 min) after the sun sets and is no longer in view. According to all those who argue, shkiya starts immediately after the sun is no longer in view. So when the B”H says “…mi’yad achar haschulas ha’shkiyah, haynu mi’shuh sheha’chamah niskaseh me’eynainu…” he is clearly to referring to the shittah of the Gaonim and rov Rishonim, who hold shkiya starts from when the sun is no longer in view.
But in case that isn’t enough of a proof for you, let me quote you how the B”H begins the sentence:
“Vi’henay li’maaseh, bi’vaday tzurich li’zuher ki’daas ha’Gra vi’harbaih min haRishonim vihaPoskim hanal di’mi’yad achar haschulas ha’shkiyah, haynu mi’shuh sheha’chamah niskaseh me’eynainu, ho issur gemur shelo laasos melacha, vi’chas vi’shaom li’hukel ba’zeh, di’ho safek issur skilah…”
But don’t take my word for it; crack open a Mishnah Berurah and check it out yourself.
(Btw, I’m makpid for the shittah of R”T myself.)
Do you think the CC held that Rabbeinu Tam and his kehilla were mechallel Shabbos?
First of all, the Chofetz Chaim didn’t make this shittah up. R’ Shiraya Goan, R’ Hai Gaon, Rashi, the Rif, and the Rambam did. The B”H is simply paskening like the majority. So your question really is, did all those Gaonim and Rishonim hold about R”T and his kehillah.
Secondly, I’m not sure why you suddenly decided to make this an issue here.
The Chazon Ish held one may not open bottle caps on Shabbos. R’ Moshe allowed it. R’ Moshe held one may not use a “shabbos clock” on shabbos; the Chazon Ish allowed it.
Did the Chazon Ish and R’ Moshe each hold that the other was mechallel Shabbos?
Or going back a little bit further, did Bais Shammai and Bais Hillel each hold that the other was “shkotzim” or “chopped liver”?
And most importantly, what difference does it make in this point in history?? Shouldn’t we be focusing on figuring out what the Halacha is today, not bizarrely trying to figure out what names we think the Gedolim of the past would have called each other, if they had acted like some of us do today?
Joseph:
The quoted Biur Halacha refers to shkiah without specifying when shkiah is. That’s the contention by the R”T. R”T holds shkiah itself is later, something the CC doesn’t take exception to.
I quote the actual B”H, for the third time:
“…mi’yad achar haschulas ha’shkiyah, haynu mi’shuh sheha’chamah niskaseh me’eynainu, ho issur gemur shelo laasos melacha, vi’chas vi’shaom lihukel ba’zeh, di’ho safek issur skilah…”
“… right after the beginning of shkiyah, which is from the time that the sun is hidden from our eyes, there is an absolute prohibition to not do melacha, and heaven forbid to be lenient in this, for it is a possible prohibition punishable by stoning…”
Did you even read it?
no serious rabbi holds that someone paskening or holding by the R”T’s zmanim is a shaigets or even has no halachic grounds to stand on.
You don’t think “issur gemur… vi’chas vi’shaom lihukel ba’zeh” means “no halachic ground to stand on”?
I am truly impressed by DaMoshe’s ability to take a step back and look at things objectively, to focus on the noble goal of becoming a better person, and most impressively, to abandon on the drop of a hat whatever is distracting him from that goal.
I have to say, this really got me thinking. What about me? Is the CR making me a better person, or is it distracting me from my goals? Is this how I should be spending my time?
Joseph, that quote was in response to you saying “no one will be able to name any mainstream, semi-meainstream or even semi-semi-mainstream name that has any issue with” doing melachah after shkiya. Well, that’s simply not true. The Biur Halacha, which is quite a mainstream staple of psak, does indeed take issue with this.
Joseph:
It’s a made up issue and the people that ever make any hay of it, besides being excruciating few as Sam said, are only mo zionists angry at Satmar’s shitta on zionism. Sam and no one will be able to name any mainstream, semi-meainstream or even semi-semi-mainstream name that has any issue with Shabbos and Satmar. In fact, the issue has nothing to do with Satmar. The kehilos in Hungary at-large as well as many other places in Eastern Europe had zmanim that Shabbos started and ended later than the common American zman. It not only is a 100% legitimate shitta, but it has nothing to do with Satmar or chasidim in general as it was held by Oberlanders and many other non-chasidic kehilos in Europe.
Is the Chofetz Chaim (siman 261, Buir Halacha D”H “Mitchilas HasShkiyah”) mainstream enough for you?
“…mi’yad achar haschulas ha’shkiyah, haynu mi’shuh sheha’chamah niskaseh me’eynainu, ho issur gemur shelo laasos melacha, vi’chas vi’shaom lihukel ba’zeh, di’ho safek issur skilah…”
“… right after the beginning of shkiyah, which is from the time that the sun is hidden from our eyes, there is an absolute prohibition to not do melacha, and heaven forbid to be lenient in this, for it is a possible prohibition punishable by stoning…”
DikDukDuck, what about a card-holding NK member who is a bedridden quadruple amputee, and cannot go to rallies or hug anyone? Do you love him?
Let me try yet another moshol (#DejaVuAllOverAgain):
If somebody runs into traffic and gets killed, is he responsible for his own death?
His running into traffic is certainly the cause of his death. But if he was running away from somebody chasing him with a knife, then he is not responsible. If he is running to retrieve his Frisbee than he is.
But this distinction can only exist if one acknowledges that the driving (no pun intended) forces behind an action have influenced the action. If one insists that anyone who hasn’t actually carried out an action is entirely blameless, what their motivation was ceases to be relevant.
LOL 🙂 Then I’d be the one responsible, not you. Although we’d have to check with ubiquitin to make sure…
Um…mods? Is that topic I posted gonna go through sometime? It’s been quite a while, other comments have been posted since, and I don’t think I said anything too crazy…
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/killing-wounded-terrorists
Not sure how I feel about it. If the wrong people Google it it may incite violence and I don’t want to be responsible
ubiquitin:
yes because inciting and encouraging attacks is wrong
If the only one who are responsible for an attack are those who actually perpetrate it (which is what I believe you said earlier), no body else can be at all responsible. Why does the ethical nature of an action change this black and white equation?
when the shooting of “innocent” palestinian stabbers is used to incite terrorism, does that make the police responsible?
No. Even if this action did play a role in causing an attack to happen, since that action was entirely justified self-defense, they are not responsible for any negative consequences.
(However, the truth is that I disagree with your premise; I don’t believe that the shooting of the terrorists is a contributing factor in the current round of terrorism. Sure, Abbas and the UN might give angry speeches about it, but I don’t think this issue is what is driving the average Palestinian rioter or terrorist.)
However, one who acts without that level of justification (such as ascending HHB) would indeed be responsible.
But I think all this debate the issue of who is responsible for what, and to what extent (which may come down to a question of semantics), misses the larger question:
Putting aside the halachic prohibition, do you think that it is a good idea for Jews to ascend HHB? Should these actions be encouraged or discouraged?
What about this Palestinian?
Five American students who took a wrong turn near the West Bank city of Hebron had to picked up by the Israeli military after their car was firebombed.
The ultra-Orthodox seminary students were on their way to pray at a holy site when they accidentally entered a Palestinian neighbourhood.
The students jumped out of their car when it was pelted with stones and then set alight.
But luckily for the group, a Palestinian man came to their rescue.
He took them into his home and alerted Israeli authorities to help get them out of the area.
ubiquitin, do you think the PA leadership that incite and encourage attacks are at all responsible for terrorism?
Sam2:
mw13: One of the main Taanos on early Chassidim that many thought messed with Ikkarei Emunah was Aveirah Lishmah.
How would the Chassidish position on aveirah lishmah, which the Misnagdim vehemently disagreed with, be in conflict with any of the 13 principles of the Rambam?
And where does the Gra specifically deal with this issue?
DaMoshe:
The Gra said that early chassidim were apikorsim!
Source?
And precisely which belief of theirs is theirs could be apikursos? Davening late? Speaking yiddish? Wearing a fur hat?