Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
“As for RAv Moshe Feinstein, I implore you to learn his own words and tell me a coherent heter for Queens.”
Go to the KGH Eiruv’s website. There’s a hand-written letter of approval on there from Reb Moshe. I wasn’t really able to read his hand writing, but you’re welcome to give it a shot.In any case, the fact that you don’t personally understand why he differentiated between Queens and the other boroughs does not mean there is no real reason. He was matir Kew Garden Hills and asser Brooklyn. Those are the facts.
N0m:
“I really can’t make sense of your post.”
Having a little trouble also, but I think he’s trying to make the argument binary, meaning there are those who hold by the machmir definition of a R”HR like the sphardi rishonim and the stam halacha in the S”A which would disallow all city eiruvin, and there are those that hold like Rashi and the yesh omrim in the S”A (as we almost all do today). This isn’t really the case with this who debate. We’re all operating within Rashi’s definition otherwise there would be nothing to talk about. The claim is that Brooklyn and Manhattan are reshusei harabim according even to the meikel shittos.“Easy, we have state minimum pricing on every alcoholic product, both at wholesale and retail level.”
As much as I root for the mom and pop shops, I think this policy is terrible and prices need to just be left up to the free markets. That being said, they might be behind enough on inflation that the state minimums are roughly on or below what the going price would be anyway.“Because you’re a Democrat who takes the wrong position on every issue.”
He’s a lawyer. Are you really so childish that you think lawyers should have to only take cases they personally agree with? Would you accuse a serial killer’s lawyers of condoning murder? You know you’re not arguing in good faith when you cause CTLawyer and Neville Chaimberlin to be on the same side.“The CT Blue Laws had far more to do with business activity and public displays of affection on the Sabbath, then liquor sales.”
Within my lifetime, only the liquor sales laws remained. Last time I was in CT, you were still only allowed to sell liquor until 5 PM on Sundays, which is confusing. If anything the morning should be excluded.“as we have no chains”
Unfortunately, this is no longer true. Somehow Total Wine and Liquor made their way into CT, and I’m not sure how the mom and pops shops are going to keep up. It was the last business dominated by small, family run stores. When I go back in 10 or 20 years that will sadly probably no longer be true.By the way, before the accusations roll in, I’m not saying the government should ban chains. I support the free market, but I’m still allowed to be sad about things changing from my youth.
“Chabad does have Seudas Shlishit in their shuls.”
Full blown lie. I talked to a Chabad rabbi who said the the overarching organization doesn’t even allow an individual Chabad house to do it even if they wanted to for their non-Chabad members. Their reasons probably being that Chabad minhagim would be lost in their shuls if they started compromising for everyone else.“Not eating before davening is minhag, not Halacha.”
Also a lie, or maybe just ignorance. It’s an issur d’rabbonim brought in the Shulchan Aruch. Nobody has ever paskened otherwise. Chabad simply ignores this halacha without justification other than saying it’s their minhag.“The Rebbe was against people who made such claims.”
Source?“Teaneck is a large isolated MO city the debate applies here to.”
No it’s not. It’s a commuter town for NYC. Not isolated at all.Elizabeth doesn’t exist. It’s all a giant conspiracy. Think about it, have you ever seen Elizabeth and yourself in the same room at the same time?
There were “Blue Laws” in CT with regards to the selling of liquor until very recently. These laws might have originally had religious motivations, but that’s a perfect example of something that isn’t a violation of the First Amendment. The law can be motivated by religion without establishing a religion.
Making a public school explicitly Christian is slam dunk establishing a religion. I don’t get how that’s even being questioned.
For those talking about the good old days when the Constitution wasn’t enforced and it was just the Wild Wild West (literally), that’s not a good proof that it’s OK. They were just doing a bad job of being a Constitutional Republic back then. Don’t romanticize it.
“I assume the same. And I never did the full generational research. So, it could be I’m wrong.”
Nor have I, but just from knowing people that have done a lot of work into researching family trees, limiting to ben achar ben would severely shrink the amount of people with yichis to a specific person. If you allow a mix of matrilineal and patrilineal, then every single human is “related” to someone famous within the last 2-3000 years. That’s why so many people claim Rashi yichis. They’re probably right; it just isn’t actually that big of a deal.“But none of them had the clout by either group that Rav Moshe had.”
OK, but Reb Moshe is the exception that proves the rule. Very rarely is a posek that universally accepted if ever.“If Rav Moshe permitted something than that was good enough for both.”
That’s pretty much true with the names I mentioned as well with the exception of one notable controversy. Even the times when when people don’t hold by a heter from these sources (including Reb Moshe) it isn’t usually because they aren’t “good enough;” they just happen to pasken differently, which is a non-concept in the MO since they always just go like the most meikel bidder.“As for schools, you’re wrong. Look at the Teaneck area”
Is he wrong? His point is that you live in a particularly right wing MO community, which I think Teaneck is. Try going to various OOT Young Israels and you’ll have a better understanding of why people have these perceptions of the MO. Contrary to what you might think, your community does not comprise the majority of the modern orthodoxy. Many of the MO communities in the NYC area (it sounds like including your’s) would be at least unofficially considered yeshivish in most other areas.“They don’t even realize that according to their arguments it would be equally unacceptable to make in any (large) city say for example chicago.”
No, it wouldn’t. As we’ve said several times on this very thread, Reb Moshe was matir the Queens eruv. He did not asser city eruvin on the basis of the machmir definition of a reshus harabim. He asser’d the Manhattan and Brooklyn eruvin on the basis that they are a R”HR even according the the meikel definition.
I explicitly said a few posts up “I respect these rabbis and don’t want to be throwing around accusations, but they need to explain their reasoning.” If that sounds disrespectful enough that you need to be throwing a hissy fit, then maybe you aren’t cut out for the CR. Personally, I didn’t see Avira say anything disrespectful either.
“Nom, spoken like a true Lubavitcher.”
I don’t think he’s Chabad.“He gave sichos in chasidishe Torah (supposedly)”
I don’t agree with this being an automatic disqualifier. The Divrei Yoel could also be called “Chassidishe Torah,” but it’s still very lomdush as are probably most Chassidishe peirushim on the Torah. Maybe I misunderstood your point.“Practically every Jew in Europe descended from Dovid Hamelech a couple of different ways.”
I assume it has to be ben achar ben.“Rather, it was used to affirm free religious practice for citizens.”
That includes not being forced to observe another religion. Obviously it would be unconstitutional for the government to ban people from putting up religious signs on their private property. To most of us sane people, it’s also pretty clear that it would be unconstitutional for the government to force people to put up religious signs.“Expression of religion isn’t establishment. Also true statement.”
Not categorically. There are absolutely ways in which expression COULD be establishment if the government is the one doing the expressing. This isn’t that hard to imagine.“Both of these have been destroyed by the Democrats you probably vote for.”
Agree with your stance on the Democrats. I’m a Constitutional literalist even when it inconveniences me, unlike some people…“So far as I know, he was the last Rabbi to hold that distinction.”
Rav Belsky was respected by both worlds (he headed up OU kashrus I believe). Rav Ovadia Yosef was respected by both worlds. I think Rav Heinneman of the Star-K (still living) has maintained respect in both worlds, albeit not without some controversy. If people want respect in both worlds, the formula seems to be:
1) Be very frum/yeshivish in your own life.
2) Be willing to pasken very meikel and stick by your guns when you know it’s right.“Separation of church and state isn’t a constitutional amendment. Ten commandments in a school isn’t establishing a religion.”
These are both untrue statements.“Religion can be expressed in schools just like they celebrate various Christian and Muslim holidays.”
I sure hope they don’t. If you just mean giving days off so that people can either celebrate, or do whatever they want in private, then surely you see the difference.The only holiday that might be explicitly celebrated in public schools would probably be Halloween due to the fact that nobody in America other than Jews view it as a religious holiday anymore.
“I don’t think they have ever mentioned Moshiach directly.”
That’s no accident. The hiding of meshichism is one of the most intricate conspiracies I’ve ever witnessed. Examples you can observe:
-Check out some “talk” pages on wikipedia on Jewish-related articles. Chabad-affiliated editors work tirelessly to push the narrative that mishichism doesn’t exist or is very fringe. (As a side note, they also push for the normalization of the word “misnaged” and its derivatives, but that’s another story for another day).
-Check out what happens when a Chabadnik with smicha tries to open up his own shul (eg. see the fact that there are 2 “Chabad Houses” on Colorado Springs).
-Observe how there is no mention of it on Chabad dot org, even in the comments on any articles. Seems strange given how much people clearly like discussing this issue.Halachically, it’s better that they hide it. But, in the personal sense, it’s kind of creepy how far it goes.
Avira: some good life-advice someone gave me when I was younger: “you can be right, and still be a jerk” (ok that’s a slightly edited version).
The point here being, did you really need to go off on that rant against working people who squeeze in a hour or two of learning just to get that point across?
At this point I think you’re just defining schism differently than I am.
To me, Conservative Judaism is a schism because their innovations ARE purely about breaking halacha. Chassidim vs. Litvishers are just two brands of Orthodoxy/Torah-Judaism. That would by like saying Ashkenaz/Sphard is a schism.
“there is no system for it.”
Sure there is, elu v’alu divrei Torah. If someone does something different because their part of another “group” (eg. they daven a different nusach) that doesn’t mean you hold that they’re wrong. By the way, I should probably point out at this point that I’m not agreeing to you lumping female rabbis in with completely uncontroversial philosophies as if it fits with them and is of equally little consequence. That issue actually does have halachic ramifications.Yet, at the end of the day, it is indeed assur and anyone violating the isser incurs a reasonable expectation that they are able to explain their heter, especially when flaunting it publicly.
You’re right, Yabia, that the reason has to do with him possibly killing you; I was incorrect before.
It would take me a while to find it, but there’s a halacha in the Shulchan Aruch that you can’t give tzitzis to a goy lest he use them to trick people into thinking he’s Jewish and subsequently lure and kill Jews. Achromin seemed to say that this is no longer a concern (ironically, I could totally see the exact situation happening today). Anyway, the point is, sometimes context does seem to matter and rules might be updated, sometimes not. I’m not sure if there’s really any way to determine a pattern.
“Moetzes Gedolai Torah issued a public statement, which decreed that the Vort ceremony be COMPLETELY ELIMINATED”
In my small knowledge just based on what I’ve seen, the Litvish minhag has been for years not to do a vort and to just halachically not be engaged until 2 seconds before the wedding. Chassidim don’t do like this. From what I’ve seen, the people still doing vorts have a minhag to do so and I’m not sure anyone really would say they should be mevatel it. The public statement you mention was probably just to make people feel better about following the former minhag.
“Doubting his authenticity without being in proximity of the context is a whole different story.”
Then it’s a whole other story, but it’s still related. People might be questioning him for his track record on other things as well and this was just the straw that broke the camel’s back. Had this been Shmuel Kamenetsky, people would probably not be asking these types of questions. Given your defensiveness about R Mirvis, I think you clearly realize this as well.“There can be schisms that both sides are fully within halachic bounds.”
Yes, there can be, but that doesn’t mean all schisms are within halachic bounds. Probably not even most. Schisms based on one side ignoring the halacha are a lot more relevant than subtle differences in derech halimud between one yeshiva and another.“We have a bunch of systems (Omer muttar. Shogeg. Tinok shenishba. Taus.) that allow us to remain in close contact.”
Irrelevant. We’re talking about whether or not actions are mutar, not whether or not the person would be chayev and if so by how much. Someone might be a tinok shenisba and be patur, but it doesn’t mean their actions are mutar.“My insistence on using the term ‘we just don’t go into churches’ is only intend to make the matter more serious not less.”
How do you figure? Saying, “it is assur to enter churches” certainly sounds a lot stronger/more serious than “we just don’t do it.”“Do we say that nowadays a CCTV would suffice, since it can deter the barber from attempting a violent act?”
I think the chashash is not about him killing you so much as it is that he will shave forbidden zones. Hence why the rules are different with if the barber comes from various Jewish minim.I think those evil wealthy baal habatim should stop funding the ungrateful yeshivish for one year and see how you guys like it then.
Not saying all yeshivish people are ungrateful, but clearly some are as you can see on this thread.
The more godless public schools have gotten, the more the “traditional” crowd has started to consider religious schools.
“Who is a real ball tzidakah and who is doing it for attention?”
Who cares? Do you really think people in need should go without resources if the means of those resources’ donation was too flashy for your liking? The money going to good causes. Why complain?
“What irked me the most here was that this is a real Rav, and it is not within the guidelines of halachah to openly question him like this.”
Nonsense. Some of the founders of Conservative Judaism were no doubt “real ravs” at one point. Avi Weiss no doubt was ordained by a real yeshiva. When someone seems to be doing something outside of the halacha, you can and should question it no matter what their title is. In this case I happened to be wrong because I was uninformed of the halachah, not because it’s inherently wrong to ask questions.“Halacha is not a factor in schisms. There is a system how to address lack of conformity.”
Halacha is THE factor is schisms. The difference between the Orthodoxy and other movements is that we actually follow the halachah. If Rabbi Mirvis got his heter from a Reform rabbi, it would be invalid because they don’t follow the halachah; there wouldn’t even be a discussion. Apparently that poster views Zionist rabbis as potentially invalid regarding psak halachah. I don’t agree, nor am I sure if that’s really what he meant.Your consistency in talking about things like non-Orthodox sects in terms like “lack of conformity” or the halachah of not entering churches as “we just don’t do it” leads to serious questions that I will likely never outwardly ask.
“Imagine if Biden invited for dinner neo-nazis”
It would be ignored, or twisted into a positive like with everything he does.“Schism is not a matter of who your rabbi is.”
So, if my rabbi is a Reform lady I can still be considered Orthodox? What’s your point?“It’s importance to retaining Jewish integrity in the UK as well as Europe”
Even if this were true, I don’t get your need to keep making these kind of points. Avira already brought halachic sources and I was modeh. You’ve kept this going because you’re insisting on people accepting non-Torah based justifications for the incident even when Torah-based ones exist.I’m ceding to Avira that there is possibly a real heter here, but I will never agree to your point that even if this is halachicly assur it’s OK because a chief rabbi’s gotta do what a chief rabbi’s gotta do.
Someone could write an entire sociology thesis in response to this question. You probably want to narrow down what you’re looking for a little more.
Nomesora:
I think you take the office of the British chief rabbi more seriously that literally anyone on this planet. He’s just a random rabbi with a title.“So, the Torah is reduced to whether the rabbi involved is your type or not?!?”
Where have you been? That’s been the case for at least 2000 years. This whole discussion ties back to a religion that technically started as a breakaway sect from Judaism, and it wasn’t the only sect at that time. Sectarianism is a huge deal whether you like it or not.Jackk, you said:
“So I don’t care really care about every single factor why the FBI started it’s investigation.
If Trump’s campaign was doing nothing illegal , then they had nothing to worry about.”This along with the rest of your quote was basically saying that there’s nothing wrong with the FBI investigating someone as long as they have nothing to hide. I was assuming you applied this logic generally, but I guess you only apply it to Trump. I had underestimated your hypocrisy and I apologize.
“I wasn’t intending to rank the two issues”
I think the OP was intending to.“but I’m not sure which would be “worse” in the eyes of Hashem.”
I’m relatively confident that chillul Shabbos would be worse than something for which there is no real halachic problem. I’m not talking about the actual protesters, just people who purchase Angel’s products.“The issue with Angel Bakery was not chillul Shabbos due possibly more to ignorance and disbelief than malice, but rather the willful disrespect of a gadol borne from hatred of chareidim, Torah Judaism, and Hashem.”
Chillul shabbos is still worse; it’s just that this might not actually be chillul shabbos. If it were vadai chillul shabbos then obviously it would be worse than eating Angels. I don’t see how the OP is comparing the two things at all though.
As a side question (interested if anyone knows), how do those going by the machmir opinion in Israel deal with electricity on other days? Why would you only need a generator on Shabbos proper? Wouldn’t it be possible that the electricity you’re using on Sunday was even generated on Shabbos?
Jackk:
Most people aren’t as into boot licking as you and WOULD in fact mind being investigated for no reason other than for being a political enemy. To each his own, I guess.Uh oh. I think I actually agree with something Gadolhadorah said.
That last comment was not meant to be on this thread.
Lol, OK it’s officially time for me to start making arrangements to delete this account. This place is a joke now.
I kind of agree with Jackk, but not for his reasons. No sane American actually believes that Trump was a Russian asset. Everyone has come to terms with the fact that the whole Muller investigation was a hoax.
That being said, I don’t see the point of the Durham investigation. Nothing is going to happen, and they didn’t uncover anything that isn’t general knowledge.
To clarify, I retract my original position on this thread. As I said earlier, if somebody would provide sources, I would go away, and Avira did so. The only reason I’m even posted this is so that that’s clear.
That being said, nobody other than Avira has posted real sources or reasons. All other arguments here have descended into saying the chazal don’t make any sense, therefore we shouldn’t have to either.
“You need to get better rabbonim. (Some ‘enjoyed’ the quiet.) ”
Who spoke out about the suicides caused by the lockdowns? To my knowledge, most rabbis have never retracted their support of the lockdowns even since the academic world has started to admit they were destructive and caused these mental health problems. If you know some better rabbonim who did address the issues, I would like to hear.“So what’s your halachic take on suicides.”
There’s no question that it’s assur. Nobody is debating that.“Are you promoting the argument or the position?”
I don’t understand the question.Anyways, we should honestly move this elsewhere. I feel like I’m desecrating papa’s thread.