Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
“Everythng Rav Falk says is 100% HALACHAH! He gives youthe sources for everything he says.” Really? How is it possible for any sefer to be 100 percent lihalach? Let’s take some examples: Rav Moshe zt’l held stockings were not a requirement, Rav Ahron zt’l held they were. Whatever Rabbi Falk comes out on the issue (there seems to be some confusion as to what exactly that is) he is either paskening against Rav Moshe or against Rav Ahron. So say I am a talmid of the one he is paskening against, is Rabbi Falk’s psak the halcha for me?! Or let’s say the issue of whether you’re allowed to wear a sheitel. I am assuming Rabbi Falk allows it, but what if I follow Rav Ovadyah Yosef who does not allow it, is that the halacha for me? You seem to be very passionate with the caps and exclamation point, maybe you should calm down a little and think if what you’re saying makes sense.
Why is the title of this room baruch dayan haemes?! That’s what you say when something bad happens. The title should be Baruch Hatov Vihameitiv or Ba’avod reshaim rinah. As for the concept of not rejoicing at your enemy’s downfall, I am not aware of that being brought down lihalach, while the idea of biavod rishaim rinah is (yore deah 345 seif 5).
choco- I admit Rav Moshe’s teshuva is a bit confusing, especially when you’re only reading a translation. Rav Moshe holds meikar hadin you don’t have to cover under the knee. He then adds that those that are makpid can wear stockings “that are the same color as the skin”. I am not familiar with exactly how nude stockings work, are they actually see thru or are they the same color of the skin? If they are actually see through, then it seems that Rav Moshe would hold that does not count as covering your legs.
truth be told- I have never read Rabbi Falk’s sefer, but from the previous posts it seems that he holds one must wear stockings, clearly against Rav Moshe. Please explain what I’m missing. The teshuva is in even haezer 4 siman 100 seif 6. Here’s a loose translation: “This that there are men who are makpid that their wives and daughters wear stockings on their legs but are not makpid that the stockings are in a way which makes it impossible to see, that you ask, what difference does it make (meaning what’s the point), because if below the knee is an ervah they don’t help because seeing ervah through glass is assur, and if like the mishnah berurah that they are not an ervah then there’s no need for stockings? The truth is that it’s an extra level of tznius because lihalacha below the knee is not an ervah. But there is a reason for those that are tzinus in this because the materials even in these thin stockings do not allow one to see the leg. The proof to this is that when they are dyed black or white, the leg is not seen, only when they are dyed like the color of the skin. Therefore, in reality, the leg is covered, it just appears that it is not.”
I don’t have the sources off hand and I will try to look it up tomorrow, but basically Rav Moshe and the Mishnah Berurah are of the opinion that shok beisha ervah does not apply to under the knee. Thus, meikar hadin, according to them, one does not have to wear stockings. There are many poskim who disagree, Rav Ahron Kotler among them ( and apparently Rabbi Falk.) That being said, obviously if the minhag hamokom is not to allow it, then it is assur. Rav Moshe adds that even those that are makpid are allowed to wear stockings that are the same color as the skin. I don’t remember exactly off hand if he spoke of see through stockings, plus I’m not really familiar with all the differences between sheer, nude, skin color, etc. Maybe the females on the site could help us out.
Dave Hirsch- As someone who has similar political views as you do (although I have a feeling I’m a little more conservative than you), i was curious which of the republican contenders you would not vote for against Obama. I know I would vote for Obama over Ron Paul. I keep changing my mind if I would pick Trump over Obama. Right now I’m thinking I would probably would pick Trump. It’ll be a hail mary, chances are it’s a really bad idea, but who knows maybe this is what’s going to save our country.
davehirsch- I hear what you’re saying about Rubio, you may be right that Daniels needs someone like him as a running mate. However, I disagree with you about Daniels’ lack of charisma. The way I define charisma is that when that person speaks I want to hear everything he has to say. The media likes to call Obama charismatic, but for the life I me I can’t understand why. When he starts to speak I have no interest in hearing what he has to say, and the amount of “uhs” he uses really irks me. This has nothing to do with his policies, I could listen to Clinton speak for hours even though I can’t stand his policies. Daniels, on the other hand, has something to him that make you want to hear what he has to say. As George Will put it, he has the charisma of competence. Also, it’s true that he’s short, but he is a very good-looking put together fellow, and I don’t think looks will be an issue.
davehirsch- I hear what you’re saying about Rubio, you may be right that Daniels needs someone like him as a running mate. However, I disagree with you about Daniels’ lack of charisma. The way I define charisma is that when that person speaks I want to hear everything he has to say. The media likes to call Obama charismatic, but for the life I me I can’t understand why. When he starts to speak I have no interest in hearing what he has to say, and the amount of “uhs” he uses really irks me. This has nothing to do with his policies, I could listen to Clinton speak for hours even though I can’t stand his policies. Daniels, on the other hand, has something to him that make you want to hear what he has to say. As George Will put it, he has the charisma of competence. Also, it’s true that he’s short, but he is a very good-looking put together fellow, and I don’t think looks will be an issue.
davehirsch- Glad to see there’s someone here who realizes that Daniels is clearly the best choice for president. I always find it funny when the media discusses all the “baggage ” potential candidates have. It goes something like this: “Ginrich and Trump have their marriage issues, Romeny has RomneyCare, Pawlenty is too dull and a little too into the green stuff, Huckabee pardoned a killer and is not conservative enough on immigration, and Daniels was caught with pot in the 1970s.” It’s hilarious that is the dirt they come up with on Daniels, he was caught with pot 30 years ago!! That’s how you know he’s the best choice for president. I agree with all that you wrote except I would prefer a Daniels/Ryan ticket. No better people than these two to tackle the budget.
Why has nobody mentioned Mitch Daniels?
Of course the people eating pizza are not thinking about their avodas hashem and of course the gra didn’t wait on line for hours for his beer. However, what is clear from the gra is that the mentality of we shouldn’t be thinking about chametz over pesach, is clearly wrong. The gra specifically used beer to show that he actually wanted chametz all 8 days of pesach, and the only reason he didn’t eat chametz was because we’re not allowed to. This really gets back to the whole pepperoni pizza argument from a few months ago, and what came out over there is that most yw posters could care less what the gemara and rishonim say, they have their views instilled in them by their 1st grade rebbe, and no gemara or gra, or logic, will get in the way.
“and she doesn’t want to develop OCD!”
I’m afraid it’s too late for that…she can’t get over the fact that her kid ate chametz years ago!! Seriously?! She did nothing wrong, her kid did nothing wrong, what exactly does she feel guilty about? Did someone really tell her she’s chayav kares? I have never heard something so ridiculous in my life, and I’m not using that loosely. The yetzer hara always tries to get us to focus on things like this, so we don’t actually work on ourselves in places that we actually do need work.
yswo- What’s wrong with asking the question? He didn’t say that he wouldn’t save the guy’s life, he was curious what the halachic rationale is. Lo habayshan lamed.
I know this does not directly answer your question but it is related, and in my opinion, quite interesting. The minchas chinuch on the mitzvah of lo saamod al dam rayecha says that there is no mitzvah of lo saamod on someone committing suicide. His logic is from the gemara in sanhedrin (I forget where) that asks why do we need a passuk of lo saamod, why we don’t learn out the mitzvah of lo saamod from hashavas aveidah.( The gemara’s answer is not relevant.) In hashavas aveidah the halacha is that if someone throws away his aveidah, there is no obligation to return it. Thus, the minchas chinuch says, so too by lo saamod there is no mitzvah to save the person if he is throwing away his body. I have spoken to a few raabonim about this and no one was willing to pasken like this because it is quite radical and the lomdus is a bit sketchy (one has ownership over a basketball so he could throw it away, as opposed to his body), but I thought it was interesting enough to share with you once you’re on the topic.
I find it quite odd to use eminent domain as the rationale for not needing sechiras reshus. The U.S.’s eminent domain is historically one of the most pro-individual as opposed to pro-government. How could of it been an issue in the past but not now?! Also, misvara, the government can only take property for private use and there’s a very specific process, they don’t actually own your property.
iyhbyu- I did. Daasyochid said “As far as ???????, most neighborhood ??????? rely on several ?????. The most common ones are the definition of a ???? ????? (less than ???? ????) and ????? ????.” You responded, “The local eruv? Are you saying all eruvs are kulas? that would be too crazy to say, so where is local? Please don’t tell me NYC. Because I don’t want to have to explain that there is a world outside of NY again. ” It seems you had some kind of issue with saying most eiruvin rely on a kula, care to explain?
iyhbyu- Glad to see we agree. So what is the problem with saying almost all eiruvin rely on a kula? Is your argument that not all cities have a street 16 amos wide? Could you name a city that doesn’t have a street 32 feet wide?! (that’s using the most maikel view of an ammah) Of course there are situations where they do not have a street that wide, like a bungalow colony or camp, and that is why we said MOST eiruvin.
iyhbyu- I am by no means an expert in eiruvin, and I did not mean to imply that. My point was that I and a few others pointed out precisely what the “kula” in eiruv is, and you responded with “I’m pretty sure that everyone agrees to the concept, seeing as there is a whole mesechta in shas about it” You responded to a very specific argument with a generality that i’m sure everyone agrees to the concept. In essence, you were saying I don’t know the sources but I feel confident that I’m right and you’re wrong.
I’m not sure what sources you’re looking for, I think we’ve made pretty clear what we’re trying to say. But I’ll try again. The Mechaber in siman 345 seif 7 says in his first deah that a street which is 16 amos wide makes a city into a reshus harabim. He then brings a yesh omrim that says if there aren’t 600,000 people (in the city or the street; see igros moshe) it is not a reshus harabim. When the mechaber brings down 1 deah and then a yesh omrim he is paskening like the 1st deah. Since most cities in the U.S. have streets wider than 16 amos, I said, and others did as well, that according to the first deah most cities cannot have an eiruv. No one said the whole concept of eiruv doesn’t work. The biur halacha then quotes many rishonim (13 according to one of the posters) who agree with the mechaber, and many who don’t. Since the mechaber and the majority of rishonim hold that a city with a street wider than 16 amos can’t have an eiruv, and considering that we’re dealing with a diooraysa, I said that most eiruvin rely on a kula. Please point out exactly where I have erred and what’s bothering you. Please do not throw some general statement out or resort to personal attacks. What’s funny about this whole argument is that you would think daasyochid, myself, and others, are coming up with this radical chiddush. Speak to any knowledgeable rov, including those that carry, I guarantee they’ll say the same exact thing.
daasyochid- I agree with you that we have a different view of the term “kula” than most people on the site, but I don’t think we see exactly eye to eye on this one. If my rov were to tell me he holds of this kula, then I would carry without feeling guilty and even shelo bishaas hadchack. I don’t view the kula/chumra thing as what I should do vs. what I’m allowed to do.
apushutayid- I will not name the rov because I would imagine he would not appreciate me doing so. I understand that you have no reason to believe an anonymous poster in yw coffee room. It was not the main point of my argument. Maybe we have a different understanding of the term kula. I am not saying an eruv is only kosher bishaas hadchack (i assume that’s what you meant, an eruv can’t be kosher bideved, that makes no sense). All I am saying is that using standard derech hapsak it would come out that one should not use an eiruv that relies on the 600,000 hetter. That being said, every competent rov can make their own determination whether or not to use the hetter. A rov can say to only use it bishaas hadchack, or he can to say to use it lichatchillah, because the minhag is like the yesh omirim, or whatever other reason he comes up with. The fact of the matter is, that is called relying on a kula, which your rov may tell you there is nothing wrong with.
apushutayid- The opinion of most rishonim and the shulchan aruch is that most eiruvim today aren’t kosher. Thus, by relying on other rishonim you are relying on a kula. The math is pretty simple. I’ve actually spoke to a rav who is a rav hamachshir on an eiruv and he said the same thing. These rabbonim might tell you that it is a kula that we can use,especially because the minhag has been that way for some time now, but it is a kula nonetheless. As for your koach diheteira adif argument, are you kidding? Of course as rashi points out being makil on something is more impressive than being machmir, but does that mean you can just go lekula anytime you have a shaalah?! On the contrary, rashi’s entire point is that it take so much more knowledge to be makil than to be machmir, so he’s actually saying the opposite.
iyhbyu- “I’m no expert in eruvin, but I’m pretty sure that everyone agrees to the concept, seeing as there is a whole mesechta in shas about it. ” So what you’re saying is I don’t know the facts, but I know I’m right and you’re wrong.
a woman outside bklyn and haifagirl- The poskim only talk about maaris ayin on fake milk with meat, there is no issue with having fake milk after meat.
iyhbyu- I agree with you that chumrah/kulah might not be the best term to use when dealing with cholov “stam”. However, there is a real machlokes here. The Chazon Ish and Rav Moshe held it was muttar, while the aruch hashulchan and other held it wasn’t. Even Rav Moshe said the term baal nefesh yachmir, although admittedly the rest of the teshuva doesn’t seem headed in that direction. Is following Rav Moshe over the aruch hashulchan called a kula? Maybe not, but I don’t know why that would be your pet peeve. As far as eiruv goes, the term kula is definitely appropriate. For starters, the 1st deah in shulchan aruch does not hold that having less than 600,000 people takes you out of a reshus harabim. The yesh omrim says it does. The standard rule is that when the mechaber brings one deah and then another as a yesh omrim, we pasken like the first one. Almost every single eirvu, including the ones out of brooklyn, rely on this yesh omrim, clearly a kula. In addition, the halacha is that you have to rent from every single non-jew in the eiruv. The standard practice is to get permission from the government. Many poskim take issue with this, and again it is clearly a kula to rely on it. Interestingly, there are cities in e’y where they document every single non-jew in the neighborhood and rent space from them. There may be more kulas and I’m sure daas yochid will enlighten us.
realbrisker- I am at a loss trying to understand what you’re saying. An udder has milk in it, so it actually is real milk with real meat, it’s just not halachic milk. Fake cheese is not real milk or halachic milk. How could real milk with real meat be okay while with fake milk it is not? I think it’s time you stop and think that maybe, just maybe, you got this all wrong.
Daas Yochid- Thank you for your response. I did not have the plesi in front of me when I wrote my comment, I was relying on my notes. I will try to look at it again tomorrow, and get back to you. I would also add that it is possible to say that in today’s day and age where there fake meat and fake cheese is so prevalent and publicized in the media, perhaps there is no maaris ayin on these things. I would imagine that you cannot say that for milk from almonds or human milk but for veggie burgers or pepperoni pizza I don’t think it’s so shver.
Real Brisker- So you’re maskanah is the same as the maharsha’s havah aminah. I never said that what you’re saying makes no sense, I just said it’s wrong, and apparently you looked it up and can’t find an argument against that. “But I still doubt that one will find any rov eating a fake cheese burger.” C’mon, is that a tannah? The gemara clearly says it’s fine. Why you looking for problems? Honestly, I’ve never seen a rav eat any hamburger. And your chiluk between an udder and a cheese burger makes no sense based on the maharsha you yourself quoted. Think about it.
Daas Yochid- What you are saying is not so pashut. First of all, you made an assumption that the same halacha that applies to fake milk applies to fake meat. While I agree there is no reason to differentiate, when it comes to halachos of maris ayin, poskim are generally very hesitant to extend it more than is actually written, especialy a case like this where the whole maris ayin is iffy to begin with.
The Rama himself in Toras Chatas (klal 62 seif 8) did not hold of the maris ayin unless they were actually cooked together. The Plaisi (siman 87 seif katan 7) was very strong against this chumra. The knesses hagdolah (siman 87 hagahos beis yosef os 8) also seems not to hold of it.
Obviously, one should consult with their rav before eating pepperoni pizza (my rav allows it btw), but i think its pretty clear that there is who to rely on.
midwestener- I stand corrected. She was rabbah bar avuhas daughter. Thank you.
popa- You are certainly correct. The pischei teshuva makes the same observation about someone who won’t eat a meat dish that has milk in it, but is battul.
realbrisker- I am curious what you would say about such a case, is halacha still not good enough for you or this you’ll be maskim is going overboard? Where do you draw the line? Will you only argue on a gemara, or is the pischei teshuva also some krum modern-orthodox posek who didn’t understand true torah the way a “real brisker” would? How about the Rambam who said that one should not say I don’t eat pig because I don’t like it, rather he should say I want to eat pig but the Torah doesn’t let met? Was he also a subway-craving glutton who was blinded by his desire for food? Where does your chutzpah end?
realbrisker- Three people have made mention to the gemara in chullin already and you keep on going with your anti-subway tirade without even addressing it. Does torah influence the way you think, or dear i say, does your way of thinking influence the way you view torah.
“We have halachos that say certain things are assur, goyim don’t have these issurium and are allowed to eat milk and meat, so yes by us wanting to eat milk and eat together is exactly acting like the goyim.” Do you realize what you just said?! I know you didn’t look up the gemara but you’ve seen it quoted here. You’re saying that yalta, the wife of rav chisda, the daughter of rava, was acting like a goy!!
realbrisker- Did you bother looking up the gemara Popa mentioned? I’m assuming you didn’t because if you did you would see clearly that what you’re saying is completely against daas torah.It’s in chulin, I believe 99b. Yalta, the wife of Rav Chisda said to him “I want to eat basar bichalav.” Rav chisda told her to eat the udder of a cow and the gemara goes on to say that for everything assur, hashem created something muttar, and gives examples. The reason for not eating milk and meat together is because that’s what we were commanded, no other reason. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having fake milk or fake meat (as long as you follow the shulchan aruch to avoid the maaris ayin issue). Proper hashkafah is not something innate. You have to learn and look up the issues. Clearly, you didn’t. What you are saying is not only wrong, but against an open gemara.
health- I’d rather not discuss my personal situation. The goal used to be to get into the top third of the class. This way you’d get a summer internship in your 2nd year, which pays around $25,000, and then they would hire you after you graduate. A starting salary for such a job is around $160,000. Now, it is not enough to get in the top third. There really is no magic number anymore. Only a select few have gotten the 160k jobs and of those even less have 2L summer internships. Most graduates are looking for any job, some may work for the DA and make approx. 55k. Some get jobs at small firms. Many have no jobs. I would advise anyone looking into going to law school to do as much research into post law school life as they do into their law school.
As a recent Fordham graduate I believe I have my two sense to add. Both homeowner and iyhbyu have made valid points. First off, it is definitely true that undergraduate writing is very very different than law writing, and for homeowner to suggest otherwise is either dishonest or things have really changed since his days in law school. That being said, there are many yeshiva guys that lack even the basic high school writing skills. They don’t know any english, have no idea where to put a comma, etc. It is those yeshiva guys that are in for a big surprise when they get to law school. A yeshiva guy who had a decent secular education in high school, and learned how to write properly, will not be too far behind an english major. In fact, many of my more intelligent classmates expressed frustration at the “dumbing down” of legal writing from the writing they were used to. Another issue is that some people just dont have the knack for expressing their ideas in writing, and a yeshiva guy who never went to college will have no idea if he falls into that category. ihybyu- I don’t know how you could be so confident after one semester, at this point, you probably have gotten one, maybe two papers graded, you’ve got a lot ahead of you.
In Fordham, the writing course is not pass/fail, and I don’t know of any school that does it that way. However, it is only a 2 credit course. That being said, prospective employers care more about your grade in legal writing than any other course. Someone in the top 3rd, who got a B in legal writing, will be at a tremendous disadvantage.
Fordham took a lot of BTLs for the class of 2013. I would say around 10-15. However, almost all of them had trouble getting in. As far as the study that was done, they determined that yeshiva guys almost always finish in the bottom 5 percent OR THE TOP 5 PERCENT. If you don’t believe me call Dean Brown, the dean of admission. I heard this directly from him.
IMO, the reason many yeshiva guys don’t do well is because everyone works hard in law school. The only exception, in my experience, is some yeshiva guys. This is due to a variety of reasons including that many have wives, families, or their lack of discipline in their yeshiva years. If you have any questions that I could help with, feel free to ask.
homeowner- Relax, it’s the yw coffee room, don’t take everything so personally.