Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
benignuman wrote”
“
A posek can’t just make a up something to be matir a mamzer.
“
Just to enlarge on that a bit, there is no reason for him to want to either. His job is to do his best to find a valid heter because that is what the Torah wants him to do, not because he wants to get around the torah.
I am sure most of the readers and posters here understand this.
rob wrote
“
First of all, the person in question (Borokowsky) never was a shomer mitzvos-contrary to what “nitpicker’ says.
“
Since you have posted this three times, it must be true,
as we learn from the bellman in THE HUNTING OF THE SNARK.
I therefore stand corrected.
and moshe_d wrote to ROB
“maybe using google translate if the Hebrew is too difficult”
And then using google mefaresh, if he still doesn’t get it.
Charliehall wrote
“
Correct. Except that Rav Goren pasuled a single conversion after an investigation.
“
correct. And let’s not leave out that he did so after many rabbanim investigated and declared the gerus kasher.
again I am stating a fact, not an opinion about the fact.
and to add a historical note to what moshe_d wrote,
not only was the psak detail itself ‘classified’ but the names of the other rabannim on the ad-hoc bais din were kept secret!
remember, just a historical fact, not posting an opinion about it.
to sam2.
it seems that we do know and that he was far frumer than his wife.
he moved voluntarily to ey after his wife left.
please note, it was not my intention to post a judgement of Rav Goren’s psak. what I wrote were simply facts that I thought were not at all in question, and I was surprised at your question. Who ever told rob he went back to his roots? yes, people claimed that, to prove he never meant to be mekabel mitsvos, but there is no evidence. It seems to have been made up at the time of the affair.
Rabannim made a point of inviting him for shabbos to show respect for him
to ROB who wrote “there was no bais din that paskend them for mamzerim”. I am sorry but that is revisionism. there certainly was.
and I remember them proclaiming that they were crying at the time of the case and they saw no way out.
and also to rob, of course you wouldn’t be aware of that tshuva, since it doesnt match your thesis.
of course rav moshe did everything to avoid mamzerus and to free agunos. that is what a rav is supposed to do. and rav moshe zatzal had a great koach l’hatir. but how dare you accuse him of just accepting or inventing silly heterim because the halacha is inconvenient!? he was an orthodox rabbi. are you?
and to poppa.
boy! you really started something here!
rob wrote:
“Please show me an example in halocho where one Bais Din can invalidate another’s psak. “ein davar kazeh”. No such thing exists.
“
and also wrote:
“
And-please remember what he did (overlooked by everyone here): he was actually “mattir’ (allowed) an “eishes ish” (married woman) to be free WITHOUT A GET based on his interpretation of matters that happened years ago.
“
and also wrote:
“As far as Rav Shlomo Goren zz’l- he was absolutely right in what he did- because he tried hard to avoid bringing mamzerus into klal.”
Man-o-man you are one confused rabbi of berlin!
What rabbi goren did is exactly what YOU said cannot be done– invalidate a psak of another bais din. In fact he did it twice:
he invalidated the gerus accepted by a bais din (and the psak of the bais din that did the gerus) and also invalidated a psak that his wife’s children were mamzerim. In doing so he made a ger shomer mitsvos into a non-jew,
a woman who married without a get into a kashera, and her children into ksherim. Just what YOU said he had no authority to do!
you are inconsistent and your thinking is confused.
Also it is outrageous to imply that Rav Moshe used really invalid reasons to permit a mamzer. You called them ‘outlandish’ but that is what you implied. In at least one tshuva he answered that there was no question to deal with, the subject (or subjects, I forget) were obviously mamzerim. He rejected the valiant tries of the Rav who asked the shaila, basically calling them (without using the word) ridiculous. You would have called them outlandish resons and thought they should have been used.
pba wrote:
“But then I started wondering if I’ve been dulled against proper appropriate speech.
“
I am sorry but I really think you have.
I see some of your own comments or jokes as inappropriate.
to gavra who wrote
This is the first logical argument that I have heard against vaccination yet.
thank you, but it was not my intention to argue against, just to make the issue a bit clearer. I seem to have succeeded.
I also don’t think the comparison to the chradi draft issue is completely analogous.
to health and others
look, I am just not so sure of the answer to what I see as a philosophical conundrum. You are so sure of the answer, I am not.
I and my children have had the various vaccinations with only minor affect. but I am personally aware of two cases of disastrous
results. Is it worth the risk? Perhaps. Is it an obligation to the rest of the community? Again perhaps.
besides I am disturbed by the arguments about ‘vaccines’ in general rather than about particular ones.
measles is a great example to discuss. it is mostly self limiting in children but sometimes can have very bad consequences. it is also a danger to others and particularly pregnant woman. (this is usually only mentioned with regard to german measles which an entirely unrelated disease). again is the risk of the disease and the unlikely possibility of serious outcome worth the small risk of serious result from the vaccine? does someone else have the right to force me to take this risk?
I don’t know the answers as are sure you do, so I have no more to argue in this thread.
I would personally prefer everyone else to get vaccinated,
so that I and my children won’t have to. There are side affects and dangers, serious ones are rare but do occur. I hope you all conclude that the proven benefits are worth the definite but statistically small risks. (Not autism, that one is ridiculous).
So if you would all be so kind….
to mod-95.
yay! in that case
you may remove my hanging post.
to feif un
but did the bais din actualy issue a siruv? if they did,
you have no question here to ask. if they did not, you also have no question to ask here .
also, you are obviously talking about something that happened a long time ago. things may have occurred since then to change the situation. no one here knows those details.
if the bais din issued a siruv you must follow it. if they did not you must not issue one yourself!
and certainly this too should be open to discussion in public!
besides you are asking the coffee room to serve as the surrogate bais din to judge this rav and if he should be respected or sanctioned instead!
Now that we have the CR we should do away with batai din altogether!
to expand on what recipes wrote:
yes if you are getting these type of ads when on YWN,
you have malware on your computer. they are not comming from YWN, but from a rogue program.
try malwarebytes, superantispyware, or other cleaner to see if you can get rid of it.
“I am publicly calling for the same to be done to the Flatbush Jewish Journal, for the publishing of that letter.
Ayin tachas ayin
“
but you know that that isn’t what ayin tachas ayin means!
DaasYochid, and I suppose you are citing it to support one side of the argument or the other. Not much point since you are on both sides.
in any case I am tired and you may have the the last word. I am also sorry if you were insulted by my comments.
to daas yochid:
I clearly demonstrated the contradiction twice.
rav moshe wrote a tshuva saying that many things were assur.
it is not a complex or long thsuva with chidushei torah. He merely restates the issur of tsvia and memachk. as I remember it since I last read it, there is not a word of heter in it except for the last line where he permits white face powder. Some, including the aformentioned and apparently you, said, “Aha! then the cases that are a little less stringent than the cases given must be mutter!”, thus claiming some makeup as mutter according to rav moshe. (but still forbidden according to others}
but some, and apparently you yourself, think this is a misinterpretation of the thsuva and the makeup is assur according to rav moshe!
you are on both sides of the argument as to what rav moshe meant.
that’s 3 times. the contradiction in your words is there, even If I am not remembering the tshuva exactly.
I not trying to be harsh, just logical.
sidenote:
my unusual burst of activity in CR since just before pesach once again is a response to period of extreme pressure at work.
It is time for me to go back to simmer.
to daas yochid:
If you say so.
“different sets of poskim”
but one individual or posek cannot hold both opinions at the same time. I still don’t think you realize that you yourself implied both, thus being self-contradictory.
which ‘both’ do you mean?
both of the following cannot be true unless…. (sentence finished later)
1) rav blumenkrantz was of the opinion that rav moshe would have permitted the makeup. other poskim disgree with this inference of rav blumenkrantz. they believe that rav moshe would not have perimitted it.
2) the other poskim agree with rav blumenkrantz’s conclusion about rav moshe but they themselves disagree with rav moshe in this matter. they themselves forbid the makeup.
these are mutually exclusive
…. unless we are talking about a different set of poskim.
I maintain that important poskim who fobid it take position 1.
that is based on the vehemence of their objection. )
however, throughout you keep referring to “rav moshe’s heter” and also say that rav moshe was a daas yochid in this matter. thus agreeng that rav moshe (and almost only rav moshe) would have permitted it. You also say that no makeup complies with “rav moshes heter” thus disagreeing with rav blumenkrantz. these are not compatible.
Good night.
(just a restatement of what I said before)
daasyochid
so you maintain that other poskim agree with rav blumenkrantz that rav moshe would have permitted this makeup, but they themselves disagree with this heter of rav Moshe’s.
while I maintain that other poskim disagree with rav blumenkrantz in inferring such a heter in rav moshe’s tshuva.
perhaps I am wrong but I have seen nothing to make me change this opinion.
but wait, you also said that no makeup conforms to “rav Moshe’s heter” which would mean you yourself disagree with rav blumenkrantz! I can’t figure out what you hold at all.
and now having just restated what I said earlier (well a little more) there is not much point in my commenting further.
“The elephant in the room is”
I think the definition of this phrase
is: an obvious, clearly visible and shocking item that by some sort of unspoken agreement, no one dares mention.
That is not what is happening here. No one need beg the question, they block evolution because they don’t believe it.
Perhaps they haven’t thought into it as well as you have (snicker!) and believe that evolution is denying creation. and so it is.
Yes it is possible to formulate a twisted philosophy that includes both, but they (school administrators) haven’t reached that lofty level. Perhaps you should explain it to them.
Besides, the evolutionary theory that is taught and tested on the regents’ exam clearly touts evolution as the result of accident and denial of creation. (The regents haven’t reached your lofty heights either)
Just the same, in one yeshiva I have knowledge of years ago, though evolution wasn’t taught, students were not forbidden to answer those questions if they knew the answer.
Often they did know from having studied regents review books.
done and out of this.
“
you don’t see Shi Tzus reverting back to wolves either “
dogs are a good starting point since there are so many divers breeds which are all of the same species.
I have heard (from a dog expert) that when dogs of different breeds are allowed to inter-mate the result after a few generations is predictable. some sort of generic uniform dog results almost regardless of the mix started with, provided you have enough variation. they do not become wolves or foxes or coyotes. I am not making any point with this or any argument in the discussion. it is just an interesting fact. (if true).
sam2 wrote:
“nitpicker: I sort of hear that. But I always assume that people in the cr are looking for discussion, not P’sak. Just like you wouldn’t Pasken based on a conversation with your Chavrusa in the Beis Medrash, so too no one Paskens here, but the discussion is the same type of discussion.
“
that is plainly ridiculous and circular reasoning. with that logic, there need not be any rule like that all, for one can assume that no one would ask halacha l’maasa here or answer.
Nonsense that is exacly what is happening here all the time.
And even if OP or posters didn’t meant that, lurkers will clearly take it that way for sure.
it is also not the “same type of discussion” because
YOU ARE NOT IN THE BAIS MEDRASH TALKING WITH YOUR CHAVRUSA!
to daas yochid
I am shocked! I believe it is the other way around. Not rav Moshe was a daas yochid in this matter but rav blumenkrantz was the daas yochid in interpreting what rav moshe wrote. That is why poskim call it chillul Shabbos, not because they disagree with rav moshe.
I didn’t want to mention individuals by name but since you did, I had no choice but to follow up. another bad thing about the CR.
I know am on shaky ground here because someone may know more than is in the original tshuva, but until demonstrated otherwise this is how I think it is.
It is also strange to say that Rav Blumenkrantz did not mean for everyone,
where is the evidence of that?
and now I am done with this thread.
to sam2
you missed my point.
indeed, neither one of those is the way of halacha.
one can look for truth or look for a result.
either way this is not the place for it. it is expressly against the stated (but not always practiced) rules of the cr as it should be. great harm is done by threads like this.
in reply to oomis
indeed one who wants to do anything, should certainly keep asking until one finds someone who permits it. better yet just ask the cr. someone will give a heter.
everytime I think the cr has gotten to its lowest point, I am surprised again.
“just fyi, they sell Shabbos make up which is in line with r’ moshe feinstein “
so claims the rav who gave the hechsher. very far fetched though.
once again you are asking actual shailos halacha l’maasa of the coffee room. and posters are poskening for you!
mods are you all asleep?
“the anti chareidi site failedmessiah”
I couldn’t hold back from commenting on this.
you call that trash anti chareidi?
It is anti religious, and actually anti anything jewish at all. It is full of hate,
assumes any thing negative in the news must be true but really worse than reported and twists any news at all into anti jewish propaganda whenever it can.
don’t be silly, pba doesn’t need anyone else to change his name or subtitle.
“
go to an Orthodox/ frum shul of any stripe and there is talking throughout davening. Its like the talking is the main thing and agav orchey we say a few amens here and there daven shmoneh esrie and immediately resume our conversations.
“
this is not true. people believe this and think it is just impossible to stop the talking in shules and give up or use it as an excuse for their own behavior. (“oh, everyone does that”) .
However there are shules where talking is nearly non-existent.
As my own ( my above observations were from when I am not in my own shul. ) Another poster said the same about his own shul above. There are others where the few talkers relegate themselves to the back while most of the shule is quiet.
look around. If you have children and can’t find a proper place to take them to daven, move.
yussel wrote
“Let’s all stop trying to show how we are holier than those “other people”
Oh, is that what the posters are doing?
I think you should apply your own advice to yourself.
to wiv,
how can you dispute something I’ve seen just because you witnessed something else? I am sorry to hear that your neighborhood has not yet gotten with it.
Some shules where the talking was rampant and the talkers insolent when rebuked, are now mostly quiet. Others, though still bad, are not as bad as they used to be.
( perhaps a new thread should be started about gabboim and officers who think they have special dispensations, despite shushing others.)
while agreeing witn the discussion
I must say, and others agree with me, that there has been tremendous improvement in many shules in this inyan.
OK…. SO I’ll explain what pig-latin is.
pig latin is just one system of changing every word spoken so that only people in on the secret can understand what you are saying. to others it just gibberish.
In the case of pig-latin, you move the first consonant to the end of the word and add AY. examples: WORD becomes
ord-way,tzaddiq becomes addiq-tzay. After a few minutes practice it is easy to do and understand. If the word begins with a vowel, I think you just add ay to the end of the word.
etgay itay?
for the benefit of lurkers who may not get it,
this whole thread is a joke.
Some holy names depend on the context to be considered holy.
This is important to the sofer who must be aware of these distinctions when writing a sefer torah.
we received the right and the obligation to observe the torah.
and to become the AM SEGULA.
Please note that only a few flavors of spirutein have a hechsher.
this is not because all the others are non-kosher but because the manufacturer only had those flavors when they got the hechsher and havn’t expanded the kosher list.
some of the other flavors may not be kosher, you should stick to the few that have the hechsher
a protein drink such as this can be used to gain or lose weight,
depending on whether one uses it to replace a meal or in addition to regular meals.
“Nitpicker, I don’t either have much invested in the Golem, however I find it silly when people fight tooth and nail that there wasn’t a Golem. Then they say, “Oh, I believe he could have”, while refusing to accept the possibility that he did.
You’re right of course.
I suppose (to my shame) I argued like that because I got insulted.
I have been insulted here many times but this time it really got to me. Why? because he said I was argumentative and unlearned.
and as the saying goes, the truth hurts.
look, this isn’t even an important point to me and I don’t know how I got so embroiled in an argument about it. the maharals greatness is not lessened if he did not make a golem. I believe he could have done so had he wanted to.
it does makes a difference to those who are convinced that a golem is impossible. I not one of those, and whether or not the maharal made one is just a small point of history to be clarified.
I am surprised to learn the Steipler believed in the maharal’s golem which will cause me to soften my opinion somewhat.
to sharp.
I understood you were joking but still wanted to clarify the point.
certainly not ‘blatantly’.
and thanks to daas yochid.
yidl Rosenberg was the name I had heard. not familiar with the other version.
it seems not according to the rambam.
“He is probably the most famous Rabbi of the Central/Eastern European Era. He is not famous for any Sefer or Pshats, He is famous for making a Golem.”
neither statement is true.
incidentally, Yaakov dovid Shulman, a contemporary author of biographies, says in his book about the maharal that the golem legend is unsupported. then he includes for the sake of completeness (and to fill up a chapter) one of the golem stories.
I am sure this has been discussed here before.
but:
The short answer to the question is no. a jewish cemetery could not have a hard and fast rule like that.
The longer answer.
A non practicing Jew may not buried next to one who was observant of the torah and its laws. The torah forbids Jews from tattooing.
but
The mere presence of a tattoo does not prove that the deceased was a non-practicing Jew at the time of his death
and even a non-practicing jew may and should be buried in a jewish cemetery, though he would not be given an adjoining plot to one who was observant.
for a still longer answer stay tuned, others will post.
and now it is time for me to go back on the wagon.
“The Vilna Gaon, Rashash, and others were able to discern the true text from altered writings and misprints, solely through their torah wisdom. “
Not solely, but by comparing available versions and versions quoted . and THEN applying their torah wisdom.
there are stories about some of the giants mentioned bristling at the idea that they edited without source.
to Talmud
blatantly incorrect! blatantly!?
I wish I could remember the name of the forger. I tell you he had already been caught . there is only one source for the story, a supposed find in a library many years after the maharal.
a) that isn’t enough and b) a bad source at that.
and don’t group me with old man on this, my stance on this issue is nothing like his.
and also to attribute that quote about believing stories to the Steipler is laughable. ( hedging as usual I say that it is possible that he subscribed to it and repeated it, but it is not his statement. that was a hedge, but I think it more likely it is just a mis-attribution )
to Talmud
while it is evident that the maharal was on a level to create a golem, the evidence suggests that he did not, not merely a lack of evidence that he did.
this is as I remember it, I can’t point you to sources.
first, several biographies written just after his lifetime make no mention of it, even one written by a son or son-in-law.
second, the whole legend of the golem was created by someone who claimed to have found an old sefer in a library called something like niflaos maharal. this person already had a record as a forger.
that is the only source for the maharal golem story.
again I do not argue that he had the power to do so, only that in fact, there is less than reason to believe that he did.
oh and also, creating a golem has nothing to do with creating
yesh ma’ayin.
but there is good reason to deny the existence of the maharal’s golem in particular.