Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
One of the strongest Jewish arguments against Gentile interpretation of the Bible was the Gentile lack of understanding of the original Hebrew text. Studying translated texts as a substitute for the original is condemning the student to a lifetime of ignorance. Study Hebrew and make it the highest priority. The Torah was transmitted in Hebrew- there is no substitute.
I cannot in any way justify the posting of these pictures. It strongly implies that what is shown is permissible.
I did some homework. Amudim is a very important organization that the frum community desperately needs. Kol Hakavod to those who are part of it, especially in light of recent revelations here in Eretz Hakodesh.
Dishonesty and hypocrisy
Amudim generally prevent buildings from collapsing, at least in Israel.
I am strongly in favor of them.
Maybe you can be more specific
The first (relatively) comprehensive arrangement of the tefillot, what we now call a siddur, was compiled by Rav Amram Gaon in Bavel a bit less than 1200 years ago. The nusach there is v’lameshumadim, and hence, it is difficult to call this nusach Ashkenazi in any way, whether it be Poland or German. So too in the siddur of Rav Sa’adyah Gaon. However, in the Sefardic (Spain, not Iraq) transcription of Siddur Rav Amram, it is already v’lamalshinim.
According to some scholars, these two words were once considered synonymous and both versions, as well as others, like v’laminim etc… were found in different siddurim, both Ashkenazic and Sefardic. Of course, as The Wolf pointed out, no standard ashkenazic siddur has v’lameshumadim anymore.
?????? ???? ??????
If you don’t keep two days, there is no halachic issue, none at all. Don’t blame El Al. On the seventh of Sivan, Jewish calendars in Israel say Isru Chag, because it is a yom chol. They even discuss whether to say Lam’natzeach. Why should they print that it is the second day of yom tov? There is no second day. You attack El Al for having flights on yom tov, but the flight is not on yom tov.
Furthermore, you seem to expect El Al to provide entertainment for your eight week old for half a day in the airport. Here’s some old man advice. Feed the child, let him/her sleep on you or your wife, or a stroller. The baby will manage. He/she is eight weeks old and doesn’t really care where it is.After all, you were just stuck in an aluminum tube for almost 12 hours and seemed to manage.
When you attack El Al because they aren’t sensitive enough to your personal interpretation of chareidi coalition agreements, you have to back it up. When you unjustifiably attack an institution, don’t expect everyone to be empathetic. Too bad you cancelled your tickets, you would have had a nice minyan for mincha-maariv in JFK.
News flash: In the Torah and in Eretz Hakodesh, there is no second day. Period. There is no prohibition against flying out of EY on a day of chol and landing anywhere else. El Al is not obligated to honor your habit of keeping two full days in EY. Sit in JFK until the day is over and then have someone pick you up. Frum people do it all the time. Ask the poskim here in EY about this and that will be the answer you get.
In any case, next time look at a Hebrew calendar before you book a flight. It’s the calendar of the Jews that determines how we live, not the calendar of the goyim.
We agree here that talking in shul is improper and should not take place. Indeed , the fellow who profanely (?) orders someone out of the “party shul” is high on the arrogant scale. Only somewhat lower on this scale are the judges here who have determined that these congregants are ovdei avodah zarah and have no desire to serve Hashem. Let Hashem make his own judgement.
I am in favor of writing to the Rabbi, and you need not daven there anymore.
Hatov ki lo chaLU (mil’ra) rachamecha,
v’hamerachem ki lo SAmu (mil’el)
It is permitted.
Wear it in good health.
What Sam’s shoulders said
it’s ok
I verify takahmamash’s post. Most ashkenazic non-kitniyot eaters use Canola oil.
It is interesting that in the Lithuanian yeshivishe world, many if not most talmidim tended to try out different yeshivas , and many Roshei Yeshiva moved their yeshivas often. Of course, the constant movement was largely because of the persecution of the goyim y”s. But the result was that giants such as Rav Heiman learned, taught and certainly rubbed shoulders with most of the other gedolei torah in Europe. Rav Heiman learned mostly from Reb Baruch Ber in the town of Slabodka, but taught for a while in Baranovitch under Reb Elchonon before he came to the States. Needless to say, he was colleagues with Rav Aharon Kotler, Rav Yaakov Kaminetzky, Reb Elchonon, Reb Moshe Soloveitchik and his son Reb Yoshe Ber , and many others.
Rebi Akiva Eiger’s fame was widespread at the time. Considering that he died in 1837, only a generation or so before the golden years of Lithuanian yeshivas, he was often seen as the gold standard to whom every great lamdan was compared. It is no surprise that he was a favorite of Rav Heiman and many others, who would have given much to meet the famous lamdan and tzaddik.
I could find no evidence that Rav Heiman was a talmid of Reb Elchonon. Rav Heiman heard shiurim from Reb Laizer Gordon (along with Reb Aharon Sislovitcher/Kotler) as a youngster, but was best known for being the talmid muvhak of Reb Baruch Ber.
You can look him up in “The Making of a Godol”.
Rav Shlomo Heiman was a member of the top tier of Litvishe lamdanim. Although for whatever reason he did not achieve world renowned fame status like Rav Aharon Kotler, Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky and a few others, his greatness in Torah did not fall below those more famous than him.
I also have that minhag.
You may eat matzah on Purim
You may anything containing matzah (matzah meal, etc..) till Erev Pesach.
It’s the taste, not the product.
?? ?????? ???? ?? ?????
Yam Hamelach, the Sea of Salt, not the sea of the king.
No matter, google israeljeeptours, welcome to the Home of the Jewish people and have a great time.
Masada
Ein Gedi
Caves of Kumeran
Ein Bokek
You guys make me laugh, as if I fabricated a story which was all over the chareidi websites. I don’t work in the kashrus business, and I can’t spread misinformation. Everything I said can be found on line, but sorry, it’s all in Hebrew which almost none of you know how to read. It’s convenient for you to take the Mir Yeshiva and use it as a smokescreen. I don’t know or care what the Mir Yeshiva feeds its’ talmidim, and you all conveniently ignored the point.
The point is simple. One of the most respected shochtim in the Eidah claimed that 20 % of the chickens were treif. The Eidah’s rabbonim shechted a few sample chickens, decided that they were kosher and closed the case. If you all think that no one is raising their eyebrows here or that everyone has ignored the esteemed shochet’s warnings, then have fun with your head in the sand.
The truth is that the system has trapped itself. The Eidah is so so kosher and every other hechsher is so not kosher enough, that when someone blows the whistle, the only thing to do is outright denial, case closed. Good way to deal with it, but here a lot of people see right through it. After all, there’s no business like the kashrus business, is there?
If you all think, which you do, that I am a misinformation machine, thanks for the honor. All my information is from Torah-true sources.
Joseph: So you know that the eidah chareidis is in turmoil over the chickens that they themselves pasken are treif. It’s safe to assume that you don’t call your friends in the Mir every day to find out which chicken they ate for lunch or dinner. The scandal is plastered over every news site that’s interested in this issue,and your friend’s chicken from yesterday doesn’t make it go away. Please read , and in Hebrew, the news that’s coming out, rather than the laundered English stuff that comes your way. Denial is comfortable, but it doesn’t change the truth.
It is interesting that today, the Mirrer Yeshiva in Yerushalayim announced that they would no longer feed their talmidim chicken under the hashgachah of the Eidah Chareidis because those chickens were….treif. The Mirrers are not alone, they are just following what everyone else already knows.
Klaf is expensive, so smaller sefarim are less expensive. if it’s a mini, it’s harder to write and the price goes back up.
Smaller is definitely better, large and heavy comes with potential problems.
Whomever and wherever he is, a tip of the hat to M for his eruditeness and lucidity. I thought his sarcasm in his first post was too mild.
Too close to Shabbat to continue, but maybe understanding the words of the second paragraph of Kriat Shma will help those who don’t get it. Parshat Ekev for the minimally knowledgable.
It’s a good idea to remember that “halachah” is not monolithic. In addition to being accepting and loving of others who don’t “observe halachah” the way “they should” , there needs to be recognition of the many interpretations of what “they should” means. Rav Ovadiah and Rav Elyashiv, two halachic powerhouses by any standard , both forbade human hair sheitels. Both said that it is as if these women do not cover their hair at all. Are the women in Flatbush, Monsey and Lakewood not obeying the halachah the way they should? Were these two great poskim unaware of the “real halachah”? Slippery slopes are relative and quite subjective. Let’s be more careful in both directions.
Translations are a wonderful thing for the beginner or uninitiated. However,in a generation or two, this endeavor will cut yeshiva boys off from the original Torah Sheb’al Peh and they will be pure amei ha’aretz. Translating Rishonim will be seen in hindsight as a crucial error in judgement, and we will pay for it dearly.
No one has answered you. Please tell me what you mean by “the deal” and I’ll try to find out.
A parenthetical comment, off topic.
Daas Yochid posted above a response in Hebrew. How many here understood it quickly and easily?
My strong impression is that the younger generation has given up on studying Torah from primary sources and insists on translations into English. One of the refutations to Christian proselytizers was that they are phonies as their understanding of the Scriptures was only from translations while they were totally unfamiliar with The Original. What a tragedy if we were to reach that low level.
Yes, I am well aware that not everyone has the yeshiva background to study Torah in the original. But are the yeshivas and the hamon am (general public) moving in the opposite direction ? I am afraid so.
DY, I don’t have access now to Orchos Shabbos, so I will reserve judgment until I see it, don’t know when that will be.
I did read five or six tshuvos on line, some were mattir, some were osser, some encouraged being machmir without an issur attached. The machmirim and osrim all quoted the Orchos Shabbos and Rav Elyashiv.
As I suspected, some of the more technical tshuvos were written by poskim who were given inaccurate information. One confused cleaning agent absorption with water content of lenses. Another suggested that on shabbos the lenses be soaked in distilled water. I assume no one does this, it makes the lens unusable. One suggested putting it into tap water, which is a medical no-no. No surprises in these errors, just chaval.
The most important unrecognized fact was that nothing inside the lens requires cleaning, and when minute amounts of the cleaner do absorb into the lens:
1. there is no cleaning action
2. It is liable to be detrimental to the eye, and is therefore undesirable. Manufacturers make great efforts to minimize the concentration of the cleaning agent and its absorption into a lens. As I described above, all cleaning necessary and all cleaning action is outside the lens. This makes it fundamentally different than leather, and no comparison to leather should be made.
Therefore, absorption here is irrelevant, and certainly not a reason to be osser, as no cleaning action takes place inside the lens. If dishwashing liquid is spilled onto the pages of a book, one would hardly say that I am over an issur of book laundering, even though the cleaner is absorbed into the pages. The pages need no cleaning, and the cleaner doesn’t help, it harms. Issur koves? I don’t buy it.
The upshot, and again I will reserve final judgment until I see the Orchos Shabbos, is that contact lens solution like Renu, Biotrue and others cannot be forbidden. Rav Shlomo Zalman zt”l as quoted in one tshuva is mattir without restrictions. For our purposes there is no difference in solutions from his days to ours.
Interestingly, one posek quoted Reb Shlomo Zalman that if a lens dries out to the point that it is unusable, and to rejuvenate it one must put it back in solution , this is probably forbidden on shabbos, as it may be metaken kli. I agree fully, so my thoughts on metaken kli were somewhat relevant to the discussion.
One posek said that rubbing the lens between fingers wet with water- only in order to clean it is forbidden. This cannot be correct, as it is no different than our proverbial dirty dish or a rigid lens.
Kol tuv.
dnetsk, it’s a discussion with facts, thoughts and some conjecture. But the alleged issur here is kibus/melaben, and my conclusion is that it is permitted.
DY, contact lenses do not absorb large amounts of water. Put a contact lens in tap water and the water content will not change. The water in contact lenses is added in the manufacturing process and varies from about 24% to about 70%. (if it matters here, and it probably doesn’t, the addition of methacrylic acid will allow for huge amounts of water to be absorbed) Different lenses can have different water contents and still have the same “softness”. Natural evaporation will dehydrate a lens exposed to air, and therefore the lens must be in a water environment at all times. If constant slight water absorption to counter slight constant evaporation is a halachic problem, then we have a serious one. The lens in vivo retains its original water content by taking water from the tears, and so, putting the lens on an eye causes this process to occur and wearing lenses on shabbos would then be assur. Second, putting the lens in any solution, even saline or noncleaning solution would be assur. But all this is irrelevant.
Water is a very small molecule and will pass through the hydrogel lens. As the water passes through, it does not clean the lens, wash the lens, or remove dirt from the lens, it just keeps it at its original water content.
The halachic issue here is kibus, laundering. What needs to be removed from the lens are particles that adhere to the lens on its outer surface and not inside the matrix of the lens. There is nothing to remove from inside the lens, as protein and lipid and anything else excepting water and some ions are too large to enter the matrix of the lens.90% of these particles are removed by manual rubbing, just like rubbing dishes with water or with your fingers. The rest is removed by a cleaning agent, but again, only from the outside. This is exactly what dishwashing liquid does to a dirty dish, whether the dish is hard or soft (rubbery).
If the issur we are discussing is not kibus, then most likely “soft” contact lenses would be forbidden to wear on shabbos. I have not heard a posek say this, but if one did, I can justify the issur. Tikun kli comes to mind, but I’ll leave that alone.
Nishtdayngesheft, you have shown that you cannot contribute to this discussion on any level, halachic or scientific. Please take your Mr. Potato Head and play nicely in the corner until the adults have finished.
Yes, but softness is irrelevant here. For example, thick plastic is what you may call “hard”, but thin plastic as in Saran Wrap is quite soft. Chemically, they are virtually identical. Softness as opposed to hardness (what we prefer to call “modulus”) is a physical property of the polymer, but so are tensile strength, softening point, oxygen flux and a bunch of other properties that exist but are irrelevant to the halachic discussion.
The point here is simple. Dirt, protein, lipids, junk, what have you, adhere to the surface of the lens, but do not penetrate it. This adherence is no different than chulent sticking to a plate. If I can clean the plate with a cleaning liquid, I can clean the contact lens.
I am willing to venture that the poskim did not differentiate between ionic and non-ionic surfaces, or what technique was used to put on a hydrophilic coating, etc..These issues would make the discussion more interesting, but would not change the conclusion.
I am an expert in this field. With all due respect, the poskim seem to have been given inaccurate information. Cleaning contact lenses (hydrogel, silicone hydrogel, rigid gas permeable, etc..) is no different than cleaning a dish with dishwashing liquid. If that is permitted, cleaning a contact lens with a multipurpose solution is also permitted. Hydrogen peroxide is no different in this aspect. However, neutralizing hydrogen peroxide is a separate question which raises some interesting halachic issues (nolad, for example).
???? ????: ????? ????? ?????????
????? ???? ???? ??”?
??? ?????
Wait, I like this one. How does one mesmerize a photo?
New Coffee Room Definition
Rechnitz = Punching Bag
I watched the full video, and do not recall Mr. Rechnitz refer to the kashrus of fish oil . Not even once.
kiryat sefer
ok, thanks
How about google ??? ?????? ??????? ????
It’s the first pdf on the page.
If that’s a no-go, thanks anyway
shabbat shalom
It is .rtf, not .pdf, so some programs won’t open it. I found one that does, and copied:
?????? ?? ??”? ??”?
???? ?????
????? ?????? ??? ?????? ??????, ??????? ????? ????? ??????:
??????? ????? ?? ??? ??? ????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ???? ??????. ????? ????? ????? ??? ??? ???????, ??????? ?????? ???????? ??????? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ?????, ??????? ?????? ???? ?? ?????. ?????? ??, ??”? ????? ?? ????? ?????:
4) ‘???? ?? ????’. ??? ?????? ???? ??????? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ????? ??????, ?? ?? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?????. ?????? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???? ????, ?? ??? ??????? ??? ??????? ??? ???? ?? ???? ??????? ??????.
????? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ???????, ??????? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ????: ???? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??? ??? ??????? ???????? ?? ??? ??? ??????? ?????????, ??????? ?????? ???????. ??? ???? ??? ?????? ?????????? ??? ???? ‘?????’ ????, ??? ??? ?? ???? ????? ?? ????. ??? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ????, ??? ????? ???? ?? ???????.
???? ????? ??”? ??? ?????? ????? ??????? ??’ ??????, ????? ?? ??? ??????? ???? ?? ??”?:
?? ?? ????? ?? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?????. ?????, ????? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ??????, ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ?????? ??????.
?? ????? ????? ?? ???? ??”?, ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?? ????? ?? ??”? ????? ???: ??????, ????? ??”?, ????? ?????? ????? ??? ?????. ????? ???? ??? ??? ???????, ????? ????? ?? ??? ??????? ???????? ??? ????, ?????? ??????? ??? ????. ???? ?”?, ?? ???? ????? ??”? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ?????, ????? ????? ????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?? ????. ?????? ?? ???? ?”?:
4) ‘???’.
?? ????? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ??”?, ????? ????????? ???? ?????. ?????, ??????? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ?? ??? ???????? ????? ?????, ?? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ???.
????? ????????
????”? ??? ????? ??”?, ?????? ??? ??????? ???? ??? ??? ??????? ?????:
“???? ???? ???????? ????? ?? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ‘???? ?? ???’ ???? ????? ???? ?? ???? ?????, ?’???’ ????? ??, ‘???? ?? ????’ ???? ????? ????? ?’???’, ?’??? ??’ ???? ????? ???? ????? ????? ??????, ??? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ?? ???? ???… ??? ????? ???? ?? ??????.
?????? ???? ?? ??? ????, ????”? ???? ?? ????”? ???? ??????: 1) ??? ??????? ????? ???? ????? ????? ?”?. 2) ????? ???? ??? ??? ????? ??? ??? ?? ????? ????. ????”? ??? ?? ???? ????”? (?????? ?????? ??? ????????), ???? ???? ??? ??????? ???? ?? ?? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ????”? ???? ???????? ??????? ???? ??? ????? ?? ?????, ???? ??? ??????? ???? ?????? ?????.
???? ????? ????”? ???? ??? ???? ????? ??????? ???? ??? ????? ???????:
“??? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ?????? ???? ??????? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ??????, ??? ???? ?????? ???????, ?????? ????? ??????? ??????, ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? – ????? ??? ?????? ?????, ??????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ?????”
????? ????? ????”? ???? ????? ??”? ??”?, ??? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ?? ???? ????? ?? ?????. ?? ???? ???????? ????? ??? ????? ??????, ??? ???? ????, ?? ??? ?? ????? ??????? ?? ????”?.
???? ????”?
????”? ???? ??? ????? ????? ?? ????? ????????, ???????? ??????? ????? ???? ????? ??????? ?????. ???? ?? ????? ????? ????? ?? ????? ?”?, ???????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???. ????”? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ????? ??, ?? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ??????? ???? ???? ???? ??????? ????? ????.
????? ?????, ????”? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ??????:
????? ????”? ???? ???? ????? ????? ????”? ????? ????? ???? ?? ??????? ??????[1]. ???? ????”? ???? ????? ??? ???? ????? ????? ??? ???? ??????? ??????? ???? ????? – ??? ?? ????? ????. ???? ??? ????”? ???? ??? ????? ?? ???, ?????? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????, ???? ????”? ???? ?? ????? ???? ????? ??????? ?? ??? ??????? ?? ?? ???? ????? ???.
??? ???????? ?????? ????? ?”? ????? ??????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ??? ???, ?? ????? ???”? ??? ?????? ???? ????:
???”? ???? ?? ?????? ??”? ??”? ?????:
[2]
????? ???? ?? ????
?? ?? ????? ?? ????? ???????? ??????, ???? ????? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ????: ???? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ?? ?”? ????? ????? ????? ??????? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ??, ?????? ??? ??. ???? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ?????? ???????? ?? ??? ??. ?????, ??? ????? ??????? ??? ???????? ???? ?? ?????? ????, ???????? ??? ?????? ?? ????”? ??? ???”? ??? ??????? ??????[3].
?? ??? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ?????, ?????? ??????? ???? ?’, ??’ ???? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ???. ???? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???????- 1. ??? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????? ???. 2. ??? ????? ??? ??????? ????, ??? ???? ?? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ?????. ???? ?? ?? ???? ????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ??????, ?? ?????? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????.
?????? ?????? ????? ?? ??????? ?????? ????? ??”?, ??? ?? ???? ??????? ?????. ?????, ????? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ??????? ????????????. ???? ????[4]
???? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?? ?? ??? ??????? ??????. ????, ????? ?? ???? ????? ??”? ?????? ???: ??? ??????? ???????? ??????, ‘???’ ?? ???? ‘???? ?? ?????’. ??? ?????? ?????? ??????, ????? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ????, ?????? ???? ??????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ????? ????? ???? ????? ?? ??? ??????? ????????. ???? ???, ?????? ??? ?? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?? ???? ??”?.
??????? ?????? ?????? ????? ‘???????’, ????? ??????? ???? ????? ????? ?? ???? ?”?. ???-??, ????? ??????? ???? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ??”? ??? ????? ?”?. ?????? ?? ???? ??? ??: “???? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ?????? ????”[5].
???? ????? ???? ???????
????”? ???? ?? ?? ??? ????? ?”? ???? ??? ?????? ?????. ????? ??? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ??????? ?????? ???? ??? ??????? ??? ?? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ??. ??? ??? ?? ???? ????? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ???????, ??? ??? ?? ???? ???[6]. ??? ?????? ???? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ??? ??? ????? ????? (?’ ????? ?? ????[7]) ??? ??? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ?? ?????, ????? ?? ????? ???? ??? ?? ??????? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ????. ?? ????? ????? ?? ??????? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ???????, ??? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ?? ?????? ???????. ???? ?? ???? ????? ????”? ?????? ??????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ?”?.
??? ????? ?????, ???? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ?”? ?????? ??? ????? ??? ???? ??????. ???”? ???? ??? ????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ???????, ????? ????? ???”? ?????”?. ?? ?? ??? ???”? ????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?????[8].
*
?? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?? ?????, ???”?
????: ????? ????????
*******************************************************
??? ????? ????????? ???? ????? ?? ?????
**********************************************************
????? ???
????? ???? ????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ????????’?? ?????? ??????? ??? ?”?[9]. ????”? ????? ?? ?????? ?????? ??? ?????? ????? ??? ????? ????, ???? ????? ?? ????? ???????. ?? ???? ???? ??????? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ????? ????: ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????, ????? ??? ????? ?? ?? ???? ?????. ???? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ????? ?? ???? ?’ ??? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ??”?. ???? ??? ????? ??? ???? ????? ????? ?? ????, ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ?’ ??-??? ??? ?? ???.
??? ????????’?? ????? ?? ??? ????? ?? ?? ???? ?”?- ??? ??????? ???????? (??? ??, ???? ?? ?????) ???????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??? ????? ????, ?????? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ?????. ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ??????, ??? ??? ??????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?????. ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?? ??????? (???, ???? ?? ????) ??? ???? ?????, ?????? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?????. ?????? ??? ??????? ???? ????? ???? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ?????.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
After some investigation, I am withdrawing my proposal that the order of the parshiot is not me’akev. As Sam politely pointed out, this seems to be in direct opposition to the gemara. My wonder at how to reconcile this with Rashi and Rabeinu Tam has been dealt with in the following article. In short, the idea of two opposing long living and long lasting traditions is not unfamiliar to us, and we have learned to live with this dissonance.
I am respectfully requesting the moderator to allow this link, a pure Torah article.
It does not work.
After some investigation, I am withdrawing my proposal that the order of the parshiot is not me’akev. As Sam politely pointed out, this seems to be in direct opposition to the gemara. My wonder at how to reconcile this with Rashi and Rabeinu Tam has been dealt with in the following article. In short, the idea of two opposing long living and long lasting traditions is not unfamiliar to us, and we have learned to live with this dissonance.
I am respectfully requesting the moderator to allow this link, a pure Torah article.
Is that the halachah? I would think yes.
Neither Rashi nor Rabeinu Tam demanded that one wear the other’s tefillin. I would be hard pressed to say that one of them was not yotzei the mitzvah. If this is correct, then the order is not me’akev and even a random order is kosher. Maybe even l’chatchilah. The order would then be “kach nohagim” and nothing more.
I might add that there are two additional opinions regarding the order of the parshiot. One of the Ra’avad, and one of the Shimusha D’rava (debate on who he was). Needless to say, not all agree on what exactly the Ra’avad had in mind. If one wants to be a good litvak , one would need two Shel Yads and four Shel Roshes.
To The Wolf
There is a theory that there was no obligation to put the parshiot in any specific order, and that Rashi and Rabeinu Tam both for intuitive reasons,wanted to establish a unified order so that everyone would be performing the mitzvah in the same way. They came to different conclusions which of the ways this should be. Hence the two prevalent ways had no specific names for themselves, as there is no need to establish a specific name for a practice that is non-specific.
I am not familiar with U.S. law.
In Israel, medical marijuana, specifically but not exclusively for cancer patients, is widely used, encouraged by physicians, and the cost is significantly subsidized by the government. Much of the credit goes to Rabbi Litzman of the Agudat Yisrael party and Minister of Health for his efforts in creating this very effective project.
The purchase of this cannabis is strictly regulated and limited, and patients are given instruction in a hospital as to the various methods of use. A little research will show that there are a multitude of varieties, and the officially sanctioned growers have to abide by specific guidelines. Its’ efficacy has been proven beyond doubt. True, it does not benefit everyone, but the majority find significant relief with its use. Can it be abused by non-cancer-patients ? Yes, of course. But the Israeli system feels that the benefits far outweigh the risks. Someone who is interested in abusing this drug will find it much easier to buy it on the street illegally than from a former cancer patient.
The FDA has traditionally been very deliberate and cautious in approving new drugs and treatments, and they should be. They have very strict standards of approval, and are subject to political pressures and other considerations. But they are not the sole possessors of scientific information and research.
As Zahavasdad pointed out, the orchestral piece of Here Comes the Bride was written by Wagner sr”y and not Mendelssohn. Until today, the Israel symphony orchestras (with rare and very controversial exceptions) refuse to play Wagner’s music. According to the historian Jacob Katz, Wagner had a tangible influence on the advance of Antisemitism in Eastern Europe in the 19th century, and was an important philosophical (sic) influence in the rise of Nazism. I am an avid classical music lover, and I will not listen to Wagner.
As far as Mendelssohn’s descendants are concerned, it would be wise for some of the above commenters to leave it alone. If the moderators would allow it (they won’t) , I can easily comprise a long list of gedolei hador from the last thousand plus years whose descendants left the Jewish and/or Torah world. This is a glass house, and the dwellers would be wise not to throw stones.
I’ll rephrase my recommendation, but first I will put on my long black coat, my big black hat, elongate my beard and payos and put my striped tzitzis over my shirt. Now I’m ready.
“Odom, you want to stay and eat at the Rimonim hotel in Tzfas? Go ahead, it’s fine. I myself eat there.”
Let’s be honest. You trust me, don’t you?
Everyone goes there, yeshivish, chassidish, sefardi chareidi, dati leumi, everyone. Just go, eat and enjoy.
Rabbi of Crawley:
I surmise that none (or almost none) of the above commenters live in Israel.I do.
The answer to the question is two words.
Army service.