Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The post is by Patur, mods.
At first I didn’t realize why you pointed this out but then I remembered:
Anyway, as to the substance of your critique:
The way the sentence was written, it means that girls are dating pictures as opposed to dating boys. Then I suggested that “dating” could be an adjective modifying “pictures” by which I meant that it would be saying that having pictures of girls dating (i.e. a picture of, a girl on a date) would help. Which actually would only make sense if there was an apostrophe. If that’s what you meant, then you are correct. Unless I decide to make this another exception to apostrophe rules (need I link the reference?). When I said that taking out the word “dating” would help, I was subject to the same apostrophe issue. If not for that though, the statement would work.
(?’ ???? ???? (????? ??? ?’ ??? ???:
????? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ??? ????? ?? ????? ????? ????? ?? ??????? ??????? ???? ????????? ?? ???? ????? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ?????? ??????? ????????? ????????? ?? ?? ????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ??? ???? ???? ????? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ?????
?????? ??? ?? ?? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ?? ?? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ????? ????? “????? ?? ???” ??? ??? ???? ????”? ???? ??????? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ????? ??? ????? ???? ??? ???? ????”? “???? ???? ?????” ???? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??????? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ??????? ????? ??????? ????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ??
Dr. Marc Shapiro has written:
[A]
I spent a great deal of time learning with and talking to Reb Moshe, both on the East Side and in the mountains. He unambiguously told me exactly what you quote from Rav Henkin. He explained that the Aruch Hashulchan was a Rav, while the Mishna Berura was a Rosh Yeshiva, and the psak of a Rav is better authority. Therefore, when he was unwilling to make his own determination, he would follow the AH over the MB. I mentioned this story to Rabbi Dovid Zucker, Rosh Kollel of Kollel Zichron Shneur in Chicago, and he told me that he heard precisely the same thing from his Rebbi, Rav Yaakov Kaminetzki.Comlink-x:
I think you misspelled PAA’s Law.
I’ve known you not to be serious, PAA, but I don’t remember if I’ve
ever seen you indicate non-seriousness within a non-serious post.
Does this count:
What DaasYochid meant to say was: “There is, in fact, music which can be categorized as Jewish, even if I can’t link to it on hebrewbooks. You are confusing proof with being right.”
Don’t do it with spaces. As of yesterday, googling it without spaces brought one result, which is the list of sources. Somehow the fact that I mentioned it on this page seems to have befuddled google and they forgot the other page.
Moderators:
Perhaps you can delete that post
( http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/inaccurate-things-teachers-tell-us/page/2#post-550428 ) and then google will become unbefuddled?
Do these really inspire you, Patur? 🙂
Am I a megalomaniac? Of course they inspire me.
As soon as I saw the original quote I though of your twist. But I didn’t post it.
Comlink-x:
I hate to point this out to you, but you’re mixing up your threads (again). It wasn’t in the ring inscription thread; it was in:
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/hebrew-quotes#post-537232
Although I could see why you would mix them up, considering:
Also notice how I improved my translation this time around.
And it’s a pity you can’t see my quote that wasn’t approved. I think you would have had a hard time researching it due to how I altered the syntax to make it rhyme in Hebrew.
Comlink-x:
If you want to see a lot more sources about the pomegranate, google: 613seedspomigranate
well, your chassan is going to be pretty mixed up.
I’m petty mixed up myself so it should be a good match.
Sam2:
R’ Schachter was actually who I quoted about it above. His actual lashon, which I have heard him say several times, was “the Mishnah Berurah changed the halacha on every page”.
And his main critique of the AH is that his Mehalach through the Sugyos is very often Mechudash and against Rishonim.
Well the Aruch Hashulchan was probably following R’ Shachter’s position of “[p]asken[ing] by whoever is right”. And presumably he was Higia L’hora’ah.
R’ Schachter actually tells a good story which illustrates the need to know all of Shas when paskening any issue: Back in his youth, he was learning a sugya with his chavrusa (I think it was something in Yevamos) and they decided that after they learn the sugya really well they would take out an Igros Moshe and read a ???? relating to their sugya, and without reading R’ Moshe’s answer, they would “pasken” the ????. So they did it, and they came out with a different psak than R’ Moshe. Why? Because R’ Moshe brought in a Gemara (I think in Bechoros) which they had never heard of. That’s the basic gist of the story – I might have gotten some details off since it’s been a while since I heard it.
shulchanhashalem:
The way I see it, there are several reasons to prefer the Aruch Hashulchan:
1) He was a practicing Rabbi, unlike the Chofetz Chaim.
2) He had access to the Mishnah Berurah (I don’t think it’s relevant how often he actually quotes him.)
3) His work covers all of halacha (except for a few bits which are missing) whereas the Mishnah Berurah is only on Orach Chaim.
4) The Mishnah Berurah often just quotes opposing views of the acharonim without deciding between them.
5) The Mishnah Berurah generally just explains the Shulchan Aruch/Rema (and quotes the opinions of later acharonim). Whereas the Aruch Hashulchan to a certain extent takes you through the sugya and explains his reasoning and brings rayas to his positions. This point kind of relates to: http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/paskening-from-the-shulchan-aruch-without-knowing-the-gemara-and-rishonim
(One of these days I’ll get around to updating my list of sources there.)
6) As I quoted earlier in this thread, the Mishnah Berura’s methodology was generally to count up the acharonim (perhaps granting extra weight to certain of them) which often resulted in conclusions that were against the prevailing practice of the times.
Here’s the quote:
It begins with a quote of the relevant Rambam and then asks:
??? ?? ????? ????? ??? ????? ????? ????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ??? ????”? ???? ???
and answers:
??? ??? ??????? ????? ?? ?? ????? ?? ??? ????? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ????”? ?? ????? ????? ????? ????? ?? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ??????? ??????? ????? ????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ??? ????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ????? ????? ???? ??? ??? ?? ?? ????? ????? ???? ????????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ????? (??:?) “??? ?????? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ??????? ?? ?????? ???? ??????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ????? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ?????? ???? ??????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ????? ??? ??? ????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ??? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ??? ????????? ?”? ???? ?? ?????? ??????” ?????? ???? ????? ????? ??? ??? ???? (??????) ???? ?????? ????? (???? ?????) ?????? ?? ????? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ??? ?? ??? ????? ??????
I hold the candle at a different height every week.
I know I haven’t posted the quote which I said I would post – I was otherwise engaged today, but hopefully I will get around to it soon.
Before I get around to that though, I just want to respond to Lior:
First of all, I did not mean to imply that the principle of kol kevudah has, or should be, abrogated. I was specifically addressing the psak about a woman leaving her house, as you will see when I post the quote.
About the actual citation, I don’t think that it is correct to say that the Shulchan Aruch and Rema ruled on it halacha l’ma’aseh. The Shulchan Aruch didn’t mention it at all, and in the old fashioned printings, the relevant line is in parentheses with no introductory “???” which means that it was not necessarily written by the Rema. I was unable to access the “tzuras hadaf” edition which corrected parenthetical remarks, so I am speculating. If anyone does have that edition, you can check if they attribute this remark to the Rema or not. Regardless of who the author of the statement is, it is interesting to note that he changed the statement from how the Rambam and the Tur said it, specifically by leaving out the part about once or twice per month.
Also – not that this makes a difference for this dicussion – I would agree with Sam here. While people do refer to many different works colloquially as “Torah” I don’t think people use the phrase “pasuk in the Torah” to refer to anything outside of the Five Books of Moses.
cozimjewish:
Have you ever known me to not be serious?
The Mesorah L’Yosef (by the talmidim of ?’ ???? ????) p. 113-114 discusses this Rambam as an example of a psak of the Rambam that is not applicable anymore due to changing metzius. I will hopefully post the actual quote tomorrow.
cozimjewish:
I apologize. I was translating the title of the song from Hebrew into English. Perhaps it wasn’t such a good translation. Maybe this is a better translation: “The Countenance of the Kohen”
DaasYochid:
I’m not going to deny that there are certainly women who are motivated by feminism. But that doesn’t mean that there can’t also be women who have other motivations.
MDG:
You’re Welcome.
Yevamos 63a:
?”? ????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ??? ???? ???
??:
???? ??? ????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ???? ???? ???
So apparently, unmarried men and men who don’t own land, are really women. Hence they are not Jewish. But how could they not be Jewish?
They wear tzitzis, wear tefilin, wear yarlmukes, learn, daven, eat in the sukkah, and do all of the mitzvos.
They count for a minyan, they can be motzi Jews in mitzvos, they can read from the torah, they can be a witness, can be a judge, etc.
They even have a bris, which is the sign of our covenant with Hashem!
In short, they fulfill all the criteria mentioned by Popa in his first post. Now if they are not Jewish despite fulfilling all the criteria for Jewishness, then clearly we have the wrong criteria. Which means Popa’s whole proof that women aren’t Jewish is not a proof. Which means that presumably women are Jewish. But if women are in fact Jewish then that means that unmarried men (who as established above, are really women) are Jewish. Well if they’re Jewish then there is no reason not to accept Popa’s criteria, in which case women really aren’t Jewish. And then the circle starts again.
You can start by telling him Orach Chaim 308:3:
???: ?? ????? ???? ???? ??? ??????? ??? ?????? ????? ????? ?????? ???
catch yourself:
I didn’t say that the ends always justify the means. But they sometimes do. See for example the ???? ??? on the Rambam in Hilchos Sefer Torah 10:11 where he says:
???? ??”? ????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ??”? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ??????? ?”?
He is saying that the ends (saving the Sefer Torah from being taken by the non-Jew with all that will come from that) justifies the means
(????? ????). He is saying this misevara and he’s using the sevara to argue with the Bach. He also adds there:
?????? ?????? ?????? ????? ??? ?????
which is also the ends justifying the means.
“In Judaism, the ends does NOT justify the means.”
??? ???? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ????? ????
MDG:
None of them mention it when they discuss the chiyuv of peru urevu.
The Rambam in Ishus 15:2 says that men are chayev in peru urevu and women are not.
The Tur in Even Ha’ezer in the end of siman 1 states that a woman is not obligated in peru urevu. He doesn’t say that she is obligated in sheves.
The Shulchan Aruch in Even Ha’ezer 1:13 says that a woman is not obligated in peru urevu, yet he doesn’t mention anything about an obligation of sheves. The Rema there, adds the yesh omrim that she should get married because of chashad but he doesn’t say that she should get married because of sheves.
The Levush in Even Ha’ezer 1:13 says that women are not obligated in peru urevu and in 1:14 he mentions the issue of chashad. Again, there is no mention of an obligation of sheves.
That was all proof by omission. The Aruch Hashulchan is explicit though. In Even Ha’ezer 1:2 he says that women are not obligated in peru urevu. In 1:3 he quotes the Rema about chashad. Then in 1:4 he writes:
?? ???????? ????? ????? ?? ????? ????? ?? ??”? ?”? ????? ????? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ???? ??”? ??? ???? ??? ??”? ????’ ?’ ?????? ???? ??? ????? ?? ??”? ????? ??? ????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???? ????? ????”? ?????? ????’ ?’ ???? ??????? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???? ????? ????? ??? ??? ????? ??”? ??? ?????? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ????? ??????? ??”? ???’ ??”? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ???? ????? ??? ??? ???????? ???? ????’ ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? [????? ?”?: ??”? ?”? ?] ??? ??? ?????? ????????? ???? ??? ??????? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ????? ????? ????”? ??? ????? ????????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ????? ??????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ????? ????? ????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ????? ?? ??? ??????? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ????? ????? ?? ????? ???? ?”? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?? ???? ???”? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ????? ??? ????? ??”? ????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?? ????? ???????? ????? ???? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?? ???? ??”? ???”? ??’ ??”? ?? ???? ???? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ???? ??”? ??? ???? ??? ??”? ????? ???”? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ???????? ?”? ????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ????? ??? ?? ?? ??? ????? ?? ??”?
Also see the ??? ???? on the Rambam in Hilchos Ishus 15:16 who proves that the Rambam doesn’t hold of sheves for a woman from he fact that in Issurei Biah 21:26 the Rambam writes:
????? ???? ??? ???? ?????
So I think we see that the Poskim reject Tosafos’s position. The Aruch Hashulchan actually claims that even Tosafos doesn’t hold that women are obligated in sheves. He claims that it’s impossible for women to have such an obligation because he understands that sheves simply the force behind peru urevu, and women are not obligated in peru urevu.
SaraCFL:
How do you know that there is one variety that actually has 613 seeds?
Incidentally, I just counted the seeds of a pomegranate and there were 937 (plus a few safek seeds). If you rearrange it, it’s 639 which is equivalent to 613 plus the Tetragrammaton.
ChizukGedarim:
Without getting too involved, not everyone agrees. See Shu”t B’nei Banim 4:7:
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20023&st=&pgnum=25
and particularly the second to last paragraph of the teshuva where he writes:
??? ??? ???? ???? ????? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ??? ????? ????? ???? ????? ????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ????? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ??????? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ????? ????? ??? ????? ????? ??? ????? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ????? ??’ ??”? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ?”? ????? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ????
DaasYochid:
A chisurei mechs’ra is a last resort. I can just as easily say the
opposite – they want to benefit the tzibur and therefore they want to become MKs. The point is that none of us know what they are really thinking. We can speculate all we want. But I generally try to avoid imputing nefarious motives to people whom I don’t know. (This is an example of a statement that might be taken harshly, but I don’t mean it that way.)
The first reason presupposes that male MKs would otherwise be learning. Meiheicha teisi.
I already pointed that out.
Furthermore, it’s ridiculous to assume that those clamoring for female charedi representation are motivated by wanting more men in the Bais Medrash.
It would only be ridiculous because in practice it won’t result in more men in the Beis Medrash. It is certainly not ridiculous to say that they are machshiv Torah learning.
I can’t say how Charedi men actually view women and their opinions, but it is not surprising that there are women that perceive it negatively. Whether they should expect this particular tactic to work is a different story.
Moderators, you don’t have to research this one; it’s from the Pele Yoetz:
?? ????
??? ??? ?????
???? ?????
“The Appearance of the Kohen” by Yigal Calek.
Lior:
Not that I’m saying that this is the case here, but isn’t it possible that the “silent majority” does want the change but they are afraid/embarrassed to speak out about it?
PAA: Agree with your points (though quoting Umbridge isn’t the way to gain sympathy to your argument… 🙂 ).
Don’t worry – I wasn’t trying to gain sympathy; it just happens to be that she articulated the idea very well. Maybe next time I’ll follow the Rambam’s lead (from his introduction to Shemoneh Perakim):
???? ???? ??? ?????
????? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ?? ????? ????? ??? ????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ???
??? ?? ?? ??? ????? ??? ????? ??? ?????
??? ?????? ??? ????? ??
????? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ????? ??? ?? ???? ????? ?? ???
???? ???? ??? ?? ??? ?? ??? ????? ????? ?? ????? ??? ?????
?????
????? ??????? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ?? ???????? ??????? ???? ??????
[emphasis added]
DaasYochid:
All three reasons are things which could theoretically benefit Klal Yisrael, or at least part of Klal Yisrael. I think the author meant that there are three reasons why a real Charedi woman would feel that having women in the Knesset could be beneficial.
writersoul:
First of all, regarding your first two sentences and your third sentence, you’re welcome and thank you respectively.
Now on to business:
The issue of keeping the status quo, is an interesting one. I think there is definitely value in keeping things the same, generally speaking. However, when there are reasons to change, I thing it should be considered. (In fact there are several threads here, where I have argued strongly against keeping things the same, most notably http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/techeiles/ starting about halfway down page 9.)
But, I would quote Professor Umbridge here: “Progress for progress’s sake must be discouraged, for our tried and tested traditions often require no tinkering.” Meaning that we shouldn’t be changing things just for the sake of changing it. There has to be a reason to change. But I think you, and DaasYochid both agree with me on that. The only disagreement would be what the necessary standard is, which is very likely going to be dependent on the circumstances of each individual issue, and in proportion to the strength of the reasons behind the current position. If that wasn’t so clear, what I mean is that not all status quos are necessarily equal. And just to clarify, when I wrote in my earlier post about the reasons pro not outweighing the reasons against, I wasn’t saying that that is in fact the case here; I was saying that that is DaasYochid’s argument.
Now about the article, when I said that I have what to ding zuch on each of her three points, I did not mean to summarily dismiss them. It’s just that I have some quibbles with them which I’ll mention now:
I didn’t really get her first point. While in theory it is true that women want their husbands to be learning, I don’t think it would be relevant here. There are 120 members of the Knesset. Even if every single one of them was Chareidi, that would only entail 120 men not learning. There are many more than 120 Chareidi men working. She had suggested that women could work in the Knesset instead of in other fields; you could say the same thing for men. So I don’t think that the Torah learning is a real issue here.
My issues with her second point are not really significant enough to justify making this post longer than it will already be.
Her third point, I thought was good, but I think she should have kept the focus on women having a voice in general. Many people would be sympathetic to such a claim. But they might be turned off when she brings up the Rabbis and divorce issues.
But I tend to agree with you regarding her reasons against women in the Knesset, or rather the lack thereof. Essentially all she said was that the particular method of achieving this change is inappropriate, which obviously does not address why there shouldn’t be change, and then she said simply that we shouldn’t be trying to change the system. She mentioned Rebbetzen Weinberg as a good model, but wasn’t that precisely the second issue she mentioned earlier – that only wives of great Roshei Yeshiva have a voice. So I’m not sure how that helps. She also mentioned that it’s a bad environment for a frum woman, but as I think you pointed out, she doesn’t explain why it would be a bad environment for a woman but not for a man. The only thing she really said was that women shouldn’t be in the spotlight, (which conceivably is more of an issue with the Knesset than with any old job) which is in fact the argument that some people were making here.
DaasYochid also made the point that women in the Knesset would be “reinforcing the view of a woman’s role as career oriented, at the expense of her role taking care of her family”, but I think that would be equally an issue (or non-issue) with any career.
So in short, what it comes down to is how you weigh the issues on each side. I think the issues should be discussed, because otherwise people will just say that it’s bigotry vs. egalitarianism, which is what it seems like from some of the other posts here.
If you actually made it to the end of this post, then I thank you for taking the time to read it (Moderators too).
oyyoyyoy:
I apologize, but every time you clarify, I just get more confused. What did you say that was in response to my question?
What’s the misleading thread title?
Physical Therapist.
(That was for you, Lior, and anyone else who “didn’t take me to be the joking type”.)
Now that I’ve satiated my joking side, the serious answer is that I think that the misleadingness is that it makes you think that the thread is going to be about Physical Therapists, or physical therapy, or physical disabilities, or something of the sort, and then when you open it it turns out to be about advice for gift-getting. The fact that the recipient of the gift is a physical therapist is only relevant if you want ideas for gifts that are specifically geared towards physical therapists, e.g. a therapy ball. And even then, the title is still misleading – just not completely irrelevant.
Just for the record, it doesn’t bother me at all – it actually adds excitement when you never know what the thread is going to be about. I was just explaining why people would think that the title is misleading. So nobody take offense.