Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
So I just read an article by Chevy Weiss who is a Charedi woman who has 20 years of political experience (behind the scenes). The article was arguing AGAINST having women in the Knesset. However she acknowledged three reasons why “a real Haredi woman would want to run for public office.”
1) Women want their husbands to be learning. If there is a job market in which it is integral to have Charedi representation, but only allows for men, then those men will not be able to learn.
2) There are various issues being faced by Charedim, including an economic crisis, and women have good ideas, especially since they are generally the ones in the real world, yet men generally don’t listen to the women’s ideas.
3) Charedi women do not have a voice in their community. Especially if they don’t have husbands. And with the prevalence of divorce, Rabbis and organizations frequently side with the man. Women feel that female MKs will adequately address their needs in a way that is not being done by male Knesset members.
Now of course we can disagree with the facts or legitimacy of these needs (I have what to ding zuch on all three), but I don’t think we can deny that there are women who feel this way. Therefore, I don’t think it is fair to simply dismiss this as a push for egalitarianism with no actual needs whatsoever.
This is why I think that DaasYochid’s argument is superior to Lior’s argument.
That was ??????? ??? – that even if there is a need, it’s not enough.
I guess the hint helped.
DaasYochid:
The way you have explained it can be essentially summed up in one sentence:
At the present time, the need to have female MKs does not outweigh the various reasons not to.
Agree or disagree?
Here’s a hint:
The quote was said (in various forms) by:
?? ??????
???????? ?’???????
and
?’?? ????
but the latter two probably got it from the first one.
And the continuation of the quote is:
?? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ??????
?????? ???? ??????
Shkoyach Moderator for figuring that out. You like how I made it rhyme?
I guess you didn’t figure out my other one yet, because it hasn’t been approved.
Yes, excellent, and correct.
???? ??? ???, ????, ?????
??? ?? ?? ?????? ?????
????? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ????
????? ?????
????
catch yourself:
It’s basically a disc, on four elephants which are on a giant turtle.
By the way ?????????????, I’m taking the liberty of assuming that you meant “?? ????”.
?? ??? ?????
????? ?? ??????
??????
?? ??????
?????
Sam2:
The Shulchan Aruch in Orach Chaim 678:1 says that ner shabbos supersedes ner chanukah and although the Magen Avraham says that perhaps nowadays since we light inside, ner chanuka is better, the Mishnah Berura does not accept the Magen Avraham’s position and the Aruch Hashulchan says you can rely on it in a sha’as hadchak. The Shulchan Aruch in 263:3 says that ner shabbos supersedes wine for kiddush. And back in 678:1 he says that ner Chanukah comes before kiddush. But this is all if you have bread. If you don’t have bread, it’s a machlokes acharonim about bread vs ner chanukah. Both the Mishnah Berura and the Aruch Hashulchan pasken that bread supersedes ner chanukah, and the commentaries say that bread even supersedes ner shabbos. In my case, the mohel won’t do the bris until you give him the money.
Regarding the bet, I think that DaasYochid would say that ther’s an anan sahadi that the friend knows he’s wrong (this would be a good place for an emoticon).
And let’s say the case is that the kohen(im) and the mohel are leaving town right after Shabbos and they’re not coming back.
Note:
I posted my previous post without having seen the two posts before it. I’m not sure how much it affects what I said, so all I’ll do here is add my sincerest condolences to the last sentence of the post.
DaasYochid and Writersoul:
First of all, I know I must be famous when I get quoted in a thread which I have been avoiding posting in.
Anyway, correct me if I’m wrong, but all “harsh ton es” and “offensive responses” aside, it doesn’t seem that you are arguing about all that much. The way I see it is that Writersoul is coming from the perspective that generally speaking, issues within halacha are decided by sources within the corpus of Rabbinic Literature, from the Gemara down to the latter day Acharonim. Therefore, the question in this issue is: what sources are their that delineate the exact parameters of tznius? Now DaasYochid is saying that there are some situations where there are not necessarily going to be sources that delineate the exact parameters, because certain halachic concepts are in fact rather vague and need to be determined on a case by case basis. (The first example of this which came to my mind – though perhaps not entirely analogous – is R’ Moshe’s teshuva where he is responding to those who interpreted his earlier teshuva as a blanket heter for face/eye powder on Shabbos, and he writes: ???? ????? ??? ??????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ???? ?????.)
But I think that writersoul’s “complaint” is not so much that it’s undefinable, but that it’s so arbitrary. Even if you can’t necessarily define the exact line, you should generally be able to explain why one thing is worse than another. In my example, for instance, if I would show R’ Moshe two different powders, I’m sure he would be able to explain to me why one is muttar and one is assur, even if he couldn’t necessarily define the exact line of demarcation. When it comes to tznius there are so many factors at play. Is being an MK inherently a less tznius position than any other job? I could definitely hear arguments on both sides. What about a woman who runs a store that is frequented by men? Is that tznius? I can hear an argument that a store is less tznius because it is not really a professional atmosphere, whereas the Knesset is. But then again in the Knesset you are more of a public figure.
I recently quoted in a different thread, the end of Masechet Kiddushin:
The Braisa is saying that men should not have a job that involves dealing with women. How many men can live up to that in its ideal form. Maybe men shouldn’t be in the Knesset. Maybe men shouldn’t be doing a lot of things. And maybe women shouldn’t be doing a lot of things. But often there is a strong need for something, and we have to compromise on something. So that’s another factor which needs to be taken into account here. How much, if at all, is there a need for female Knesset members? To give an extreme example, if all women would be suicidal if they couldn’t be in the Knesset, would that be a strong enough reason to allow them? How is such a thing to be determined. I think that writersoul’s main point is that no one seems to actually know what the method is. DaasYochid responds that the Chareidi Gedolim are the ones deciding, but that itself is somewhat vague.
Anyway, I’m not sure if this post actually contributes anything to this discussion (but hey, when has that ever stopped me in the past?) and I hope no one interprets it as harsh or offensive, and I hope everyone has a better week than the last one.
I don’t know much about it now, but it certainly was in Talmudic times.
oyyoyyoy:
I think you meant to post that in http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/googling-your-date
Anyway, I’m still not entirely sure what you mean. (Forgive me for being a bit slow.)
To address a tangential discussion:
bygirl93 said:
Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t the whole point of marriage for boy’s so that they can fulfill the mitzvah of Piru’urivu? Pretty sure that that mitzvah doesn’t apply to girls.
DaasYochid said:
Bygirl93, that is not the only reason to get married.
bygirl93 said:
DY- I am very well aware of that. BUT if you get down to the actual detail about what you learn in school- that’s pretty much it. At least in typical bais Yaakovs where they don’t teach gemara. That’s pretty much all a girl learns is the HALACHIC reasoning- there are lots of obvious reasons- this is just the one that tends to be taught is halacha.
DaasYochid said:
Well, you wanted someine to correct you if you were wrong..
Health said:
BYgirl 93- What BY school did you learn Halacha reasoning in? The Halacha is both men & women Have to get married!
There are three potential reasons why a girl would have to get married:
1) ??? ????
2) ???? ????
3) ???
It’s a machlokes Tannaim in Yevamos 65b whether a woman is chayev in ??? ????. The halacha follows the Tanna Kamma that she is not obligated.
Tosafos in Gittin 41b ?”? ?? holds that a woman is obligated in ???, but this position is not accepted by the codifiers of halacha.
Which leaves the issue of ???. The Rambam in Hilchos Ishus 15:16 writes:
??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ????.
The Tur does not mention this, and the Rema in Even Ha’ezer 1:13 writes:
??”? ?”? ??? ????? ??? ??? ???? ????
Now this is an interesting lashon. It doesn’t say that it’s assur to not marry, nor does it say that she is obligated to marry. It says that she shouldn’t be without a husband. This is significant as we shall see.
Various commentators point out that it’s a stirah in the Rambam. We just quoted him as saying ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???? yet in Issurei Biah 21:26 he writes:
????? ???? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ?????
which clearly implies that she never has to get married under any circumstances. The various commentators suggest various answers.
A few acharonim suggest that the Rambam in Issurei Biah is talking about a place where there would be no chashad, e.g. if there are no men in that place.
The ???? ??? quotes this suggestion and says ???? ??? ????. He then gives two answers:
1) ????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ?????
2) ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ??????? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???? ???”?
The ??? ???? quotes an answer that min hadin a woman does not have to get married at all and “??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ????” is an eitzah tovah.
So to conclude, there are definitely grounds to argue that a woman is not obligated to get married. DaasYochid, the thing that bygirl93 said “correct me if I’m wrong” on was ??? ????, so even if you are right that there is a different obligation, bygirl93 was still correct and therefore you were not actually correcting her for being wrong. However, the lashon you used was “that is not the only reason to get married” which does not necessarily indicate that you think that there is an obligation to get married, but merely a reason to get married. But Health explicitly stated that there is an obligation, so this post is primarily a response to him, pointing out that it’s not so pashut.
Even if there is no obligation for her to get married, she still gets a mitzvah of helping the man fulfill his mitzvah. As the ??? ???? writes:
???”? ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?”? ?? ?? ???? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?????
I have a single friend who lives out of town. She is 23 years old and hasn’t gotten a date.
I have awesome advice. R’ Yochanan Luria in his commentary to Parshas Beshalach writes:
?? ??? ????? ????? ???? ????? ????? ???? ??? ???? ???? ???? ????
?? ??????? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ?????? ????? ??????
??? ??? ???
And he confirms this one page later:
???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ???????? ????? ???? ??????
?? ??????? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ??????? ????? ????? ???
?????
Speaking of R’ Yaakov Emden’s position, let’s say in my above story the only issues at hand were the two pidyon habens, and the guy has 10 selaim. The Gemara in Kiddushin (29a-b) says:
??? ???? ??? ????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ????? ???? ??? ????? ??? ????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ??? ???? ??? ??? ????? ??? ????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ??? ????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ???? ????? ??? ???????? ???? ??? ????? ?’ ????? ??? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ????? ????? ??? ????? ??? ???? ???????? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ????? ???????? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ????
So it’s clear that his own pidyon haben as priority over his son’s. Now let’s say there are two kohanim. The guy gives five selaim to one kohen for his own pidyon haben. Now he has five selaim left. Should he use it for his son’s pidyon haben, or should he use it to do his own pidyon haben from the second kohen. According to R’ Yaakov Emden he still has a chiyuv for his own pidyon haben, and the Gemara says that his comes before his son. So lichora, the guy should redeem himself twice and not redeem his son. However, there is a good argument against this (which is the same argument that I applied to an esrog at http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/techeiles/page/5#post-398593 ) namely that legabay the son’s pidyon haben it’s a safek d’oraisa (if the kohen is a valid kohen) whereas legabay the father it’s only a sfeik sfeika (1- he might have already been redeemed from the first kohen and 2- the second kohen might be a valid kohen) so the chiyuv of the son should supersede the chiyuv of the father.
Either way, in a stam case of a pidyon haben, every additional kohen you go to would be a sfeik sfeika and then a sfeik sfeik sfeika and so on. So the position of R’ Yaakov Emden is a clear support to the Mutzal M’eish which I quoted at http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/techeiles/page/5#post-398814 that by an asei, even a sfeik sfeika is lechumra.
secretagentyid:
I was waiting to see if anyone would get it. Congratulations.
Shkoyach DaasYochid. I would have linked it myself but I thought that chelek 8 was not on hebrewbooks, because recently I wanted to link a teshuva from chelek 9 and they didn’t have it, so for some reason I thought they didn’t have 8 either (even though I have linked 8 in the past).
By the way, the main significance of the pidyon haben part of the question is in light of R’ Moshe’s answer to the Beiur Halacha’s kashya, in Igros Moshe Orach Chaim 5:41, and in light of R’ Yaakov Emden in She’eilas Ya’avetz siman 155
( http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1408&pgnum=140 )
Lior:
The only tzedaka available is kupat ha’ir which is going to use the money for Chanuka presents.
One with a gun is worth three with none.
Sam, I have a question about vaccination, and you said you’ll answer any such question. So here’s my question:
If someone has 10 selaim to his name, and neither he nor his son had a pidyon haben yet, and one candle costs five selaim and it’s erev Shabbos Chanuka and one cup of wine costs five selaim and one kezais of bread costs five selaim, and one vaccination costs five selaim, and the mohel will only give his son a bris if he pays him five selaim, and he doesn’t own a pair of tefillin but can rent one for a day for five selaim, and someone is willing to bet him five selaim that ???? ????? is muttar even when there’s no tza’ar, how if at all should he spend his money?
If the latter, notice how there is no translation provided for the third Ralbag. And it’s not because I didn’t provide it, if you get what I mean.
oyyoyyoy:
Are you referring to the fact that I originally quoted them, or to the fact that I translated/summarized them? If the latter, notice how there is no translation provided for the third Ralbag. And it’s not because I didn’t provide it, if you get what I mean.
Anyway, the Radak is on Genesis 29:18
The first Ralbag is in parshas Vayeitzi in the Mosad Harav Kook edition p.183
The second Ralbag is in the list of ??????, specifically the tenth ?????, on p. 194 in the Mosad Harav Kook edition.
The first part of the third Ralbag is in Lech Lecha on p. 119 in the Mosad Harav Kook edition and the second part is in Vayetzei on p. 186 in the Mosad Harav Kook edition.
oyyoyyoy:
How does that answer my question?
I wasn’t searching via Popa, so I don’t know why I couldn’t find it.
Anyway, thanks for finding it.
(This is an example of something you should take personally. The word “thanks” is a good clue.)
Well are you referring to a specific statement? If I said something three years ago, there’s a chance that I meant it personally. But if it’s something that I said in the past year then it almost definitely was not meant personally. Unless it was something complimentary.
Let me clarify. Since I don’t use emoticons, it is possible that a statement might appear harsh, even though there is no specific attack within the statement. So I’m pointing out that I don’t mean them in a mean way. There have been a few times where I thought that it was VERY possible for my statement to be misunderstood, and I therefore specified that it was not meant as an attack, or I wrote that I would insert an emoticon if I could.
I have some memory of a thread from way back in which Popa explained that the difference between modern and yeshivish is that a yeshivish guy reads Kovetz Shiurim in shul on Shabbos whereas a modern guy reads Tradition (or something to that effect). But I can’t find the thread. Anyone know what I’m referring to?
Good point. There have actually been many times when I wanted to use an emoticon, but I just couldn’t do it. Actually, the vast majority of those times were probably so that you (DaasYochid) wouldn’t take my comments personally.
Well based on the threads currently on the front page, here are a few topics about men:
Are men really Jewish? Are men allowed to talk about Gemara? Why can’t men get modern semicha and become Rabbis? R’ Chaim Kanievski men wearing tefillin.
Really? Why ever not?
Oh and I forgot to mention (I got distracted by other things) that the Torah Temima in Parsha Eikev is not too happy with the ???? ????.
Sam2:
I think you made the following mistake: in the hakdama to the Derisha/Perisha he mentions his mother. But the hakdama was written by his son, so it’s actually talking about the Perisha’s wife who is in fact on the list – ???? ?? ???”? ?????? ????.
R’ Moshe’s position was quoted in this thread. But the thing is that those quoting him, didn’t provide any sources and didn’t note that he discussed it multiple times, and he did not say the same thing each time. I have seen at least four teshuvos where he discusses it; there may be more (though I doubt it because the second one references the first one and the third one references the fourth one and the fourth one references the second and third and no others are referenced).
Even Ha’ezer 2:13
Orach Chaim 5:20:6
Yoreh Deiah 4:11
Yoreh Deiah 4:12
I don’t think the full sentence affects anything. I wasn’t trying to make you say something you hadn’t said. I was implying that you didn’t write your sentence properly.
Here’s the original sentence:
Girls dating pictures helps, basically, with boys looking for vanity.
It still says that girls are dating pictures. Or alternatively it could be that “dating” is an adjective modifying “pictures” but I don’t think you meant that either. I think if you would have left out the word “dating” it would have expressed exactly what you meant to say.
Don’t think that I’m a grammar critic; I was just making a joke, until you called me out on it.
I thought Lior solved the imbalance in the other thread when he said
Girls dating pictures helps
If enough girls marry pictures, it should even out the numbers.
The second Ralbag:
The tenth lesson is that a man should choose a woman who is complete of form, as his progeny from her will be healthier and fuller. This is why Yaakov did not choose Leah who was teary-eyed which is a malady, and instead chose Rachel who was beautiful. Additionally, this would allow him to channel his desire towards her and not to think of other women.