Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
See however, R’ Tzadok in ???? ????? ??? ??:
??? ???? ???? ?? ???? ????? ????? ???? ????? ???? ????? ???? (???? ?”? ?’) ???? ?????? ??? ????? ??? ??????? ?????? ??? [??? ???? ????? ????? (?”? ?) ?? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?? ???? ???? ??????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ?? ??? ??? ??????] ???? ???? ????? ??? ?? ?? ???”? ?? ???? ?? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?? ???? ????? ??? ??????? (??????? ?”? ?) ?’ ???? ?????? ?????? ????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ??’ ???? ?? ???’ ?? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?? ?? ???? ??? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ??? ????? ???? ??? ??? ??? ??????? ??? ?? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ???????
“the gemara in kiddushin 81 says that rabi akiva used to make fun of ovrei aveirah, so I am just following along with that”
Which Rashi explains as ???? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?????. And I wonder if in heaven they say ????? ???? ?? ??? ??????.
Well it could either disprove my theory, or it could prove that the Rambam was not universally accepted. Or it could be against my theory without disproving it.
Randomex:
Although “stuff” does not need an “s”, there are certain situations where the word “stuffs” is used. Examples, include textiles, and “stuffs of war”, although in regards to the latter, the Oxford English Dictionary, notes that the usage is obsolete.
An observation:
R’ Moshe in his teshuva (Y.D. 4:33), doesn’t use the sevara of “spiritual danger”. Granted, he wrote the teshuva in 1981, so one could argue that the metzius was different.
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14679&st=&pgnum=263&hilite=
In The context which I borrowed it from, Rashi translates it as “????” which would be some type of bench. And in that context, I don’t think it was said antagonistically. See Kiddushin 70a.
Curiosity:
So what role are they violating by answering halachic questions?
As to your other point, semicha is simply a test on halacha. Now it happens to be that it is very likely that the majority of people getting semicha, are probably not doing it in order to be able to answer halachic questions. Two obvious reasons why someone would want semicha are 1)in order to get a job as a Rebbe – sort of like a college degree 2)to have something to show for (either themselves or others) their many years in yeshiva. Now it’s a bit circular to say that no one would give semicha to someone who (by desiring semicha) is going against Torah and Mesorah, until you demonstrate that it is actually going against Torah and Mesorah. I don’t think you have yet done so. As I said earlier, the mere fact that something hasn’t been done, doesn’t make it wrong. See also the various sources which I quoted earlier in this thread, starting from:
But anyway, I never suggested that any of those yeshivos should ordain women.
I think DaasYochid is referring to this:
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14679&st=&pgnum=190
According to R’ Moshe, it would come out that some hold that Machnisei Rahamim is not a problem (and presumably that it is not included in the Rambam’s ikkar). However, those who were against Machnisei Rachamim, presumably are saying that it is against the Rambam’s ikkar. If so, then the only way that the forbidders could not consider the permitters as heretics would be if they say that the Rambam’s position is not necessarily binding. Which according to my arguments above, wouldn’t even make sense – if it’s heretical then it’s heretical. Maybe they think it’s a safek? I don’t know.
And there was a quasi-follow-up thread:
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/why-bais-yaakov-maidel-freaked-me-out
Randomex:
I didn’t get the first half of http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/creative-writing-cr-users-in-real-life#post-541107
“a woman who seeks out smicha is deviating from our heirloom of Torah haskafa, mesorah and traditions”
How so?
“Viewing a smicha as nothing but a social license to preach/teach is not representative of what real rabbanut actually represents”
Why not?
Tosefta Berachos 2:12:
????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ????? ????? ??????? ???????? ?????? ????? ????? ?????? ???????
Curiosity:
So in a one sentence summary, you are basically saying that a woman can’t be certified to answer halachic questions because it would be against her inherent role. Now what might I ask, makes it against her inherent role?
Many years later…
Randomex is now the Chief Curator of the Library of Congress. Eftachbechinor decides to take her class on a field trip to visit him in his natural habitat. As the bus arrives at the school, and the bus driver steps down, a collective gasp is heard from the assembled students. The bus driver is indeed a sight to behold. He is wearing shorts and a t-shirt, and “his face was almost completely hidden by a long, shaggy
mane of hair and a wild, tangled beard”. In his hand he is holding the largest tankard anyone has ever seen. “I’m Popa Bar Abba, and this is Sally, my seventh Bus. She has semicha.” Eftach quickly hustles the kids aboard. The bus ride is rather long, and the kids are getting restless. In the back row, sirvoddmort and yekke2 are vociferously debating the advantages of a faster broom vs. a more maneuverable broom, until they realize that it’s an exercise in futility since the existence of the snitch is a vitiation of the entire sport of Quidditch. What with all the noise, Shopping613 is having trouble concentrating on the chapter she is writing, and also doesn’t realize that SayIdidIt is reading over her shoulder and putting the story on twitter before Shopping has a chance to even finish it.
But eventually, the bus reaches its destination, and the class egresses. Popa walks up and down the bus collecting DNA left behind, for some nefarious plan of his.
And then it happens. Randomex is sighted. Cozimjewish immediately breaks free of the group, and runs toward him. Randomex bellows “I am Randomex, the Great and Powerful, who are you?” To which Cozimjewish responds “I am Cozimjewish, small and meek. Can I have your autograph?”
Randomex chuckles to himself and then says, “If you want my autograph you have to earn it.” He then proceeds to regale the class with stories of his heroic escapades against his arch-nemesis Patur Aval Assur. “But alas,” he continues “PAA has not been completely defeated yet. His last known whereabouts are somewhere in the middle east, where he went to try to find someone who talks in Aramaic. If you can best him, then I will gladly give you my autograph.”
Lamud Vov Tzadik pipes up and says “If she bests PAA, she should be giving you her autograph.” Randomex turns away and walks off.
Cozimjewish sets out on the mission to defeat PAA. When she is nearly there, she bumps into Writersoul who decides to come along for the climactic event. When they arrive, PAA says “???? ??(?) ???????”. While Cozimjewish fires off a text to Randomex to figure out what she is supposed to answer, PAA asks “Cognitive Man vs. Homo Religiosis – who would win?” Writersoul immediately responds “Well you see, it’s really just a dialectical tension – you have your thesis, antithesis, and then synthesis, so the question never really starts.” PAA responds that in the original Hebrew it wouldn’t actually make sense, so they agree to disagree, and PAA agrees to appear before Randomex.
“That was all 22 years ago”, Oomis concludes the tale to her grandchildren. “And PAA and Randomex haven’t moved since then; they are arguing about something or another and still going strong.”
THE END
“Chadash is Assur Min Hatorah.”
But the Bach was mattir it.
“Ingraining” would seem to do for whatever “ingraination” means.
Except that the tense wouldn’t work.
What would have been the problem with “the converse is not necessarily so?”
It gives the sentence a whole different feel.
So, Writersoul downplays her achievement – reading Halakhic Man – and you respond, sarcastically, that her statement is not a valid excuse – the true, opposite meaning being that her statement does not in fact lessen her achievement – is this correct?… What was the potential non-sarcastic meaning? You had just given a compliment for the achievement, making it difficult to interpret as sincere a statement about needing an excuse for it.
Think of it as someone who is very smart but doesn’t want people to view him/her in such a light because it might be construed as nerdiness or something similar. Such a person will make “excuses” for his/her intellectual achievements. My statement could have been interpreted in a number of ways:
1) There is no need to be ashamed of an intellectual achievement.
2) The achievement is indeed shameful and a petty excuse won’t change that.
3)It was just stam a joke, sort of combining 1 and 2 while accepting neither. (I don’t know if this actually makes any sense.)
Or maybe I just didn’t see that thread. Contrary to what somebody seems to believe, I am not a walking index of the CR. But given how short that line is, and the hint…
You clearly did see it, as you quoted it in this thread and in http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/creative-writing-cr-users-in-real-life#post-541042 which leads me to believe that you did get the reference, even if you think you didn’t.
“How about if I give you one from him instead?
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/sem-and-security/page/2#post-538772 “
How is that an example of
“used language/conveyed an idea/theory beyond the scope of average human intelligence”? I actually learned the word “emoticon” in that thread.
“By the way, language is not related to intelligence – it is a matter of knowledge.”
Which is why I don’t get why there is a vocabulary section on IQ tests.
“I await the day when you admit that it goes both ways… :)”
There’s a difference. You are the self-appointed Indexer Extraordinaire Par Excellence.
cozimjewish:
I think you’re getting closer to ????????? ?????? ???? with all these praises.
“This thread is entitled: “the greatest person who ever lived”
And nobody thought of PAA?”
This is probably the best compliment I have gotten so far in the coffee room. Thank you.
Lior:
How can you pasken whether it is better to have been created or not? It either is or it isn’t? The fact that someone paskened one way or the other doesn’t make it so.
Ok, I’ll give you a hint. The reference is to a previous discussion with writersoul.
Also, I don’t understand the Gemara’s proof that from the fact the pasuk says that the Shechina was with Dovid, it is clear that he didn’t sin. Why is that so? Maybe he sinned and did Teshuva? And anyway, the Gemara in Berachos 5a asks how Dovid could call himself a chasid if he wasn’t sure if he would have a chelek amongst the tzadikim l’asid lavoh, and answers that he only wasn’t sure because he might have sinned and therefore lost it. That shows, though, that even if he sinned, he would still be considered a chasid.
Charlie:
Here is a secondhand link:
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/daas-torah-2/page/5#post-525981
Lior:
Because if it just a conclusion, and there is a machlokes as to what the conclusion is, how do you decide which position is correct?
shulchanhashemelm:
I don’t think you understood my point. You can pasken for instance, what order the parshiyos should be in Tefillin. You can’t pasken what order they were in in Moshe Rabbeinu’s tefillin. That’s because the first question is a halachic question and the second question is a metzius question. The metzius can affect the halacha, but the halacha is not bound by the metzius; the halachic system is simply a means of determining what to do in a given situation – not what happened in a given situation. So what happens when the question under discussion is a question about what happened or what will happen? e.g. will the 10 shevatim return? will there be a Mashiach? Was Pharaoh a new king? etc.
Yes the Torah can have an opinion on the matter and, people can attempt to determine the answer, but it can’t be paskened. If the Gemara unanimously says a certain thing, then fine. But once there is a machlokes Amoraim or Rishonim, how do you determine who is right? Now generally, it doesn’t matter who is right because we can just pasken which position to follow. But when it comes to beliefs, it gets quite dicey because essentially, we would be required to believe (potential) falsehoods. This has been debated at length at http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/shmuly-yanklowitz-novominsker-and-oo-theology
See also the Maharshal in Sanhedrin 52b where he essentially argues with an Amora as to what a different Amora’s rationale was, and justifies it by saying that he’s not arguing about any din – he is arguing about something that has no halacgic nafka minah.
That’s what I suspected, but when I googled it it did’t show up.
Interesting…
I had a hunch that Chein’s comments were copied and pasted from somewhere so I did some research and although I did not find a source where he was quoting from, I did find a commenter on a different site, who posted both of Chein’s posts, word for word, a few months ago (Chein’s posts are from three years ago).
While I was checking that out, I saw that someone there linked an article which quoted R’ Shteinman (though I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the report):
Chida, Chaim Sha’al chelek 2 4:3:
??? ??? ???”? ???????? ???? ???? ??”? ???? ??? ?? ???? ??? ???’ ??? ???? ????? ??? ??? ?? ??? ????? ??”? ???? ???? ?”? ????”? ???’ ?????
??? ????’ ??”? ???? ????? ????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ?????? ???? ??’ ??”? ??”? ????? ?? ?? ???? ??? ???? ??? ????’ ??? ?????”? ????? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ???? ??????
See also Rashi Sanhedrin 51b:
??? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ????. ????? ?? ???? ????? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ??? ????? ???? ???????? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ??????? ???? ??????? ????? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ????? ???? ????
“I’m SHOCKED PAA that I was not included? C’mon? Seriosuly?”
I apologize, but at the time when I wrote it, it was in a specific context and all the characters in the story were my interlocutors, (except for Damoshe, who I only brought in because it related to Popa) and as far as I know I have not yet merited to argue with you about anything. The story was actually just supposed to be about Randomex and me, and DaasYochid was the one whose idea it was and I couldn’t resist the opportunity to make Popa the bad guy.
Go back to the first post in this thread and click on the word “this” which is a link to the original story (and you can see the context in which it arose).
Good thing I clarified.
Just to clarify, you know I wrote the story about a month and a half ago, right?
“PAA, 5 thumbs up.”
For the story, or for the citations?
Randomex:
Since I am not allowed to argue with you, I will re-post my story with citations showing what most of the material is based on:
Randomex walks into a bar.
http://theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/good-jokes/page/33#post-536580
He wants to steal less than a ??? ????? of beer. So he asks the guy next to him if it’s muttar. The guy responds in the affirmative. As Randomex reaches over to perform the act of thievery the Bartender shouts “you can’t rely on him (the guy that Randomex had asked) – he’s just DaasYochid.
As this is all happening PAA shows up. Randomex, who is now confused, says out loud “so what’s the halacha?” at the same time as DaasYochid confrontationally asks the newcomer “who are you?” The newcomer, ever the pragmatist, says “Patur Aval Assur”, thus answering both questions in one fell swoop.
DaasYochid says “you aren’t reliable either because you don’t learn iyun”.
PAA replies “I think we’ve been through this several times already”.
see previous
By now a whole crowd is gathered around waiting for someone to throw the first counterpunch.
http://theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/good-jokes/page/33#post-536586
http://theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/good-jokes/page/33#post-536590
http://theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/good-jokes/page/33#post-536600
So no one notices Popa Bar Abba sneaking behind the counter and drinking the place clean.
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/drunk-na-a-blazingf-skingk (but one of many examples)
To diffuse the tension, someone says “anyone have a joke?”
http://theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/good-jokes/page/33#post-536580
Popa, in his drunken stupor, says “I have a joke. Three retards walk into a bar…”
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/everybody-except-popa-is-retarded
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/popa-is-retarded-by-popa
???? ????
Before he can finish, the assembled mob attacks as one and hangs Popa by his ankles from the ceiling.
DaMoshe is called in to sing through the entire High Holy Days liturgy
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/yomim-noraim-davening
while Popa is forced to listen.
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/rosh-hashana-davening-in-bp
Meanwhile Randomex is feeling rather slighted. “Why is Popa always the center of attention?” he asks.
So in order to garner some attention for himself, Randomex goes on a crusade against people who continue threads from the ancient past.
pretty much every thread
In reality this is a cover for Randomex who spends all his waking hours reading threads that predate him.
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/name-that-tune/page/9#post-537613
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/name-that-tune/page/9#post-537688
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/name-that-tune/page/10#post-537724
As the crowd starts to disperse, DaasYochid points out that any gathering at which the Shidduch Catastrophe is not discussed is a Moshav Leitzim.
No one particular source, but based on the impression given by the aggregate of his shidduch-crisis-related comments
At this point Popa breaks free and responds that there is no shidduch catastrophe
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/jaccuse-nasi
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/why-r-rechnitz-is-incorrect
because he is already married to every single girl.
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/michlalah-personal-statement but one of the many discussions of Popa’s multiple wives
By now, everyone has already had enough, and the Moderator, seeing that things are about to get out of hand, presses “edit”
I don’t think I need a source for this one
and this whole story becomes “Why did PAA and Randomex cross the road?”
http://theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/good-jokes/page/33#post-536601
I think I have also shown that your question on my use of “counterpunch” is really a question on you for not getting the reference.
“He knows the mod will just be like, “Umm….uh-huh”
And mark all his answers right….”
Until Randomex comes along and translates them and then everyone realizes that Patur Aval Assur is a charlatan, merely spewing Aramaic quotes that have no relevance to anything, but give the impression of being somewhat learned.
By the way, there are now five threads with my name in the title, one of which was my own doing, one of which was the doing of another poster, and three of which were changed by the Moderator(s):
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/chofetz-chaim-yeshivos-1
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/your-coffee-room-report-card-comments?replies=91
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/for-pulsing-flower-to-rant-about-iyun
“Please explain your use of sarcasm here.”
The potential sarcasm was that you need an excuse to justify reading Halachic Man, but I left it up to the reader’s interpretation. Also my line contained a reference to a different thread, which you might not have gotten. I’ll give you some time to come up with it before I tell you what it was.