Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Randomex:
I know triplical is not a word. I invented it, because there was no existing word that fully conveyed what I wanted to say. I was actually going to start a thread about this since I’ve done this several times, but I never got around to it.
So here are the words that I have invented:
“triplical”
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/chofetz-chaim-yeshivos-1#post-539810
“ingraination”
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/chofetz-chaim-yeshivos-1/page/2#post-540166
“sarcasticon”
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/chofetz-chaim-yeshivos-1/page/2#post-540175
“conversified”
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/response-to-lior#post-539973
They are all really just variations of existing words where I decided that the existing forms/tenses of the word would not do the job.
Randomex:
I really had an interim subtitle of “Baki in all things?????” ?
I never noticed it. Was it before or after my comment about genai? I just thought that in response to my genai comment, a moderator gave me the subtitle “Baki in all things genai” so I did my duty and pointed out the typo. Now your telling me that there was more to the story.
Nope, you got it right
DaasYochid:
You were the most in-character.
“Really? Somewhat?”
Well it’s not perfect because if someone is looking for a thread which he/she thinks is entitled “Chofetz Chaim Yeshivos”, he/she might scroll down the list merely glancing at the first word of every title, in which case seeing the word “Learning” wouldn’t mean anything.
But you bring up an interesting point. Many times people use qualifiers before the word “better” such as “somewhat better”, “a little better” etc. Presumably they do this in order to point out that the situation is not yet where they want it to be. But the word “better” just means that it’s better than it was before, so if for example someone had 106 fever one day and 105 the next day and someone asks if he/she is better it would be completely accurate for he/she to respond that indeed he/she is better.
Just for the record, I didn’t choose either of my subtitles, nor did I ever even ask for a subtitle. The first one just appeared one day without any fanfare or mention of it, and the current one is a typo, as explained in http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/suggest-subtitles-for-others-okay-and-yourself#post-537824
Randomex:
When I first read your post I didn’t notice that you linked my epic tale, and I immediately thought to link it, but then I noticed you already had done so. But I’m glad by hovering shadow is keeping you on your toes.
By the way, who was out of character?
Randomex:
To answer your first question, the Gemara in Shabbos 3a says ?? ????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ??? ????? ????? ???? ??? ????? ??? ????? ?????
To answer your second question see http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/how-do-you-translate-your-hebrew-name#post-535635
Your move, Randomex.
“The Mishna Brura rules (his source is Sefer Hachinuch almost word for word, but without attribution) that apikursos includes any opinion that is contrary to Daas Torah. Meaning, even if you follow all Halachos, if you have an opinion that conflicts with that of the Torah, you violate this laav.”
Problem with this paragraph:
The Sefer Hachinuch writes in mitzvah 387: ???? ??? ?? ??????? ??? ???? ????????? ????? ????? ??? ????
???? ?????? ????? ????
??? ????? ???? ???? ?? ??????
The Mishnah Berurah in the second Beiur Halacha quotes this and contrary to what you said, he does attribute it to the Sefer Hachinuch. The problem is that he doesn’t quote it accurately. He is listing the six constant mitzvos and the sixth one is this one. He changes the words though and writes: ????? ????????? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ????
??? ?????
And even with the Beiur Halacha’s version, it still has nothing to do with whether you can pasken agadda/hashkafa.
I didn’t even realize I wrote that three times. The new title is somewhat better.
Really? Somewhat? – 29
How are people supposed to find the thread if the name was completely changed?
How are people supposed to find the thread if the name was completely changed?
How are people supposed to find the thread if the name was completely changed?
I stumbled onto this thread while looking for something else, and even though it is from three years ago, I cannot in good faith let the claims here stand without a response.
There are three lines of reasoning employed here to demonstrate that there is psak in hashkafa/aggadita:
1) The Gemara in Eiruvin paskened such an issue.
2) The Rambam routinely paskens such issues, and even codified the 13 ikkarim.
3) The Chasam Sofer’s explanation as to why R’ Hillel wasn’t a heretic.
I think the first two points can be addressed together, by pointing out that a conclusion is not the same thing as a psak. I concluded that I typed this but I did not pasken that I typed this. The fact that Beis Shammai/Beis Hillel or the Rambam reached a conclusion on a given matter does not make it a psak. It means that they think it to be true or even that they are sure that it is true. The Rambam in fact in at least five places writes explicitly that he doesn’t pasken these types of issues (which I have already quoted in two other threads). See Peirush Hamishnayos Sotah 3:5, Sanhedrin 10:3, Shavuos 1:4, Sefer Hamitzvos Lo Saaseh 133, and Maamar Techias Hameisim. Also, the Abarbanel notwithstanding, the very fact that the Rambam went against the rules of psak demonstrates that he was not paskening, but simply telling us what he holds. See also the Tosafos Yom Tov on the aforementioned mishnah in Sotah who is bothered by the fact that the Rambam in Mishneh Torah “paskens” like Rebbe and not the Rabbanan. After first suggesting that the Rambam holds that they are not arguing he says: ??? ?? ????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ??????? ????? ?????? ??? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ?????? ?”? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ?????. And see also the Tzlach in Berachos 7b where he writes: ??? ??’ ???? ??? ????? ????”? ??? ??? ??? ?’ ?????? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ??? ?? ????”? ????? ?????? ??????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?? ????? ????
?? ?????? ???? ?????? ??????
??? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ??? and R’ Akiva Eiger cites this and brings another proof to it.
Furthermore, it doesn’t even make sense that you can pasken something such as whether or not it is better to have been created or not or whether a ba’al teshuva is better than a tzaddik etc. because those things are metzius. A psak tells you what to do in a given situation. You can’t pasken what the truth is. If you say that they are paskenable then it will come out that certain things can change over time, such as whether H’ can have a corporeal manifestation or even whether H’ exists. This (certainly according to the Rambam) is untenable and would have grave ramifications for the existence of the religion.
Now the Chassam Sofer did in fact say this. But it must be pointed out that the Rishonim did not seem to agree with his understanding as evidenced from how they responded to the Rambam (see Raavad Hilchos Teshuvah 3:6, Kuntres Hara’ayos L’Riaz Sanhedrin Perek Chelek, Sefer Haikkarim 1:1).
And finally, see the last line in R’ Shmuel Hanaggid’s Mavo Hatalmud: ?? ?????? ??? ???? ??????? ????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ????? ?? ???? ??????
Benignuman:
See the first Iyun Yaakov
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=47607&st=&pgnum=507 who seems to clearly interpret zivug sheini as a second marriage and that in fact Reish Lakish was saying that you would only have a sotah from a second mariage.
Lior:
1) What is the definition of Orthodox, which necessarily precludes the ordination of women?
2) The mere fact that something wasn’t done in the past, does not inherently make it bad.
3) In what way is it a “radical and dangerous departure”?
The case with R’ Weiss is very different then what I am discussing. He was clearly trying to advance a feminist agenda, and his ordainees have positions which could be halachically objectionable as positions of serarah.
My main point is that it is very important to be properly nuanced and to be clear on whether something can’t be done because of a halachic issue or because of a policy issue. Conflating the two, might be (as I posted last night) yehareg v’al ya’avor. See http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/headlines-breaking-stories/265846/rabbi-avi-weiss-announces-his-retirement.html which says “contravening thousands of years of Jewish tradition and halacha, yes halacha”. Can that claim be substantiated? If it can be substantiated regarding R’ Weiss, can it be substantiated regarding what I am talking about?
So, to conclude, I have no problem if people are against having women Rabbis. I might even agree that we shouldn’t have women Rabbis. What I am against is the obfuscation that tends to get involved in this highly charged issue.
Popa:
And therefore it must be so?
Lior:
I know that. What we are discussing here is whether it is halachically objectionable to ordain a woman.
“via emonion and repetition” should be “via emotion and repetition”.
Ever seen a forest animal
Lulei D’mistafina (that’s for you Sam) I would think that claiming that there is a halachic issue with ordaining a woman if there actually isn’t, would fall under the category of yehareg v’al ya’avor as per the Yam Shel Shlomo on Bava Kamma 38a.
Sam2:
It’s interesting, because while he quotes like 15 sources for it, he doesn’t actually quote the Pele Yoetz. And you can’t even say that he didn’t learn Pele Yoetz, because earlier in this very teshuva he quotes the Pele Yoetz. Maybe he only learned part of it?
Lior:
I don’t think you can even find a non-kaballist who is accepted uncontroversially across klal yisrael.
“PAA, I did notice that… Gotta ask the Rebbe about that!”
Well we might run into an issue with that…
There’s a CD called Yamim Noraim at Yeshivat Kerem B’Yavneh
It should then say ????? ???? instead of ????? ????.
but…:
Regarding your pshat in the Gemara in Sotah, see http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/expanding-on-the-shidduch-crisis-math-catastrophe where benignuman and I debated it at length.
“Looks like I don’t have trouble keeping CR members straight.”
But you do have trouble keeping yourself straight. Although, I can’t quote the link which proves it because it no longer exists.
“As for the issue… LOL! Actually, it’s just us.
After our first clash, someone made a thread just for us to post in instead of taking up space in the original thread… not that we used it.”
Well you never showed up. Despite your statement that you plan to do so: http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/name-that-tune/page/9#post-537496
Randomex:
My first point was that if you have killed insects you can’t be thankful for not killing them. Your response is that if animals and insects are of equal importance then why should you be thankful for not killing animals. I don’t see how that follows.
Then I proposed an alternate theory, namely that writersoul was in fact thankful for not killing insects but the moderator removed that part. Now which part of that is not plausible? That the moderator thinks that killing animals is worse than killing insects? Clearly not seeing as no one (besides me) was hesitant to think that writersoul thought that. Ella mai the implausibility is that the moderator would edit out something that doesn’t fit with his/her worldview. Except that the moderators do do that (see http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/ever-seen-a-forest-animal-die-of-old-age#post-537060 ).
You offered another theory which is indeed a possibility. But Chuvim(Joseph) has no right to ask a question based on an assumed theory. You then claim that a seminary girl in an online forum does not write with this level of a precision of language. Even if were to agree with that (which I certainly don’t), it is irrelevant here because neither of my theories presumed any real precision of language.
You asked another kashya on Chuvim(Joseph) but when I characterized it as such, you disagreed. I’m not sure why.
You then point out that writersoul eventually clarified her intent. However, I had already noted this and wrote that I like my answer better.
As for your claim that you are the Mayor, first of all, where was I when you were elected? and second of all, why would that title make you a better arbiter of the plausibility of a theory?
And finally, in regards to the last point I think you misunderstood my answer. I wasn’t saying that human death and animal death are the same (which is what the medrash said). I was quoting the Iyun Yaakov who says that they are different in that humans can only die due to aveiros whereas animals don’t do aveiros in which case anytime an animal dies it is due to old age i.e. its predestined age of death has been fulfilled as opposed to humans who often die before their preordained age of death. Therefore the original question was meaningless because if you’ve seen a forest animal die then you’ve seen it die of old age.
What would happen if she transfigures her hair (into hair)? Do we say that the hair is still b’etzem her hair and needs to be covered, or do we say that transfiguring it makes it not her hair?
“PAA: It was a long Sukkos, what can I say…”
That is hardly an excuse. [Insert sarcasticon if desired.]
Randomex, since you have just linked to the forest thread multiple times, have you seen that I finally divulged what the original question was?
“As far as this is concerned, I’m not sure how comfortable I am with the idea that learning about middos and self-improvement a) could ever be a bad thing or b) could ever be completely replaced by gemara learning, etc.”
I don’t think anyone would say that learning about middos and self-improvement is inherently a bad thing. But the way in which it is done, and the extent of the focus on it, could conceivably be detrimental. As for point b), I don’t know about COMPLETELY replaced, but it must be noted that a good portion of the content of Mussar Sefarim is Ma’amarei Chazal which discuss the mussar issues. For example, the Orchos Tzadikim in Sha’ar Haga’avah lists a whole slew of terrible things which ga’ava is compared to and some of its consequences. It is taken straight from the Gemara in the beginning of Masechet Sotah. So if you just learned the Gemara, you would still get the point that the Orchos Tzadikim is trying to convey. (Obviously, it’s not exactly the same, because you’ll be missing the Orchos Tzadikim’s interpolations and interpretations, but if you learn the Gemara with mefarshim, you’ll probably get a lot of that too.) An advantage of using the actual mussar sefer is that everything about the topic is collected together, but if you master Shas that shouldn’t be such an issue either. So the question would then be whether it would be advantageous to have a separate time, singularly devoted to the study of mussar concepts with intense focus on the ingraination of them into your unconscious via emonion and repetition (which was R’ Yisrael Salanter’s main chiddush), and engaging in activities designed to overcome your nature (more representative of the Novhardak school of mussar). The proponents of the Mussar Movement obviously felt it was, while those who were against it, such as R’ Chaim, felt that it wasn’t. But as previously mentioned, the Alter of Slabodka altered the style of mussar, and perhaps many of the objections have since fallen by the wayside.
Chayav:
I didn’t realize that you wrote “the discussion here is whether other yeshivos take it seriously”. My response is basically the same though, in that I was providing the justification for why it’s not taken seriously.
Pele Yoetz “Zohar”:
???? ??? ????? ???? ??? ???? ????? ????
?????? ?? ?? ??? ??? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ????
??? ???? ???? ???”? ????? ????? ??? ???? ??’ ??”? ?????? ??? ???? ???”? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ?? ????? ????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ?? ????? ????? ?? ???? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ??????? ?? ?? ???? ????? ????? ????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??? ?? ?? ??????? ????? ??? ????? ????? ???? ?”? ?????? ??? ????? ??? ?? ?? ??? ???? ???? ??? ????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ????? ??? ????? ???? ??????? ??????? ??”?
?? ???? ????? ????? ????? ??? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ????? ????”? ???’ ???? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ?’ ??? ????? ??? ????? ???? ????”? ??????? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ?????? ???? ?????? ???? ??????? ?? ???? ????? ??????