3) http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/forgetting-to-close-the-fridge-light-before-shabbos#post-537978

“What instrument do you play, PAA?”

I never said I was playing an instrument. Perhaps I was playing a record. But l’maan ha’emes I was playing an instrument. But I can’t give away too much personal information.

“It’s not just that, you’re styles are just so similar.”

Are they really?

And he wasn’t so brilliant after all – he fell for the time paradox. Though in his defense, in other books time travel works differently.

I did a test. I was playing music and I read an article in a magazine at the same time and it didn’t affect the music (although it took me longer than normal to read the article.) Then I tried reciting “The Road not Taken” while playing and was unable to adequately do both at the same time. Then I recited it in my mind while playing and I did much better. So I don’t think it has to do with multitasking. I think there is something intrinsic in talking that is incompatible with playing music unless you are singing along to the music. My hypothesis is that they are two contradictory acts. It’s like singing one song while playing another song. Or like revolving your hands in opposite directions.

Randomex:

Have you figured out what I was referring to?

Popa:

Wouldn’t your case be amira l’akum?

I agree with your last paragraph. Why wouldn’t it be misasek? If you pick up a flower not knowing that it was attached to the ground, you still know that you are picking up a flower. That is misasek.

I never extrapolated any mesorah. All I did was present the opinion of the Ramban/Sifrei. When you said “Even Rabbi Schachter of YU says your #2 is incorrect” it was possible that you meant that I was misinterpreting the Ramban. It seems from your latest response that you were not making such a claim.

Are you disagreeing that someone who lives in Israel gets a mitzvah?

R’ Moshe Feinstein writes (Igros Moshe E.H. 1:102): ????? ????? ?? ?? ???? ????? ???? ??”? ?????”? ?? ???’ ???? ????’ ?????? ?? ?”? ????? ???? ???”? ??? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ???? albeit not chiyuvis. Why is that not a good reason to go to seminary in Israel, even if you disregard the Ramban’s other position?

I agree with your last sentence.

I’ll quote what I wrote in a different thread:

To quote R’ Chaim Brisker in reference to learning mussar “If a person is sick we prescribe castor oil for him. However, it is certain that if a healthy person ingests castor oil he will become very sick. If that vile wretch meets you, and if you are sound in spirit and soul, if your consciousness and character are still whole and intact, then occupy yourself with the Torah, drag him to the study house. This is the most effective and tried remedy in man’s ongoing battle with his evil impulse. However, if you are spiritually sick, if a fit of madness has seized hold of you, if some psychic anomaly has put forth its diseased tendrils in your inner world, then you must use more powerful drugs, those that are designed for the very ill – the remembrance of the day of death. We in Volozhin, thank G-d, are healthy in spirit and body, are whole in our Torah; there is no need here of castor oil. If the scholars of Kelm and Kovno feel compelled to drink bitter drugs – let them drink to their hearts’ content, but let them not invite others to dine with them.” (The Rav The World of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik)

yitayningwut:

Thank you for responding. Your first option is what I was going to assume if no other answer was forthcoming. A support for such a structural answer can be found in Tosafos in Bava Basra (5b s.v. Ki) ???? ?????? ???? ???? ???????? ??? ???? and R’ Yaakov Emden explains ???? ?????? ???? ???? which would seem to be the case here.

Your second option would work if we assume that there was such a geder in the times of Eliyahu. (Not that this necessarily proves one way or the other but) The Gemara here does say that the issur of stam yeinam was not yet enacted in Eliyahu’s time.

In your third option, I see Choice A as a much better possibility than Choice B – pashtus the gemara is talking about ravens simply giving him slabs of meat.

In conclusion, with four possibilities to choose from, I think we have something to work with. Thanks.

Sam’s three uses of lulei d’mistifina:

1)”Lulei D’mistifina, I would say that we have to wonder if the Rambam’s society influenced this Halachah. After all, he also says that a husband should beat his wife if she doesn’t listen to him, something which no one nowadays would agree to.” http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/brides-wedding-vow-to-obey-husband#post-410478

2)”Lula D’mistifina that it was Apikorsus, I would say a Davar Pashut that the reason the Chachamim over the centuries have not been Moche on drinking on Purim is a similar Cheshbon that the Catholic Church made with Carnival. I can’t say it, because I think that is K’firah, but when that’s what Purim becomes you’ve lost a Yom Tov and created a neo-Pagan holiday.”

http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/maybe-we-all-should-stop-getting-drunk-on-purim/page/2#post-514492

3)”Lulei D’mistifina, I would say that Kim’at Kullam would hold that the Arizal’s Hiddur of using a white chicken is an absolute Issur D’Oraisa.”

http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/source-in-torah-andor-gemara-for-kapparos#post-537527

If you have an answer but you don’t want to say it for whatever reason (e.g. it’s super dochek).

Lightuptheworld:

I didn’t see your post when I wrote mine – in fact looking at the time stamp, mine was actually first. The Maharsha explains that the reason why it’s good to have a daughter first is that then there will be no bechor and therefore no one will get a larger share of the inheritance. When there is a bechor, the other sons will be jealous and they might cause an ayin hara.

R’ Menashe Klein says a similar pshat (Shu”t Mishneh Halachos 10:13) – that not having a bechor is good because everyone is equal as opposed to if there is a bechor, there is a chiyuv of kibud for him. (It’s interesting that he doesn’t quote the Maharsha since he is giving the same structural explanation with just a different reason for why it’s good.)

To all those asking for the source, it is a Gemara in Bava Basra (141a):

???? ?? ???? ?? ???? ???? ??? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ????

Interestingly, on the last part Rashi says ??? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?? ????

“PAA – What you said about someone being killed isn’t true – they saved Buckbeak, remember? I guess it’s just something we can’t understand…”

That just means that Buckbeak hadn’t actually died the first time around. If you read the passage carefully you’ll see that it doesn’t ever say that he died; all it says is that they heard the axe. But they didn’t actually see what happened. When they go back in time we find out that what they heard was Macnair hitting the ground in frustration.

Or the Ralbag’s view:

?????? ?? ?? ????? ???? ????? ???? ??? ????? ??”? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ?? ????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ?? ?????? ????? ??? ??”? ?? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ?????

(Parshas Bereishis)

I would think that having a subtitle is a genai because it means that someone was able to sum you up in one sentence (or at least thinks he/she was able to).

“Did you mean these “original questions,” PAA?

Do animals have a sense when their time is coming and go curl up in a cave somewhere? How come the only dead animals I ever see are road kill? Where do animals go when they are ready to pass on?”

Nope. I meant the ORIGINAL QUESTION. There is only one. And it’s not in your list.

cozimjewish:

What you mentioned is actually the only part that DOES make sense. You see in the Harry Potter universe, the way time travel works is that anything that happens when you go back in time, was already applied to the original present when it happened. Which effectively means that you can never change anything by going back in time because whatever you change would have already happened the first time around in accordance with the change. So you can’t go back in time to save someone who had been killed because if you would go back in time and save him/her, he/she would have never died in the first place. The fact that someone dies, by definition means that no one in the future had gone back in time to save him/her.

Which leads us to the part that doesn’t make sense which is that in the third book, they are trying to change the past, which is impossible. Why didn’t they just wait five minutes and see if Sirius would get kissed. If he does, then they can’t go back in time and if he doesn’t then perhaps it was because in the future they had gone back in time and saved him, in which case they will then be forced to actually go back in time and save him. Which leads to the next question – how do you have the choice to go back in time? Either you already did or you already didn’t. Similarly, what’s with the whole emphasis on making sure not to be seen? If they hadn’t seen themselves the first time around then it won’t be possible for them to see themselves the second time around.

“Hi, PAA! Listen, I’d thought it possible to read all posts starting from the time one becomes active, and I still do, but the time it would take, and certainly the time it would take to read and respond as thoroughly as I (possibly pathologically) do…

It’s just not practical, and wouldn’t be worth it even if it was.”

Are you doing that because of me?

Reasons to go to seminary in Israel:

1) ?? ??? ???”? ????? ???? ????? ??????

(Kesubos 110b)

2)The Ramban (Leviticus 18:25) quotes the Sifri which says ?? ?? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?? ???? ????? ???? ??? ???????? ????? ???????? ?? ??? ????? ????? ??? ????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ???? ???? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ??????? ???????? ?? ???? ???? ????? ??? ??? ????? (?? ?) ????? ?? ?????? ??? ????? ?????? ??????? ??? which seems to imply that the only purpose of mitzvos in chutz l’aretz is to prepare you for doing them in Israel

3)To fulfill the Gemara in Berachos (5a): ??? ????? ????? ??? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ???

Lior:

I don’t see why the Torah being present affects anything. It neither adds to nor detracts from the fact that the celebration is a celebration of Torah. Sure, it’s nice to have a Torah present if that is what you are celebrating, but from a spectator’s point of view it doesn’t make the action any more or less enjoyable. Your various examples are not quite comparable to this situation. If the program for the siyum hashas was that those who completed daf yomi will dance around for three hours, and if you didn’t finish daf yomi, you can’t dance, I would show up for five minutes and leave. (On Simchas Torah too, I wouldn’t mind watching others dance if it was only for a few minutes.) At a baseball game or a concert or any professional performance, I am not going in order for me to do something. I am going to watch something which is inherently enjoyable for me to watch. Unlike the Simchas Torah proceedings which are not. In fact I probably would not go to a baseball game, precisely because it is too boring for me to watch for three hours.