DaasYochid:

I’m not sure if you took my post as being to “disprove” you, but if you did, it wasn’t. I just figured that since you had quoted the S’dei Chemed, I would bring in a couple of other opinions.

“thanks again paa”

What was the first time?

daitan kaalos

Member Since

September 16, 2014 (36 minutes)

Coincidence?

Any which way, you can check out these threads:

http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/r-chaim-kanievski-women-wearing-tefillin

http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/why-are-some-people-so-smart

That would probably depend on what kind of error it was.

gavra:

The Shulchan Aruch in O.C. 199:7 paskens that it’s a reshus. R’ Moshe Shternbuch discusses this issue in Teshuvos V’hanhagos 6:49. He asks that since we pasken that it’s a reshus (so there is nothing to lose by making a zimun) why aren’t women machmir like the shitta of the Rosh who holds that they are actually chayev to make a zimun. He suggests that zimun has a din of a beracha (using the shem umalchus from the beracha of Hazan) and it might be that the halacha that says that they are permitted to make a zimun is only if there is a tzorech, but in lieu of a tzorech it would be a beracha sheaino tzericha. He explains that the tzorech would be if there was a woman who needed someone to be motzi her and lechatchila shomea k’oneh is only permissible when you make a zimun. In Teshuvos V’hanhagos 4:51 he explains this slightly differently and adds another two reasons for women not to make a zimun, namely that it might be yuhara and that it might be lo sisgodedu if in the general populace, women don’t make a zimun. His concluding remarks there are:

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

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

Lior:

Writersoul wrote “Just to, in all seriousness, address DY” so why would you expect your question to be addressed therein? But anyway it was sort of addressed: “But those who want something more can find it very easily here, and that’s something that I wouldn’t give up for the world. Living in Eretz Yisrael is one thing (and a really big thing- going to the kotel Friday afternoon, on a whim, is not the sort of thing I’d be able to do while attending college in New York)”

Now maybe you were preempting what I just said when you wrote “You can attend domestic seminary and get the virtually the same primary benefits you’ve cited” with the word “virtually” coming to exclude the benefit which I just quoted, or perhaps the word “primary” coming to exclude the benefit which I just quoted.

gavra:

Why would you grant someone the status of unquestionable Torah wisdom until proven wrong? I was working under the assumption that a Talmid Chacham can tell you what he thinks the Torah position on a matter would be and considering that he has quite a bit of Torah knowledge, it is very likely that he is right. So unless I had a specific reason to think that he is wrong in a given situation (e.g. I think that he doesn’t know the metzius) it makes sense to follow him. But to unilaterally declare his opinion to be THE TORAH”S POSITION? I think not. Therefore if he is wrong once it doesn’t make any difference (provided that his mistake was not something that calls into question his basic ability to make an informed decision).

oyyoyyoy:

See Igros Moshe O.C. 4:66

http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=920&st=&pgnum=118 it goes on to the next page. The most pertinent part is the end which I will quote here for you:

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

Being mistaken doesn’t make it not Da’as Torah. It just means that he was mistaken as to what the Da’as Torah was. Even if he wasn’t demonstrated to have been mistaken, it was still just his opinion (albeit perhaps a weighty opinion) as to what the Da’as Torah was. So being mistaken is irrelevant. It is just as much Da’as Torah after we know of the mistake as it was before we knew of the mistake, that is to say it was his opinion of what the Daas Torah was which has been shown to have been mistaken.

I’m sorry to hear that. I happen to find it very amusing.

Lior:

Now I’m confused as to what your point was.

(As a side note I was leaving open the possibility that you may have meant any of the following definitions:

1)a local town boy or youth, as contrasted with a university or public school student

2)an ill-bred man, especially one who behaves in a dishonorable or irresponsible way toward women

3)a servant at a university or public school

4)an omnibus conductor)

“Guys, seminary is amazing. Stop kvetching about it.”

I guess the one that Popa went to wasn’t(isn’t?) quite as good.

You miss my point. I don’t expect you to read all the threads from before you became a user AND I also don’t expect you to read all the current threads. The fact that there are more threads from before you became a user than there are current threads is immaterial because both subsets are large enough that I don’t expect you to know them in their entirety (or even in their majority). My only point is that you should have originally said that the reason that you didn’t know of the post that I linked is that you shouldn’t be expected to know every post. When you became a user should have had nothing to do with it.

“Someone recently told me that this Gemara lists a number if stars, which was about two digits more or less from the number that NASA gives!”

The number of stars given by the Gemara in Berachos (32b) is 1,064,340,000,000,000,000

The number of stars given by Modern Science varies based on diffeent approximations, but is anywhere from 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 which while obviously based on approximations and extrapolations from the number of stars which can be seen, is 1,000-10,000 times more than the gemara’s number.

Interestingly, the Ralbag in his commentary to Lech Lecha writes that Avraham saw in a nevuah that his descendants would be as numerous as the uncountable stars but that was because at that time the number of stars was not known. I.e. the Ralbag thought that where were rather few stars (as he explains in Milchamos H’) but Avraham’s nevuah reflected the (mistaken) belief that there were in fact numerous stars. He holds that nevuah doesn’t have to reflect reality; it reflects the navi’s view of reality (although I think in Milchamos H’ he explains differently).

Whenever I introduce myself to non-Jews their reactions are invariably “What kind of name is Exempt but Forbidden?”

I think it just means that that is the star of Sisera’s mazal. Which then could mean that the ?????????? are the inhabitants of the star. Also see the Maharsha who implies that there might not be any source for Rashi’s statement. Also it seems that the Yaavetz did not understand Rashi as referring to the people under Sisera’s mazal.

50 posts per page.

But it wouldn’t be true that it is a siman that she became his wife because of his bad maasim. Because if anything it’s more likely that it was his zivug rishon because by a zivug rishon his wife can be bad both if he has good maasim or if he has bad maasim since it’s predestined.

By the way, I wasn’t responding to Syag, I was responding to the original question.

“There’s more of a sevara to believe in graphology than techeilesology.”

I beg to differ.

“especially if I knew the person not to be a charlatan or meshuggener.”

So you know Syag to not be a charlatan or meshuggener but you have your doubts about me. But I suspect that the (one of many) reason(s) why you would suspect me of being a charlatan or a meshuggener is precisely because of techeiles(ology).

It doesn’t prove graphology. What it does is demonstrate that there is not much scientific research/data that supports it. To use the inverse of your favorite line on you, “something can be wrong even if I can’t prove it”. The point is that if something doesn’t have sufficient evidence supporting it then we should be skeptical (all the more so if it has evidence against it). I can claim that I can tell about you from looking at techeiles. There is no evidence supporting my claim but you haven’t disproven it. And even if you would demonstrate that all my predictions are wrong, I could just say that it just proves that I am a charlatan but not that you can’t tell about a person from looking at techeiles.