Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
“The Mechaber says you can’t have water before Kiddush. I don’t know why a Rav would say it’s okay.”
Maybe he was relying on the Mechaber in the Bet Yosef in siman 89 where he utilizes the shita that water is ok before kiddush, to strengthen the case for drinking water before shacharis on shabbbos.
“I also didn’t quite get the tail end of your post describing my position in the other thread”
Looking back, I think I do get it. I think you were saying that 000646 did not agree with Lior that we are inherently right and have the truth. That explains why I got confused – you said that you were going to discuss my position and Lior’s position and not 000646’s position. You then went on to say that we really were agreeing with each other and in practice there would only be a difference in a specific situation. But your example of the situation where my position would run up against Lior’s roadblock was if I changed my position to incorporate 000646’s position. But that really means that my position wouldn’t actually ever run up against Lior’s roadblock. Hence I was confused. (Feel free to correct me if I misrepresented or misunderstood what you were saying.)
“Yes, although that was not I. -Mr. Laughing Moderator”
Well how am I supposed to keep track of all the different moderators? I think 100 and 29 are the ones that always changes my titles, and there is one that is mad at me from the Daas Torah thread but I don’t know which one, and now there is one laughing at me whom I also can’t identify.
“that was a smiley with a double chin. paa, for the record, i just adore smileys. i use them all over the place, even in essays”
I like reading them in other people’s writing (not essays though). I just don’t like reading them in my writing.
First of all, “await” is a better translation than “hope”. Now I think that Coffee Addict misunderstood writersoul. I think that Francorachel3 was saying that people are claiming that the signs indicate that we are in the times before Mashiach, but since these signs have indicated such for a while already, perhaps there are different signs which REALLY indicate that Mashiach’s arrival is immininent. Randomex was pointing out that the time period before Mashiach can be quite a while so there is no proof either way. In other words, it would seem that according to Francorachel3, Mashiach’s arrival is not imminent because there are still pre-Mashiach signs that have to happen whereas according to Randomex Mashiach’s arrival could be imminent but we can’t say so for sure. I think writersoul was objecting to the whole idea Mashiach can’t come unless a whole list of things have happened – he can come anytime.
I will bring the same proof that the Rambam brings (but each of the three people above can construe it as supporting his/her position): R’ Akiva accepted Bar Kochva as Mashiach which means that R’ Akiva thought that Mashiach could come at that point even without checking off the list of pre-Mashiach signs (writersoul) or that the pre-Mashiach signs have been here for 2,000 years (Randomex) or that R’ Akiva misinterpreted the pre-Mashiach signs (Francorachel). The only thing is that if the greatest people for all these years were misinterpreting the pre-Mashiach signs then I’m not sure how asking “does anyone know the real signs?” will accomplish anything. That is my analysis of the debate in this thread. For anyone who is interested, the Rambam in hilchos melachim chapter 11-12 discusses Mashiach and what he has to do and how we can know if he is Mashiach etc.
I will close with the following (hilchos melachim 12:2): ??? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ?????? ?? ??? ??????? ?? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ???? ??????? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ??? ?? ???? ??? ???? ????? ????? ??? ??? ???????? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?? ???? ????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?? ????? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ?????? (although the first part of the quote is primarily talking about post-Mashiach things).
According to the Penei Yehoshua, they have to know the prophecies about Gog Umagog in order to be them.
gavra:
Don’t worry; I didn’t take it personally. But I’ll take the shalom al yisrael anyway.
“lol”
Mr. Laughing Moderator, you will recall that “not-always-in-context” itself was an alteration of the original title. But I appreciate the laugh all the same.
Yes, although that was not I. -Mr. Laughing Moderator
Bava Basra 12b:
???? ???? ??? ????? ????? ????? ?? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????????
Sanhedrin 11a:
????? ?????? ???????? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ????? ??????
Obviously these are not exact rules, as is clear from various other gemaros (including the continuation of the above gemara) where Tannaim had some form of ruach hakodesh/prophecy.
gavra_at_work:
I was quoting the S”A to make the exact opposite point of what you accuse me of. I was saying that the fact that the S”A lists a specific case (and the Rema adds one more specific case) where you don’t have to listen to your parents when they tell you what to do with your life implies that in general they do have a say in how you live your life. I was responding to Sam2 who had said “Why do you assume the Mitzvah of Kibbud applies when they are trying to tell you what to do with your own life?”.
The Rambam in his exposition of the twelfth of the Fundamental Principles of Judaism, writes:
??? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?? ????? ??????? ?????? ??? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ?????
“Though I thought that realizing that we were sayin two different things meant that there was no argument to win… what I said in my last post was that I think we’re both right in different ways, unless we’re in a contest to help the OP.”
You are right that there was no argument to win. That was part of my sarcasm which couldn’t be detected in writing. (Maybe this is a serious enough misunderstanding to force me to start using emoticons. [Who made up that word?]) But I wouldn’t say that we were both right in different ways inasmuch you were presenting how a person SHOULD approach the situation and I was presenting how some people WILL approach the situation.
“Just to annoy you”
It doesn’t annoy me when people use them; I personally want my writing to have a certain polished look which I think is lost when using them (as well as when using the various texting abbreviations). Please don’t take offense at that – you are entitled to disagree.
I don’t get the Lay’s potato chips reference (unless you are simply giving an example of something which is addictive in which case I will have to vociferously disagree), and speaking of things written by you that I don’t get, I also didn’t quite get the tail end of your post describing my position in the other thread, although the rest of it was well written (not that the last part wasn’t but I just didn’t quite understand it).
“for example areas of halacha that are particular and applicable only to a man”
Let’s take Y.U. semicha for example. The standard Yoreh Yoreh covers Eiruvin, Bishul, Niddah, aveilus, tevilas/hecsher keilim, the different areas of halacha pertaining to and delineating the process of making kosher food, geirus, mila, and inyanei kiddushin. The only part that is not applicable to women is mila (and perhaps some of the kiddushin stuff).
Avoda Zara 19a-b:
???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?’ ???? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???? ??
????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ???? ????? ??? ??? ?? ???? ????? ????? ????? ??? ???? ???????? ??????? ?? ??????? ?? ????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ?????
I think a yoetzet halacha is limited to certain areas of halacha. If a yoetzet halacha is indeed certifiably knowledgeable in all areas of halacha that a MAN with semicha is then I am fine with that. I don’t care what name you want to call it. A Yoreh Yoreh Semicha is not a license to be a dayan. Maybe you could argue that we shouldn’t give women Yadin Yadin semicha because that would be more geared towards becoming a dayan as opposed to people asking halachic questions. But even there3 I’m not sure I would agree. There is much that can be done with knowledge of Choshen Mishpat outside of dayanus. As for whether a woman can actually be a dayan it is not so pashut. Granted the Shulchan Aruch rules that she is pasul, but I quoted a couple of daios in the rishonim who disagree, and I also quoted several sources that if they are mekabel her then she can be a dayan. But it’s very simple – if you hold that it is assur for a woman to be a dayan then put out a proclamation that it is assur for a woman to be a dayan. There is no need to make a proclamation that women can’t be certified as halachically knowledgeable. Anyone who listens to your proclamations will not have women dayanim and anyone who doesn’t listen also won’t listen if the proclamation is against certification.
“Does anyone even know of a source that it’s important to be a LAMDAN”
R’ Avraham Pam in a tribute to his Rebbe:
“To be a lamdan – was an ideal he constantly glorified.”
Berachos 7b:
??? ????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ?????
“PAA: I obviously agree with you.”
I’m glad I’m so convincing that you would OBVIOUSLY agree with me. (I wish I could properly convey sarcasm in writing. I refuse on principle to use those smiley faces.)
Obviously, the point of your post wasn’t to say that her parents are crazy; it was to present a potential argument to be used to convince her parents. I wasn’t coming to disagree with you (except on the small point that maybe rockets plus cars is more dangerous than just cars, but I did provide a potential refutation to make up for it). I was just presenting what I think her parents are feeling and why your arguments, although logically sound, might not convince them. So I think we can agree that we agree and obviously I won the argument.
I am not advocating that there should be women Rabbis. What I am advocating for is that if there are women who are motivated to learn Torah on a high level, then they should be able to be certified to answer someone halachic question. What happens after that is not my concern. If a person or a group feels that certain future steps are assur then let them say so and provide cogent halachic reasoning and there shouldn’t be any problem. At the very least, if you will not allow this certification, at least explain that it is not because it is halachically assur but as a gezeira to prevent future violations of halacha. Unless you actually believe that there is a halachic issue with certifying women as knowledgeable in halacha. If so, please read the mekoros posted here and respond accordingly.
As to the issue of advanced learning of Torah Sheba’al Peh, this has been discussed in many other threads, most recently http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/why-are-some-people-so-smart
Also, any sources mentioned here about women “paskening” would seem to take for granted that they are permitted to attain the requisite Torah knowledge to “pasken”.
As to the issue of public leadership positions, this has nothing to do with what I’m saying. If you (when I say you I don’t mean specifically YOU; I mean people in general) think that it’s problematic then come out and say that it is assur for a woman to have a public leadership position. There are women who speak publicly who don’t have semicha. These are two unrelated issues.
If you would come out with a statement that it is assur to ordain women and you expect people to follow it then for the same price you can come out with a statement that is limited to what is actually assur and expect them to follow it. You don’t have to make gezeiros. Why don’t we actually say that you can’t give semicha to a man because once he has semicha he might do gittin and kiddushin despite not being knowledgeable in those areas. ?? ????? ???? ???? ????? ???????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ????. We don’t just invent gezeiros like that. And besides, if I were to grant that we would make such a gezeira then it should be noted as a gezeira not as “assur”.
“Of course it does. Same argument as in the other (Daas Torah?) thread. Right is right, whether you can successfully prove it or not. I think you even put a line of mine in the good quotes thread.”
I’m not disagreeing with that. But in this particular case it does matter. Let’s say that the world thinks that shechita is barbaric. They all start criticizing Jews for engaging in such practices. We get upset at these accusations and defend ourselves by saying that G-d commanded us to do this and it is the ultimate truth etc.
So how can you then criticize a different group for their barbaric practice when they have the same defense. It doesn’t matter who is right. If you think it’s ok to denigrate someone who claim’s to be following G-d’s will then you better be prepared to be denigrated as well.
“since at the age of 40 she is not a risk of going off the derech if she will not learn torah”
Where does that idea come from?
“PAA, many things are not explicit in pesukim.”
That may be true, but it is not accurate to say that H’ gave a reason over there if he didn’t.
“PAA: If someone is granted smicha they by definition are entitled to call themselves and/or act as a rabbi. So women with smicha are women rabbis. And are entitled to do what men rabbis can do by virtue of their being a rabbi.”
There isn’t anything that you can do specifically because you have the title of “Rabbi”. There are various things that Rabbis do and some of them have no requirements, some of them have requirements that would only allow certain Rabbis to do them, and some are things that perhaps women cannot do. But that has nothing to do with certifying women as being knowledgeable in Yoreh Deah.
Lior, Beninguman, and anyone else who is saying similar things: It doesn’t matter if we are right because we have the truth. The problem is that you can’t criticize someone for something when they have the same exact excuse as you have for what you do and you don’t expect people to criticize you. You can know that you are right but you should expect to be criticized for what you do. Or don’t criticize other groups and then you can be upset when people criticize you. But you can’t have it both ways.
“Why do you assume the Mitzvah of Kibbud applies when they are trying to tell you what to do with your own life?”
Y.D. 240:25:
????? ????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ???? ????? ???? ???? ??????? ???? ??? ??? ????? ???? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ??? ??? ??? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ?”? ????? ?? ???
Presumably the implication from this is that in general you do have to listen when they tell you what to do with your own life.
And another example would be in this week’s parshah:
??? ??????? ??????? ???? ??? ??????? ????????? ??????? ?????? ?????????? ????? ????? ?????????? ????? ????? ???????? ???????
Rashi:
?? ???? ???? ??? ??? ?? ?? ?? ????? ??????? ????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??? ????? ??? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ??????? ???? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ??????? ????? ????? ??? ???????? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ???????? ?????
That is a very strong possibility but not one that I think you can prove. I could make the same claim about many things in Judaism and I wouldn’t be able to prove them either.
So that just means that we were afraid of public backlash and they aren’t.
I think writersoul is correct about hakaras hatov. An example that comes to mind would be that after the whole incident with Alexander and Shimon Hatzadik (Yoma 69a) the Jews named their kids Alexander (as recorded by Josephus). Now perhaps one can argue that that was not because of hakaras hatov inasmuch as it was to gain favor with Alexander. But R’ Moshe assumes that it was hakaras hatov and that in fact that would be a proper manifestation of hakaras hatov.
Igros Moshe O.C. 5:10:
??? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ?”? ????? ???????? ???”? ????? ?? ??????? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????? ???? ????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???? ????? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ?? ?????
Interestingly, it seems that it was appropriate to do something which was a ???? as a display of hakaras hatov, so surely simply acknowledging a favor from someone (even of a different religion) would be ok.
“Being yeshiva guys…”
A tremendous assumption on your part, unless you were only referring to youself.
000646:
I’m not following you. If we hadn’t stopped what we used to do then we would still be doing it because we would say that our religion demands it. Unless we were afraid of the repercussions. So how can we have a tayneh on them if we would do the same thing if our religion demanded it. All you are saying is that our religion no longer demands it. Now it is fine to condemn them as long as you have no problem if the world would condemn us for following our religion.
Sam2:
I would assume that they have a right to interpret their religious mandate. If we would do something based on our interpretation of our religious mandate would you say that it is a valid claim for people to say that this is just how we chose to interpret our religious mandate.
Lior:
It doesn’t matter who is right or wrong. They are using the exact same argument as we are so you can’t castigate them simply by claiming that we have the truth. And certainly in the eyes of an outsider there would be no difference.
000646:
That is not a difference. If we stop doing something that means that we hold that our religion tells us to stop doing it. They hold that their religion didn’t tell them to stop doing it. So I don’t see how that is a valid argument.
Sam2:
Thanks. However, I don’t think that’s what I was thinking of. I recall one of the mefarshim on the sugya in Berachos mentioned ???? ????? ???? ??????? ???????? ?????? ???????? ????? ????? ???????. I looked back at all of my mefarshim and didn’t find it. It’s always possible that I’m misremembering.