Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
“BTW I don’t buy your argument vis-a-vis the Tosafos in Yevamos. If that Tosafos held that a woman could be a dayan, it would have answered that for Devorah because it is the simplest teretz.”
Perhaps Tosafos’s starting point was that a woman cannot be a dayan and he is hesitant to change that position. If you only have the kashya from Devorah, you can easily answer that Devorah was different and keep to the original position. In other words Tosafos would only entertain the notion of a woman being a dayan when faced with the question from the drasha. Now the question is if in order to answer the other question Tosafos would say that a woman can be a dayan, would he then retract his chiluk of Devorah? I don’t think so – see the lashon of the Tosafos in Bava Kamma. It sounds to me as if he is saying that granted a woman can be a dayan as we see from the drasha, lemaaseh there is no proof from Devorah because Devorah might be different. However, I agree that the Tosafos in Yevamos definitely gives off the impression that a woman cannot be a dayan, and it is somewhat puzzling that he doesn’t address the question from the drasha.
That is clearly not what the Rambam is saying. He is saying that the reason for the mitzvah of ?? ??? ??? ?? ????? is not that H’ is being compassionate to the bird, for if that was the reason then he wouldn’t let us slaughter animal’s or birds. Hence we see that sparing animals from being slaughtered would be an act of compassion. But we are allowed to slaughter them anyway.
“What type of sensitivity? This does not appear to be a Torah based sensitivity. Different people have all sorts of sensitivities, that does not mean that they are normal sensitivities.”
This is I think the sixth time that the Rambam will be mentioned in this thread – ????? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ??? ?? ??? ???. Clearly it is a valid sensitivity.
“It is one thing to follow the first answer in Tosafos when there is only one Tosafos on the subject, but here there are many. Tosafos in Yevamos 45b, says ???? ???? ????? ????.”
I never said anyone should follow any Tosafos. I am simply giving some sources about women sarving in some form of dayanus/horaah. The fact that there is a machlokes between different Tosafosin doesn’t change the fact that there is a Tosafos which holds that a woman can be a dayan. (By the way Tosafos in Bava Kamma 15a gives the same answer; I only quoted the one from Niddah because it was more clear.) Additionally I would point out that there are two seperate questions being addressed by these Tosafosin. One is from the drasha that equates men and women, and one is from Devorah. The Tosafos in Yevamos only asks the second question which can be answered by giving a sevara specific to Devorah. Had the first question been asked, the answers given would not have sufficed. I will grant though that the Tosafos in Shavuos does ask the first question and gives a different answer. However, like I said that just makes it that there is a Tosafos in Shavuos on one side and a Tosafos in Niddah and a Tosafos in Bava Kamma on the other side (with the alternate answers in Niddah and Bava Kamma being on the side of Shavuos).
“The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 7:3) writes: ??? ????? ????”
I know that. That is the very statement that the Pischei Teshuva which I quoted is going on.
It’s not a chumra; it’s a sensitivity, and if one refuses to eat the korban pesach he will have a problem (unless as suggested earlier in this thread, korbanos will be batel). I am granting that there is no issur of tzar baalei chaim with stam shechting, however as per the Rambam that just means that the Torah permitted us to relinquish certain quantities of rachmanus when it serves a purpose. I don’t see how that could make it wrong for someone to choose to still excersize that rachmanus. Much like in my example of a lost object.
The Shu”t Asei Lecha Rav writes:
????? ???? ??????? ???? ????? ???? ????? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ??????? ???? ????? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ???? ????? ?????
The ???? ???? ????? (who incidentally was an Av Beis Din of the Eidah Chareidis) quotes the aforementioned Minchas Chinuch and Pischei Teshuvah and says ??? ?? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ?????
If Chazal say that under certain circumstances you do not have to return a lost object but lemaiseh you feel bad for the guy, is there something wrong with returning it?
The Pischei Teshuva Choshen Mishpat 7:5 writes:
???? ?????? ??? ????? ??’ ?”? ?”? ??? ???? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?”? ?? ???? ????? ???? ?”? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ??? ????? ???????? [??? ?’ ?”? ?”? ?? ????] ??? ?????? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ????? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ?”? ????? ???? ????? ???? ?????? (??”?) [??”?] ????? ???? ??? ?????? ??????? ??’ ??? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ??’ ?”? ????? ???”? ???”? ???? ??”? ???”?
The Minchas Chinuch Mitzvah 78 writes:
?”? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ??? ???”? ??? ????? ????? ?”? ???? ???? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ??????? ??? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ??????? ???? ?? ?? ????? ??? ????? ????? ??’ ??? ???? ??????? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ????? ?”? ?????? ?”? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ??? ??? ??? ????? ?? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ???’ ?? ????’ ??”?
The Sefer Hachinuch Mitzvah 152 writes:
????? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ??????
Ok, so we agree that if that is what they really hold then it’s problematic. Do we also agree that if they genuinely feel the desire to be more compassionate than required then it’s not problematic.
The Gemara in Niddah 50a says ?? ???? ???? ??? ?????. Tosafos asks that a woman is pasul as a witness yet she can be a dayan as we see from Devorah and from the drasha of ??? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ????? ??????? ????? ??? ???????. Tosafos gives three answers. The first answer is that the rule of ?? ???? ???? ??? ????? only applies within the category of men. This would indicate that there is no problem with a woman being a dayan. The Pri Megadim in the pesicha in the beginning of Orach Chaim ??? ????? ??? ? writes that when Tosafos gives multiple answers the first one is the ikkar.
Ecclesiastes 2:8 states the following:
??????????? ??? ??????????? ??????? ?????????? ???????? ?????????????? ????????? ??? ??????? ????????? ???????????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ??????????
???? ???? ???? ???? ? ???? ? on this pasuk says:
??? ?????. ??? ?????? ????? ??????? ??????
I don’t think it is apikorsus or even wrong to have a higher moral standard for everyone. The standards codified by Chazal are the standards for the masses. Obviously these will not be the highest possible standards. An individual has every right to hold himself to a higher standard. Doing so is not saying that Chazal were wrong; it is simply acknowledging that Chazal only required you to go so far and you want to go farther. Going beyond the letter of the law is good unless it negatively impacts another area. Besides for the fact that as mentioned, the Rambam expressly says that killing animals is a lack of rachamim: ????? ??? ????
?????? ?? ??? ????? ??? ?? ??? ???. However, if the person is doing this because he thinks that Chazal were backwards uncivilized hooligans who didn’t care about animals then that might be problematic.
“?’ ???”? ???? ???? ?’ ?’ ??’ ?”? ???? ??????”
He is talking about plucking all the feathers one at a time which I guess can be pretty painful. Either which way the point that I am trying to bring out is that we see that something can be muttar yet still be considered achzorius – i.e. the fact that something is muttar doesn’t by definition make it not achzorius. Therefore I don’t see how it can be considered anti-Torah to have such sentiments. At best under certain circumstances it can be anti-Shvus Yaakov because he says that it’s not even a middas chassidus.
Sam2: I quoted it back on page one
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/vegetarian-halacha-issue#post-522632
“You’re correct about the location of the ??”?. Sorry.”
No need to apologize.
I don’t think it’s more painful to have a feather plucked out than to have your head sliced off. I think what the Rema means is that the amount of benefit accrued by plucking a feather specifically while it is alive compared to that pain is not the same ratio as the benefit accrued by slicing off an animal’s head compared to that pain.
“I don’t believe we find anywhere in Shulchan Aruch a maalah in abstaining from meat because of achzarius”
True. But I would posit that it’s because food is a basic necessity and especially in earlier times, food options were limited. But for someone nowadays who can eat healthily and not mind not having meat, and feels compassion for animals, I can’t see how the Torah would have anything against that. Again though I reiterate that forcing vegetarianism on people as an important hashkafa might be different.
“Now, if Chazal’s value system was such that human need takes priority over tzaar baalei chaim, and someone comes along and says no, we gave no moral right to benefit from something which causes tzaar to an animal, I think he is a kofer b’divrei Chazal.
Yes, Chazal believed in being compassionate to animals; in fact, tzaar baalei chaim is d’Oraisa according to many. It has its parameters and limitations, though, and one who thinks he has a moral standard higher than Chazal, I think, is an apikores. Some forms of vegetarianism do claim a higher moral standard than Chazal, and that’s much worse than being stupid.”
I was going to object by quoting the Rema but then I saw that you already ????? ??????? a few posts later by quoting the very Rema that I was going to quote. (By the way it’s 5:14 not 5:19) However, you wrote “in a case of extreme pain, the Minhag is to keep the Chumrah to abstain” which I don’t think is what the Rema says. He says that anything is muttar if it’s necessary for some purpose and therefore it is muttar to pluck feathers from live geese. I’m not sure that that falls under the category of extreme pain. Then he says that even though it’s muttar the olam is noheg not to do it because it’s achzorius. If anything this is a proof that even though the Torah allows you to do something, it doesn’t take it out of the geder of achzorius (it just means that the Torah permitted you to do achzorius) and therefore to whatever extent possible/reasonable you should avoid doing such things. This would therefore seem to support the idea of being a vegetarian because “killing/causing pain to animals is wrong” because the fact that the Torah allows you to do it doesn’t mitigate the achzorius aspect of it. Certainly it would not be apikorsus to hold oneself to such a standard. I do agree though that there is a difference between what I have just mentioned and someone who says that it is categorically wrong for anyone to eat animals. Because that the Torah permits.
But the specific quote that I quoted says that they can remain ashkenazim.
“Rav Ovadia Yosef is not an Ashekanzi posek”
Granted. But he is talking about ashkenazim.
??”? ???? ???? ??? ?? ?:? (R’ Ovadia Yosef)
????: ?????? ????? ????? ??? ??????? ??????? ??????? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ??????? ????? ????? ??? ???? ?????
?????: ???? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ????
“The rabbi PAA is citing in the other thread says its ok.”
I don’t think he does.
“Once you break free there is nothing holding you back from going anywhere.”
Break free of what? Of only paskening like the Bavli? I’m not sure what you mean when you say that there is nothing holding you back from going anywhere. If I decide to not blindly follow the Mishnah Berura, but to consider the Aruch Hashulchan as well, does that mean that there is nothing holding me back from going anywhere?
Also, one of his points is that the Yerushalmi often fits with the lashon of the mishnah better than the bavli does – for instance there are times when the bavli turns a mishnah upside down via chisurei mechsera vehachi katani while the yerushalmi explains pashut pshat in the mishnah.
And ????? is ???? ???? which is why people don’t daven in ??? ???.
“The emphasis his machon shilo places on Yerushalmi over bavli is his own chiddush”
He points out that the Rambam paskens in accordance with the Yerushalmi over the Bavli in a significant number of places. And the Rambam in the hakdama to Mishneh Torah explains that the halacha is derived from both talmudim as well as the other braisos, tosefta etc. He himself doesn’t blindly follow the Yerushalmi over the Bavli. When it seems to him that the Yerushalmi is correct (which might in certain circumstances be because he prefers the “Torah of Eretz Yisrael”) he will follow the Yerushalmi. He also points out that the Gra in Shnos Eliyahu often explains the Mishnah using only the Yerushalmi’s explanation without mentioning the Bavli’s.
And the Gemara in Sotah 39a says ??? ????? ??? ????? which according to the transitive axiom would mean that ???? = ?????. Maybe this is a limud zechus for people who don’t daven.
“PAA: Indeed I watched the entire thing.”
You were able to get the entire thing? When I watched it a few months ago, it was broken up into maybe 12 parts and two of the parts were missing.
“PAA: He’s not an Ashkenazi Posek. He might be an Ashkenazi; he might be a Posek. But he is a Posek for an era before there was ever a difference between Ashkenazim and Sefardim.”
Fair enough. Did you watch the interview of R’ Bar-Hayim by R’ Yair Hoffman? Much of his ideology/methodology is explained in it, although it is about two hours long.
And my point was basically that you can take sides with Chacham Ovadia without calling kol haposel on the other fellow.
When R’ Yochanan was told that there are old people in Bavel he was astounded because ???? ???? ????? ???? ????? ?? ????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ?? until they told him that the old people had a specific zechus of ????? ?????? ??? ?????? (Berachos 8a). So if you want long life it’s a great place to live.
Sheailas Rav Chelek 2 6:49
??? ?? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ?? ???? ???????? ??? ????? ????
?????: ??? ??? ?????
Granted he is not talking about lechatchila waking up late.
Daas Yochid:
My point was that we don’t automatically assume that because someone accuses someone of something, he is guilty of the same thing. You seem to agree to that and I agree that there are situations where we are more noteh one way or the other.
“Yet Rav Chaim Kannievsky says it’s better to daven biyechidus then without a hat and jacket”
“I still don’t believe R’ Chaim said that. And if he did, he meant in a community where not wearing a hat and jacket would be considered not being properly dressed for Davening. He didn’t mean somewhere where not wearing a hat is considered tolerable/acceptable.”
Sheailas Rav Chelek 2 6:95
?? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ????? ?? ????? ?? ??”?
?????: ?????
This doesn’t necessarily mean that your chiluk is not true – I’m just giving the source that R’ Chaim Kanievski said it.
“But just because he doesn’t like his conclusion, doesn’t give him the right to question motive”
I’m not saying that he has the right. I’m just explaining his thought process which was that the halacha is clearly xyz so someone who argues must have an ulterior motive. You can respond that he is dead wrong and that’s fine. I’m just explaining why he is accusing people of ulterior motives.
“Kol haposel b’mumo posel, so I assume that he himself paskens based on ulterior motives, and he projected his own shortcomings on a huge talmid chochom. As far as I’m concerned, that’s not a posek, and popa’s right.”
R’ Moshe wrote about someone’s psak ??? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?? ????? ?? ????? ??? ?????
Would you say there kol haposel? I assume not.
“I also agree with popa, no matter how much you want to nitpick, that taking a psak out of context and misapplying it is naarishkeit, not halachah.”
I completely agree that it is possible to use halachic points to create naarishkeit.