Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
“A pasuk is never used to counter a Rabbinic enaction. However Rishonim who we don’t pasken like, are often used to rely on (sometimes with being metztaref other factors) in a shaas hadchak. Hence they have halachic weight whereas your pasuk doesn’t.
“How can citing a source from 800 years ago have any bearing on a minhag that has developed since then?”
Because the minhag that developed might have been a minhag shtus. Now if you want to quote other Rishonim/Acharonim who disagree and hold that it’s a good minhag then fine, but that’s a different argument then the one we are discussing.
And it also says ???????? ?????? ?????????? ?????????????????? and the Gemara (Berachos 6b) says ???? ????? ??? ???? which may explain the continuation of the pasuk – ????????? ???????????? ?????????????? ??????????? ????????????? ???????????????? ??????????? – the Pelishti thought Dovid was Chayev Misa for praying to him.
“Neither is citing the beis yosef about an ashkenazi minhag”
The Beis Yosef is citing Rabbeinu Yerucham. Everyone agrees that that has halachic weight with regards to whether one can eat kitnios. The issue of contention is whether it has more halachic weight then the current ashkenazi custom and those who endorsed it. You (and most Poskim) feel that it does not; R’ Bar-Hayim apparently feels that it does.
“I read it that he was supporting his position on kitniyos, but you might be right, and I can’t see it anymore anyhow”
Yes he was using it to support his position on kitnios but his accusation of disingenuousness was based on (what he perceived to be) compelling halachic support the most compelling of which was the other person’s own psak. (most compelling to the other person)
“I will add, though, and clarify, that if someone is accused of being disingenuous in psak, his status as a posek has been put into serous question.”
It depends who is accusing whom, and under what circumstances, which was my point.
See my objection to your second point above. Something cannot be a halachic point unless it is a point. Abortion has nothing to do with Techeiles so quoting the Rambam about abortion is not a “point” vis-a-vis Techeiles.
“You can’t accuse someone of being disingenuous and then expect to promote your opinion by quoting his. V’hamaynin yovin.”
It was the opposite – He was attempting to prove that someone was being disingenuous and part of his proof (whether valid or not) was via quoting his opinion. (Sorry for all the pronouns but I don’t want this post to get deleted.)
“Kol haposel b’mumo posel, so you can’t expect Antone to take him seriously as a posek. Again, v’hamayvin yovin.”
I will have to confess to not being a meivin – I don’t get your point. If a posek accuses another posek of an improper psak then that make the first posek not a posek?
“it’s more than just an issue of disrespect, it’s really, although he would deny it, almost complete nullification”
It might be a nullification of the psak but it is not a nullification of the person. Same as the Rishonim and Acharonim.
“there’s a certain hierarchy in Klal Yisroel (earned), and you can’t compare one person or situation to another. This fellow isn’t in the same league.”
This point I actually agree with somewhat.
Popa:
The only one that I will even marginally concede is a halachic point is #3.
When I say “halachic point” I mean that it is a point that has halachic weight, even if in a particular instance we don’t pasken in accordance with that halachic weight.
So your first point is not a halachic point because the fac that something is not written in the aseres hadibros does not have any halachic weight.
Your second point regardless of whether it is a “halachic point” or a “naarishkeit point” has nothing to do with Techeiles.
Your fourth point is not a halachic point because the fact that korach is the same root as ice does not have halachic weight and the fact that ice is blue (which itself is debateble) does not have halachic weight and the fact that Korach = Techeiles (which doesn’t follow) does not have halachic weight and the Torah saying not to be like Korach is a specific prohibition which has no halachic weight in any of Korach’s other actions.
Now your third point also has no halachic weight, but at least it is a Torah-related sevara.
This is in contrast with quoting opinions of Rishonim and Acharonim who all have halachic weight, even if we don’t pasken like them in this particular instance.
As an aside, thank you for bringing up Techeiles. Every time it is mentioned raises awareness of this important issue and might cause someone to check out the Techeiles thread http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/techeiles
“Aside from the fact that he contradicts himself”
Where?
“we do not accept the halachic conclusions of someone who could be so disrespectful”
I am not advocating that anyone should follow his halachic conclusions. I was just responding to the claim that “no modern day ashkenazi posek calls it stupid, or suggests you can be meikel with it in any way.”
Also, I’m sure you won’t even need my help in finding Rishonim/Acharonim whose halachic conclusions we accept, who were disrespectful to other Rishonim/Acharonim.
“None of those are halachic points. They are all naarishkeit points.
1. So what? Quite a stretch to apply that to those who came en mass after the war and outnumber the sfardim.
2. That was hundreds of years ago.
3. That is the beis yosef — not ashkenazi.
4. Also hundreds of years ago, and a cherry picked source from that era.”
Disagreeing with the application of the points does not make them not halachic points.
His halachic points are:
1) R’ Ovadia holds that ????? ???????? ???? ????? ???? ????? ???? ?-220 ??? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ????? ??????? ????? ?? ?? ?????? ?????? ???? ????? ????? ?????
2)The Tur writes ?????? ????? ??? ?? ??? ???? ??
3)The Beis Yosef writes ?? ????? ????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ????? ?? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ????? ???
4)The Yaavetz writes ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ????? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?????
I will leave out the rest because that’s what got my post taken down before.
Sam2:
I assume there is a difference between someone who occasionally takes a sefer off the shelf in his house and someone who learns three sedarim a day in his house. (I’m not saying that that is the case here, but I am leaving open the possibility.)
“Patur Aval Assur – of course Moshe Rabeinu was in full-time learning. He just had a very wealthy Father supporting him.”
????? ??? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?? ????
??? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???
I have the same wealthy Father that Moshe had, yet I am not in Kollel. (By the way I assume you used “full-time learning interchangeably with “kollel” but they are not necessarily the same thing.)
Assuming that the content was “demeaning Torah, halacha and gedolim” I was just quoting the aforementioned Rabbi’s response to R’ Ovadia Yosef’s psak. It was not intended as a demeanition of Torah, halacha and gedolim, but I commend you for fulfilling your duty to remove what appeared to be such.
Not everything written should be quoted.
Sam2:
I’m not disagreeing with you. I was careful in my first post to only say that we should be dan lekaf zechus that maybe the husband has a ???? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?? – after all nowhere in this thread did Chochom-ibber say that her husband learns in a kollel/beis medrash/yeshivah/shul.
Moshe Rabbeinu wasn’t on a kollel budget. For that matter Moshe Rabbeinu wasn’t in kollel either.
In the second one the shaila is about bittul torah not about davening in the place where you learn. He brings it in at the end when he quotes the first teshuva. Regarding that issue it’s mefurash that it’s docheh tefilla b’tzibur, however there are other considerations such as the Teshuva the Tur quotes from the Rosh that the multitudes will learn not to come to shul either. This is why I noted in my original post that Lemaiseh one shouldn’t rely on this halacha and I said that I am only being melamed zechus. But R’ Moshe definitely seems to be agreeing that M’ikar Hadin davening in the place where you learn (especially when combined with the sevara of bittul torah) is docheh tefilla b’tzibur.
Why was my post taken down?
It violated the rules – “demeaning Torah, halacha and gedolim is not okay”.
“Is that your best example?”
Do you have a better one?
“He isn’t Ashkenazi”
He is.
“what he practices is what he believes was practiced before the exile”
That is somewhat accurate, although that is not his reason for permitting kitnios. His reason is as Charlie said “Because we picked up a stupid minhag centuries ago, and Rabbi Yaakov Emden couldn’t convince us to stop holding by it” and as I said “it was already called a stupid minhag by rishonim”.
Sam2:
????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ? ???? ??
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14673&st=&pgnum=76
and
????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ? ???? ??
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14675&st=&pgnum=200
Neither one really contradicts what I said. (There are two seperate issues – bittul torah and davening in the place where you learn. I only mentioned the second one.) In fact according to R’ Moshe’s pshat in the Rema, then the case is even stronger than I made it out to be for davening beyechidus, even halacha lemaiseh.
Correct me if you know of a different Teshuva that speaks about this.
“Which is why you may notice that no modern day ashkenazi posek calls it stupid, or suggests you can be meikel with it in any way.”
Ever heard of R’ David Bar-Hayim?
The Gemara in Berachos 8a says:
??? ??? ???? ??? ?? ?? ?? ???? ??? ????? ?? ?????? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ????? ???? ????? ????
Based on this the Tur in O.C. Siman 90 says:
??? ?? ??? ?? ???? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ?? ????
Perhaps the husband in this saga is relying on this. At least we should be dan lekaf zechus as we see from the Maharsha an amud earlier – the gemara says:
??? ??? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ??? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ?? ?????? ?????? ?????? ????? ????? ???? ??????? ??? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?’ ????? ???? ??? ?? ???? ??? ????? ???? ????? ?? ?’ ?? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ???????
The Maharsha quotes the Tur and says that R’ Yitzchak must have known that R’ Nachman did not have a ???? ???? in his house. This implies that if R’ Yitzchak did not know for sure then he would have been dan lakaf zechus that R’ Nachman davened beyechidus because of this issue.
Although granted Lehalacha this is not the accepted practice (see the continuation of the Tur as well as the Shulchan Aruch and Rema) it is at least a limud zechus.
Berachos 34a:
??? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ?????? ????? ???’ ??? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?-? ?? ??? ?? ??
The Gemara in Berachos 4a says that Dovid consulted with his Rebbe Mepiboshes on everything he did and then specifies what he asked: ??? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ??? ????? ??? ????? which are all purely technical halachic shailos. It doesn’t say that he asked him any political/economic/sociocultural/medical/military questions. We do know from the previous amud that Achitofel was the advisor at least for military decisions.
“And you need to edit what you wrote. Killing the animal is not ossur because of tzar baalie chayim.”
I never said that killing it is assur because of tzar ba’alri chaim.
“Causing Tzaar for a necessity is also muttar”
I already said this.
nishtdayngesheft:
I know that it was in reference to hunting. I was qualifying that even in reference to hunting it’s not a blanket heter – it’s only a heter to kill or to cause pain for a constructive purpose (and even then presumably you would have to do it in the least painful way possible in accordance with Moreh Nevuchim 3:48).
Regarding the skins, it seems that I misread/misunderstood the back and forth between you and Redleg. I thought that “And hunting for skins would probably be mutar if you could mitigate sakana” was a quote from Redleg and your response was “Your assumption is wholly incorrect” which I took to mean that you were saying that even if you could mitigate sakana it would be assur. To that I responded that even without mitigating sakana it is muttar for parnassa i.e. the only reason it would be assur is sakana, and parnassa overrides sakana, and obviously then if you mitigate the sakana then it would be muttar even if it is not strictly necessary for parnassa since as already established it’s not tzar ba’alei chaim if it’s for a constructive purpose. So I think in this regard we agree that if it is for parnassa then you don’t need to mitigate sakana and if it is not strictly for parnassa but it is for a constructive purpose then it is muttar if you mitigate the sakana. This is all aside from the fact that it might not be ???? ??? ????? ???? ?????.
“The Noda B’Yehuda says that there is no issue of tzar balei chayim”
He says that killing is not tzar ba’alei chaim and that ?? ??? ??? ?? ???? ????? ??? ??? ???? ?????. That is not quite a blanket heter.
“And hunting for skins would probably be mutar if you could mitigate sakana.
Your assumption is wholly incorrect.”
If hunting for skins is necessary for parnassa then it would be muttar even if you couldn’t mitigate the sakanna.
“Patur, Rav Moshe does not say which of ball game he is referring. Baseball? Not so dangerous. Perhaps football? In Israel, the English-speakers’ yeshivot have their own league. Are exercise and letting off steam matirim?”
He is referring to something which is ??? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ?????? and something which is ?????? ??? ???? ????? ????
Now his Teshuva is specifically talking about ??????? ????? ?????
??????? which would seem to imply that if it’s not ??????? then it would be assur (unless there is some other hechrech on par with parnassa which would allow you to engage in an activity with a small risk of sakanna).
See also Igros Moshe Choshen Mishpat 1:104
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14675&st=&pgnum=167
The Noda B’Yehuda that I mentioned basically says that if you don’t need it for parnassa then its cruelty and it’s also assur to put yourself in such a makom sakanna (perhaps one can argue that modern hunting is not such a sakanna) but if you need it for parnassa then it is not cruelty and it’s ok to put yourself in such a makom sakanna.
You can read the Teshuva here:
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14662&st=&pgnum=100
Noda B’Yehuda Mahdura Tinyana Yoreh Deiah 10
R’ Hershel Schachter (Beis Yitzchok vol. 38):
?????? ???”? ???? ??? ????’ ???? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ?? ???? ????? ??”? ??? ????? ???? ??? ?”??? ????” ?? ????? ??? ?? ??? ????? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ????? “??? ????” ?? ????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ??????? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?????? “??? ????” ????? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ??? ?? ??’ ???? ?? ????? ????? ??????? ???
(????? = R’ Soloveitchik)
“The orchos tzadikim is an important sefer and everything in it should be taken seriously when one is working on one’s self. When one is dictating dress codes to others, however, one is required to prove one’s position from a halachic source. And, obviously, the burden is on the dictator”
I am very far from dictating dress codes to others. But as you said the Orchos Tzadikim is for people to work on themselves. I quoted the relevant portion for women to work on themselves. But either which way, you don’t have to use the Orchos Tzadikim as the source; you can use the kal vachomer as the source. Unless you have a pircha in which case I would like to hear it.