Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
?? ?????? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ????? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??? ????? ????? ???? ????? ????? ??????
(????? ?????? ??? ?????)
“But I think that the fact that there exists a chiyuv to eat meat at all (bzman habayis for sure)- even if its only several times a year – demonstrates that there is no such sensitivity.”
Does the fact that there sometimes exists a chiyuv to kill a human being demonstrate that there is no such sensitivity?
Wisey said that the pasuk of “Kol Haadam Kozev” doesn’t show that EVERYONE is a liar because we have a rule ??? ????? ?? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ?? ?? which means that you can’t apply a rule to every individual case even if the rule seems to say that it applies to every case. I responded back that (based on the Kitzur Klalei Hatalmud in the back of Berachos) the rule of ??? ????? ?? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ?? ?? only applies to a statement made by a Tanna because Tannaim were notorious for talking in abridged ways, but not to a statement made by an Amora because Amoraim do not talk in the same abridged way. Now it happens to be that here we are discussing Dovid Hamelech and perhaps he spoke like a Tanna and therefore the rule would apply, but I cannot say so for certain.
“then Adam went to Chava and said ” Hashem said not to eat from and not to touch this certain tree”
“but really adam told chava that she cant eat and then she out the extra chumra on herself”
It’s a machlokes who added the touching part. See the Kli Yakar 3:1
“I have heard that the whole reason for the chasidim not eating in the sukka on Sh”A is that in Europe it was freezing cold”
Which brings us back to my example where the whole reason for generations not wearing Techeiles was that they didn’t have it.
Rationalfrummie:
It might not be compelling to you but ayen MB 59:25. It is interesting though because even the Shulchan Aruch who says not to say amen, holds that if you davened maariv early and you repeat krias shema after tzais hakochavim you do not say the berachos precisely because the berachos are not specifically on krias shema.
It’s a machlokes whether to say amen. The reason to not say amen is that it would be a hefsek between the Beracha and Shema. The reason to say amen is that the beracha is not specifically a beracha on krias shema so there’s no hefsek issue.
“while for the bnei EY it is assur to eat in the sukka because of baal tosif”
According to Rava’s maskana it’s only bal tosif if you have kavana l’shem mitzva.
“and its seems the consensus of all present that that is a problematic hashkafa.”
Do I count as part of “all present”? Because I have already said several times that there is no problem with wanting to minimize death; the problem would be if you think that you are forbidden to eat meat because you have to minimize death.
“The rule is that
??? ????? ?? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ?? ??”
??? ????? ?? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ????
It has as much halachic authority as anyone who just got semicha. Vehameivin Yavin.
“???? ?????? ????? ????”
(Rosh Hashana 28b)
“???? ????? ?? ???? ????? ???? ?? ?????”
(Rashi ?”? ????)
I should clarify the chumra part of my earlier post:
CHUMRA: To be choshesh for the shita of min knaf and therefore only wear white strings and a white begged (when there is no Techeiles).
HALACHA: To put Techeiles on a four cornered garment
MINHAG: People didn’t wear it for many years because they didn’t have it
CHUMRA: Making sure to only have white strings and a white beged
SHTUS: Not wearing Techeiles when we do have it because of the above chumra (which anyway wouldn’t apply for other reasons)
“?????? ???? ?????… ?????? ???? ??????”
(Pirkei Avos)
“????? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ??”
(Gra)
Daas Yochid:
Even if it is technically permissible that does not require one to utilize the permission. One can choose to be more sensitive than the Torah requires, though obviously he can’t say that what the Torah permits is prohibited.
The Gemara says ??????. Jastrow translates it as sword but who knows? Maybe it really means spear. But my argument was based on the pasuk.
“What is problematic is the animal rights belief that animals have the right not to be eaten, or that we have an obligation not to eat them or use their milk or eggs at all”
That is not this discussion. It is clear that it is permissible to kill animals for practical use. If one wants to forego such uses then there would be no valid reason to kill animals.
????”? ???? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ??”?
Quote from R’ Dovid Sinzheim (1745-1812) in Sheva Chakiros.
The Rambam (Berachos 5:3) makes it very clear that from a perspective of rachamim killing animals to eat should not be allowed. However, since eating animals can be beneficial, the Torah ALLOWED us to kill animals in the most merciful way i.e. shechita (Moreh Nevuchim 3:48). Thus the Torah is not forbidding one to be sensitive to animals, the Torah is allowing one to override this sensitivity for practical needs.
Yefas Toar?
“The subject of Gilgulim is a fact of our holy Torah. To deny it is not advisable.”
Tell that to R’ Yosef Albo, R’ Chasdai Crescas, the Rashash and other great Rishonim and Acharonim.
Why is it apikorsus to feel bad for animals?
“you should stab him and kill him with a spear.”
I think it should be a sword considering that it’s based on the pasuk of
“????? ???? ???? ???”
From the Rambam:
?? ??? ???? ????? ?? ??? ????? ???? ???? ??? ??????? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ????
???? ???? ????? ????? ????? ????
??? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????? ??????
?? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???? ??????? ???? ??????? ????? ??? ????? ??? ??? ?? ???? ??????? ???? ??????? ??? ???? ??? ?????
???? ????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?’ ????? ???? ????? ????? ?? ??? ?? ????? ???? ?????
??? ???? ???? ????????? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ???? ??? ????? ??? ??????? ????? ??? ??? ??? ?? ???? ???????? ?? ????? ??? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?? ??????
??? ???? ??? ????? ???????? ?? ????? ????? ????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ?????
??? ???? ??? ????? ???? ??? ???? ???????? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ?????
The Medrash in numerous places says ????? ??? ?? ??????? ????? ????? ???? ???? ???
For instance see ????? ??? (?????) ???? ?? ???? ?
????? ??? (?????) ???? ???? ???? ??
???? ?????? (????) ???? ???? ???? ?? and several other places.
Additionally, according to the Rambam’s explanation of Korbanos, presumably there would be no need for them in the third Beis Hamikdash. However, the Rambam himself seems to believe that there will be korbanos. And there have been alternatives suggested as for the meaning of the medrash.
“That would be counterintuitive. and who said anything about competent.”
I would think that one of the most important if not the most important thing to find out about someone when considering hiring them is whether he can competently execute the duties of the position, in this case being Rabbinic duties.
I think kavod shabbos and (avoiding) bizuy shabbos are two different things. It is kavod for shabbos to be clean shaven. It is a bizayon to shabbos if you shave right after shabbos. In fact all year round people don’t shave/haircut after shabbos.
Sam2:
And is there such a pegam in kavod shabbos if you don’t get a haircut? Does anyone get a haircut every Friday? There are probably many people who go a month without haircutting. Now maybe ain hachi nami if you normally don’t get a haircut every month then you can’t rely on this heter.
Sam2:
The Poskim that I’ve heard about shaving every Friday say that if during the year you shave more often than just Friday then you can shave on Friday during Sefira because the aveilus is nikur the rest of the week.
“One Is allowed to shave any time on friday as long as it is L’Kavod Shabbos. (As the words of my rebbe)”
The implication from the Rema that I just cited would seem to be that on a regular Friday you cannot shave i.e. there’s a special heter for the friday of lag baomer.
“???? ?? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? ???? ?’ ????? ???”
Rema O.C. 593:2
Why don’t you ask him a series of complex halachic shailos to see if he will be a competent Rabbi.
Perhaps he meant that instead of pushing off the significance of Sunday to Monday and the significance of Monday to Tuesday, we should just push off the significance of Sunday to Tuesday and leave Monday as it is.
I think this is like the fourth time in five years that it’s nidcheh. They should have just made it vav iyar to begin with.
“There was a meshugana troll some time ago who has left now, but one of his crazy nonsense was a Halachic piece where he suggested that it was a chumra and that to wear a brim wider than a tefach brim-down was assur on Shabbos.”
The Shulcha Aruch says (301:40) ???? ???? ????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ????? ????? ????? ???? ???? ???
While there may be heteirim, it hardly qualifies as crazy nonsense.
Both the issue of wearing hats and the issue of tzitzis in/out are potentially halachic issues. That being said, there are some people who wear hats in a way that does not look repectable and some people who wear their tzitzis in a way which does not look respectable.
Regarding horseradish:
I think one has to carefully differentiate between an actual mesorah to do something (or not to do something) and something which may have been done “unwillingly” or something that was done without any halachic significance. For instance if in Europe they bathed on during the day (let’s say because it was cold at night), I think we can all agree that this hardly constitutes a mesorah to bathe during the day and not at night. So when we see that certain vegetables were used, we have to determine if they SPECIFICALLY used these vegetables or perhaps they simply didn’t have or couldn’t afford other vegetables. The result would be that perhaps horseradish is ok bedieved or even that it’s not ok at all. But simply responding “mesorah” might not address the issue.
This reminds me of Techeiles where people say that it’s against the mesorah. But there was never a mesorah to not wear Techeiles; it was just something that was unable to be done.