Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Since apparently no one is following the links above, here is the original text:
Randomex:
This seems like the right place for this: Has anyone in this discussion heard of the idea (Jewish) that the entire universe is moving towards a time when the genders will be equal as they originally were, symbolized mystically by the restoration of the moon to its original luminosity, and that the energy of this movement of the universe is the reason for the
emergence of the feminist movement? (Or something like that. I don’t remember any more details or where I came across this.)
yekke2:
Man and Woman will never be the same; just like the Sun and the Moon were never the same. Even when the Moon was at its full strength, it wasn’t the sun. And therefore there were not ??? ????, there was a ??? and a ????. Nishba and a Mashpia. Etc.
Patur Aval Assur:
Randomex:
It’s a Rashi in Megilla 22b based on a Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer:
???? ???”? ???? ?? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ?????”? ?? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ????? ????? ???? ????????
Women of the Wall applied this to Feminism.
Also, what I think is the most devastating question in this thread has not been satisfactorily answered yet:
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/wizards-and-witches-jews/page/7#post-551274
It undermines the entire plan for defeating Old Man Voldy.
He also paskened shailos, yet see what I quoted from him at the top of this page.
Regarding the quote from the biography, see the introduction to chelek 8 which says:
??????? ????? ?? ????? ???? ????????? ?? ???? ????? ????? ?? ???????? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ??????? ?????????
I have to say that I think http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/the-correct-pronunciation-of-expecto-patronum#post-529739
was the best use of a ???? ???? in Coffee Room history. It fits so perfectly.
Nodah B’yehuda (Mahdura Kamma Yoreh Deiah siman 55):
???? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??????? ???????? ???? ????? ??? ????? ??????? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ?????? ????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ???????? ??? ?? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??? ???? ??? ???? ?’ ??? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ??????? ???? ??? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ????????? ??”? ??? ?? ???? ????? ??????? ??????
Back on page four iBump 2.0 asked:
at the end of book 1, Dumbledore said that his and Hermione’s owl crossed in mid-air, however a few pages later Hermione says to Harry that that she ran into Dumbledore on the way to the Owlery to send him the owl
The answer is that Dumbledore had indeed returned before Hermione could send an owl. Harry, when questioning Dumbledore, did not know this and assumed that Hermione had actually sent an owl. Dumbledore, therefore, thought that Hermione had sent an owl, and thus assumed that he must have crossed it in midair.
The most recent issue quoted http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/3-most-important-qualities-to-look-for-in-a-shidduch
Should I be insulted that they skipped over my post?
In the first Quidditch match in the first book, Quirrel was jinxing Harry’s broom and Snape was protecting Harry. What in the world was everyone else doing? Surely many people noticed Harry’s broom acting strangely. Even Hagrid with barely any wizarding training realized that it had to be a powerful curse. Now it is implicit from the second Quidditch match that Dumbledore was not at the first match, and we don’t necessarily know about the rest of the faculty, but Mcgonagall and Madame Hooch were certainly there. So why didn’t they do anything? And why was there not a major investigation conducted to discover who was trying to kill Harry? And if Quirrel wanted to kill Harry, he could have easily done it anytime, without resorting to cursing Harry’s broom in front of the entire school.
He thinks it’s Kfirah to argue with Rishonim on sciene-i.e. it’s Kfirah to say that the earth revolves around the sun.
Melamed L’ho-il 1:30:
??????? ?????? ????’ ??? ?”? ??? ???? ?? ????? ??????? ????? ??? ???? ??????
I forget where it is, it’s towards the end of either O.C 2, 3, or 4
It’s in Yoreh Deiah 2:109:
??? ???? ????????? ?? ???????? ????? ??? ????? ????? ????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ??? ?? ???????? ?????? ???? ?????? ????? ??? ??????? ???? ??? ???? ????? ????? ????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ???? ????? ???? ????? ????? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ?? ???? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ?????? ??????? ?????? ??? ?? ??????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ??? ??????? ????? ??? ??? ?????????? ??? ?? ????????? ??????? ?? ??? ????? ??????? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ??????? ?????? ?? ??????? ??? ???? ??????? ??? ??? ??? ????? ???? ????? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ??”? ??? ????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ?? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???????? ?? ??????
?????
??? ?????????
See also Orach Chaim 5:12:3 where he writes:
???? ?? ???? ????? ???? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ???? ???? ????? ???? ????? ????? ????? ????? ????? ????? ????? ?? ????? ??? ???? ??????
????? ???? ?? ??????? ??????? ???????? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ??????? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ???? ???? ??? ?? ?? ????? ??? ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??? ????
That is not true. There is no halacha saying you have to do a background check when some ani asks you for a couple bucks on the street.
Bava Basra 9a:
??? ?? ???? ?????? ??????? ???? ?????? ????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??”? ???? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?? ?? ???? ?? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ???”? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ??? ???? ???? ???? ???? ????? ???????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ??????? ??? ??????
Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deiah 251:10:
?? ??? ???? ???????? ??? ?????? ????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ???
The Seridei Eish (3:21 in the Mosad Harav Kook edition), after discussing a big machlokes between two acharonim, writes:
??? ???? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ???? ????? ???? ????? ??????? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ????? ??????? ???????
If you want to bring ??? ????? into this, I might sooner say that appropriate books are assur. The Sefer Hachinuch (387) writes:
??? ?? ???? ?? ??? ????? ????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ??????? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ?????? ????, ????? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ???????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???? ??? ??????
In other words (the derasha of ???? ????? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ?? ???? notwithstanding), ??? ????? is not specifically referring to “inappropriate” things; it is referring to any (excessive) pursuit of physical pleasures. The Rambam in Sefer Hamitzvos (47) similarly writes:
????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ????? ????? ????? ????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ???’ ????? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ????? ????? ????? ????? ???? ?? ?? ?? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ???
Also, according to R’ Moshe the issur is specifically ??? ????? ????? ???? ????.
It is perhaps notable that the Pele Yoetz, in the section on nivul peh, speaks severely about speaking and listening to nivul peh but makes no mention of reading it.
Only a lioness can give birth to a tigon yet a lioness is not a tigon.
Abudraham, Birchas Hamitzvos Umishpateihem:
?????? ???? ???? ?????? ???????? ????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ??????? ????? ??? ??????? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ??? ????? ??????? ????? ????? ????? ??? ???? ??????? ????? ??? ????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ??? ???? ???? ????? ????? ????? ??? ?? ????? ??? ???? ????? ????? ???? ????? ??? ?? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ??????? ??? ????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ????? ???? ??? ??? ?????
PAA, he said it’s “a pair of kosher tzitzis”. I wouldn’t consider a ???? ???? according to the ??”? to be that.
I assume he meant that mitzad the strings it was kosher, but that the answer would be a situation in which the begged didn’t require tzitzis. Actually, on Friday I typed up a post to clarify if that is what he meant, and I also made the eved suggestion, but for some reason I didn’t post it.
So I finished the third book. It was so much better than the first two (not that the first two were bad). Though I still have a kashya on it:
In the beginning of the book, Drum Billet is walking in the rain. We are told:
[Y]ou could tell he was a wizard, partly because of the long cloak and carven staff but mainly because the raindrops were stopping several feet from his head and steaming.
Yet towards the end of the book, Cutangle is walking in the rain and he gets soaked until Granny Weatherwax tells him to move between the drops. Now why couldn’t Cutangle do whatever magic it was that Drum Billet did to stay dry?
It’s a ???? ?????? ????? and according to the ??”?.
The Gemara also says:
???? ??? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ???? ???? ????? ????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ????? ????? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ????? ???????? ????? ??? ???
Does that mean that anyone who doesn’t have his cash in hand or trivide his wealth is violating a chiyuv d’rabanan? The Gemara in Berachos knew of the word “????” and chose not to use it. There are differences between the Gemara’s different expressions – see for instance the Teshuvos Maharil siman 57:
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1145&st=&pgnum=40
So I don’t think one can definitively prove from the Gemara that shnayim mikra is a bona-fide chiyuv (especially in light of the other sources mentioned above). However if you want to argue based on the lashon of the Shulchan Aruch, that’s a horse of a different color, and I would find it a lot harder to argue that “???? ????? ?????” is not an obligation.
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1525&st=&pgnum=386
And particularly this excerpt:
??? ??????? ??? ????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ??? ????? ??? ????? ??? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ????
The three tweets:
[In case you don’t know, Death in Discworld is anthropomorphic and speaks in capitals.]
“AT LAST, SIR TERRY, WE MUST WALK TOGETHER.”
“Terry took Death’s arm and followed him through the doors and on to the black desert under the endless night.”
“The End.”
This is how his daughter announced his death.
How did DEATH, within minutes of creating the username, get a subtitle which was the first of three tweets announcing the death, and then lose it shortly thereafter? My earlier post was the second of the three tweets; I had skipped the first one because it was already in DEATH’s subtitle.
“Terry took Death’s arm and followed him through the doors and on to the black desert under the endless night.”
Was it worth blowing two computers on that?
DY: He only blew one. It’s the same math.
Oh, then I guess it’s no big deal.
The computer was back to normal after about 20 minutes. Although, Sam’s point notwithstanding, I did actually crash it twice – after it crashed from the 10000000, I tried doing 10 separate 1000000 (concurrently) and that also crashed the computer.
PAA, you lost me there somewhere.
I lost myself too. For some reason I thought that the last quote said that Sumchus would give 48 reasons to be metamei something tahor and to be metaher something tamei and I therefore compared him to R’ Meir. In reality, though, the quote was saying that he would give 48 reasons to be metamei something tamei and be metaher something tahor. I apologize for the confusion.
So I did some experimentation to demonstrate that as the sample size increases the percentage moves closer to 50%.
I used a computer to randomly generate a number, either 1 or 2 (representing male or female).
Results by sample size (ss):
ss 10 = 70%
ss 100 = 55%
ss 1000 = 48%
ss 10000 = 50.22%
ss 100000 = 49.808%
ss 1000000 = 49.9077%
ss 10000000 = crashed the computer
In terms of distance from 50%:
ss 10 = 20
ss 100 = 5
ss 1000 = 2
ss 10000 = .22
ss 100000 = .192
ss 1000000 = .0923
ss 10000000 = crashed the computer
It is clearly getting significantly closer to 50% as the sample size gets larger. In fact even a sample size as small as 100 was pretty close to 50%.
But of course who are we to deny them entry…
Well once you bring this up I may as well quote the continuation of the Gemara:
??? ?????? ????? ??? ??? ?? ??? ?? ?’ ???? ????? ????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?’ ????? ????? ??? ??? ?? ?? ????? ??? ?? ????? ??????? ?”? ???? ???? ???????? ?? ??? ????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ????? ???? ??? ?’ ???? ????? ???? ??? ????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??? ???? ???? ??????? ???? ????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ?? ???? ???? ??????? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ???
?”? ???? ?”? ????? ????? ??? ?? ??”? ??????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ?? ??? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ????
What was your third (fourth!) subtitle, Patur?
My subtitles were:
Member
Bar Meihanei T’las
Baki in all things genai
Seems to enjoy interminable debate with DaasYochid
Bar Meihanei T’las
DaMoshe:
I think R’ Chaim Berlin would agree that b’etzem nusach sefard is not the proper nusach. His point was that once the shul is davening a certain nusach, you can’t publicly deviate. R’ Aharon managed to change the tzibur’s nusach, but if he hadn’t been able to secure the amud, he might have davened nusach sefard (for the public parts).
Typo:
My citation of the ???? ???? should be ???:?