“I believe Rav Solavaitck(don’t know how to spell in English) ate both”

He said that while growing up in Europe, they used lettuce, though he couldn’t say for sure what type of lettuce it was. He said that they also had horseradish, but it seemed from his words that it was because lettuce was rather expensive. He said that he himself (presumably referring to when he was already his own man) used lettuce.

Davar Katan: it is not halachically absurd to rely on meikil opinions. It is also not halachically absurd to sometimes be machmir because of “machshava” reasons. And you never explained the promotion from Mr. to rabbi and I noticed on the other thread you promoted me to Dr.

Squeak: Do you expect R’ Shachter to be posting his views on yeshivaworld? He put out a “teshuva” on this subject which I printed out last year although I can’t seem to locate it now.

Davar Katan:

I’m just trying to be dan lekaf zechus. And why did I get upgraded from Mr. to Rabbi? (Assuming that I am a man in the first place.)

Apukerma: I was not particularly discussing how challenging it is to eat a kezayis of matza. I was pointing out that I have never seen or heard anyone being especially careful on Succos to make sure that they have a full kezayis within kedaiy achilas pras (according to the machmir opinions) preferably eating the entire kezayis in one shot. Whether it is hard or not on succos is irrelevant. In fact if it’s easy then all the more reason why we should see it being done.

It’s not because they are zariz; it’s because they have supernatural abilities. Unless you are saying that being able to take something off without any time passing is in fact not a supernatural ability but extreme zrizus.

But when do they take it off?

Sam2:

Haleivi and Little Froggie:

I agree with both of you. If Rashi had said “due to the physical constraints of the concept of time it would be impossible for human beings to not get hanaah, as opposed to angels who are not bound by time and can simultaneously be wearing and not wearing the bigdei kehuna” then I would have no problem. But Rashi says that human beings are not zerizim to take off the begadim immediately. That’s a bit of a funny way to say that in a world bound by time it is impossible to be simultaneously wearing and not wearing the begadim.

Sam2:

I am not sure what you mean. Can you elaborate?

I assume that R’ Chaim feels that his pshat is advantageous because he doesn’t need to be mechadesh a new svara not mentioned by chazal (guf naki).

“To say that R’ Chaim is arguing is not reasonable.”

Is it not reasonable because he is arguing with Rishonim/Acharonim? That’s probably why he just said it as a pshat and not as a psak. As a pshat it is very nice and works through the sugya.

“This or similar terms are always used in contrast to those who follow other doctrines.”

Not true. There’s a reason I stuck to the Rambam.

For example:

?? ??????? ???????? ???????? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ????? ????? ?? ??? ??????

and:

???? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ??????, ????? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ?????? ?????

and:

?? ???????? ?? ??????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ????? ???? ?????, ????? ?????? ??? ???? ??????? ??? ????

and:

????? ???? ????? ?? ?? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ??”?

and many more.

Although it is true that the vast majority of usages in the classic sources is “in contrast to those who follow other doctrines”.

“if in the rambam’s time there were already at least four different world views, who are we to regrind ground flour?”

I’m not trying to regrind any flour. I am pointing out that it seems that lefum rihita the Rambam does not agree to the Ramchal. I’m not saying that there is a practical nafka mina in that the Rambam actually holds like the fourth group. I’m just saying that the Rambam might not agree that it’s pashut to anyone with a brain that the ????? ????? ???? is not ????? ????? ???.

I am not defending anything. I am just trying to provide people with a source-text that they may choose to utilize or not utilize.

Daasyochid:

On what basis do you say that I am advocating for women to wear Tefillin, when I have specifically said several times that I am not advocating this. What I am saying is that there is a possible way to arrive at a halachic conclusion that a woman can wear Tefillin. Therefore if I or anyone else want to wear Tefillin it is possible. The question is whether we would take this to its practical application. I myself might be hesitant to do so but others might be less hesitant.

Daasyochid: I responded several times to your statement about halacha but it never got posted. Oh well.

I also attempted to quote R’ Aharon Lichtenstein several times but that also was not posted. Maybe because of a copyright issue. So for anyone who wants to see his comments google “Hands Across the Ocean: a Review of Rabbi Aharon feldman’s the Eye of the Storm” and click on the link to the article and read three paragraphs starting from the paragraph “This point is…”

“If a truly Tzanua woman who is Yarei Hashem wants to put on Teffilin in the privacy of her own home and without publicizing it, she has enough support for that before this R’ Chaim.”

Before R’ Chaim, there was no way (that I know of) to get around the fact that there is an opinion that there is a problem of guf naki. So in order to wear Tefillin, a woman would either have to completely disregard this shita, or say that it’s an insult to modern women etc. Now they can say that they learn the sugya in a way in which this is not a problem.

“Except that that’s not how halacha is supposed to work.”

Correct if you adopt a codifier’s methodology of halacha. But if you adopt a Lurian methodology then this is exactly how halacha is supposed to work – you learn through the Gemara and come up with the best pshat and take the early authorities into account but by no means be bound by them. In fact if not for the special respect that is being accorded to the Rema, you will find that his view is a minority view.

Once again though, I am not advocating women’s Tefillin.

“Why would you think that you would have to?”

I don’t. But if I would take seriously what I read on YeshivaWorld then I would think that I do have to.

Clarification:

I am not advocating women wearing Tefillin. I am just pointing out that for those women who sincerely want to wear Tefillin, R’ Chaim’s mehalech in the sugya removes all issues. Now if someone wants to say that R’ Chaim’s mehalech can’t override the Rema, that’s perfectly fine.

“PAA, R’ Chaim is clearly not saying anything l’maaseh. Why do you say he is?”

That’s why I specifically said that he leaves off as tzarich iyun. But according to his pshat in the sugya, there would be no problem. Whether R’ Chaim himself would rely on his pshat halacha lemaaseh is a different story.

Sam2: R’ Chaim’s pshat avoids the Rema’s issue – the Beis Yosef explains that the Rema’s issue (i.e. the Kol Bo) is the reason behind the man d’amar that says that the chachamim protested Michal. But according to R’ Chaim’s pshat the reason for that man d’amar is based on Lo Silbash in which case the other issue never becomes an issue. Granted, the Rema and the later acharonim seem to have a different understanding, which is why he concludes with tzarich iyun. But in terms of pshat, he is “disagreeing” with the Rema’s understanding of the sugya which then obviates the Rema’s issue.

To see the actual text:

http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=40793&st=&pgnum=7