popa_bar_abba

Hillel and the Rambam and even Rav Moshe were considered modern Orthodox by many of their contemporaries, so MO gedolim are in good company.

What is that supposed to mean? MO is a specific hashkafa, not a catch all for people you want to criticize.

Until about a month ago, I could not understand why the chareidi community in Israel did not allow their kids to go to the army, and then be able to get a job, if they didn’t want to learn.

They have always said that the Army is trying to shmad them. But they have their own nachal chareidi- couldn’t they adequately control the environment?

And then we saw. The Army really is trying to shmad them. There was no reason in the world to force frum soldiers to be oiver issurim of listening to kol isha- except out of pure spite and wanting make them be oiver issurim.

I totally understand now. I don’t think I’d want my frum kid in that army.

reminds me of this one:

http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/help-how-do-i-make-a-shidduch-resume

Hee hee.

That one I wrote there is really funny. I’m impressed with my month and a half ago self.

How do 2 quiet people date? You had what to talk to each other about? Or you just sat there looking at each other?

Yeah, but the point is to get married- not to date. So maybe he should endure an awkward first date, in order to find the kind of girl he would want to marry.

What is it called if when you curl your thumb, your forefinger must curl also? What causes it?

Is it bad to have that, and also own a gun?

Where does the opthalmic artery pass to exit the skull

Nothing. You don’t need one. You will rarely if ever be asked for one.

True. We don’t follow precedent. But to an extent, we use precedent to figure out the halacha, which is based in the Gemara and our brains.

Yes. But you see how that is something else entirely.

However, this isn’t entirely true. When there was semicha, a Beis Din had the power to actually be koveia halacha.

True, the precedent of the sanhedrin was much closer to the precedent of the common law.

Explanation:

In the common law, when a case is decided, it does not only provide guidance on what the law was, it establishes going forward what the law will be. Meaning, it has a force of its own.

So that, when a state court decides what rights a lessee has, that becomes the law. Other courts will not use it as only one indicator of what the law is, but will follow the previous case- because it was already decided, and has a force of law. (This is all post-Erie, for those of you who care. Pre-Erie we may have to say a different pshat.)

For example, if Justice Marshall had written a constitutional treatise, and had claimed that the Supreme Court had the right of Judicial Review, but Marbury v. Madison had never happened, nobody would have listened to him. A later court deciding on the issue for the first time would go whichever way it wanted. But since it was a court case, it became the law.

There is absolutely no comparable notion in halacha, and that is the integral difference between how we learn halacha, and how those backwards people study law. There is no greater weight to a teshuvas haRashba, than the chidushei haRashba.

That is why we mainly study treatises, and don’t have huge compilations of ?”?? from every din torah ever decided, and every shailah ever asked. Treatises are much easier to read from. The shulchan aruch is not a restatement of prior shailos and dinei torah, it is a restatement of prior treatises. Specifically, a restatement based heavily on the tur, which is based heavily on the rosh, etc.

Sam: That is not the same as him paskening it is muttar. You are just saying that he says if someone has that mesorah, it is a legitimate mesorah because he thinks there is such halachic basis.

There is absolutely nobody I have heard of who actually holds it is is muttar.

Sam2: I believe you are misquoting Rabbi Broyde. He does not hold it is lechatchila muttar for a woman to not cover her hair. He wrote that article to be melamed zchus on the women who don’t, by providing possible halachic basis, but he does not pasken that way.

See Michael J. Broyde, Hair Covering & Jewish Law: Biblical and Objective (Dat Moshe) or Rabbinic and Subjective (Dat Yehudit)? available at http://www.traditiononline.org/news/_pdfs/0095-0180.pdf

I have heard that the reason Borsalinos are so expensive is because part of their proceeds go to missionary work. Can anyone deny or confirm this?

I heard that the reason Coca Cola is so expensive, is because they give part of their proceeds to Hamas. Can anyone deny or confirm this?

This is a plain halacha shaila. I don’t know the halacha.

old man: This thread was not about MO, but you are making it so. It is obvious that one considers the hashkafa of a yeshiva when attending. And it is certain what the hashkafa of this yeshiva is.

The only reason you could have to debate it, is that you are hoping to fool people into going, and becoming MO.